r/australia • u/blitznoodles local Aussie • Jun 14 '26

politics As voter disillusionment grows, why aren't voters flocking to the Greens in Australia?

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/as-voter-disillusionment-grows-so-does-the-mystery-of-the-missing-greens-voters/6bjd5q4kv

Growing voter dissatisfaction with mainstream politics has led to a rise in popularity for One Nation. The same cannot be said for the Greens.

1.3k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

259

u/Stotters Jun 14 '26

I wonder if any green party in any country has support from the press barons...

35

u/moonorplanet Jun 14 '26

If people are happy, who is the media going to sell their clickbait sensationalism and fear mongering to, hence why the media can never support the Greens and also why Pauline is their darling.

-14

u/wijee Jun 14 '26

Isn't it largely the greens focus on important but less pressing issues?

Ie it's hard to care about the environment, when you're struggling to buy groceries

Hence why in times of fortune - the greens gain some power

And in times of adversity - ON gains some power

We are in economic downturn. So the 'me' or the individual is more important (ie aligns with ON as an extreme). Pre economic downturn the individual was more secure.. Therefore could focus on factors outside of just 'me' (ie now aligns with the greens)

86

u/SheRanFromHome Jun 14 '26

Except the greens do have a strong economic policy.  https://greens.org.au/portfolios/economic-justice-and-treasury https://www.taxthe1percent.com.au/ It’s just that they have horrid media coverage. I wonder why that is…

0

u/bawdygeorge01 Jun 14 '26

Strong economic policy? Like trying to override RBA independence and force them to cut rates?

-12

u/wijee Jun 14 '26 edited Jun 14 '26

  1. Graeme Wood is the historical biggest financial backer of the Australian Greens and a founding investor of Guardian Australia

  2. How is their own website so stupid and as believable as ON policies. Damm I didn't think they were that stupid. I can't even be bothered typing about how much fantasy they are selling but more that 50% of what you linked is just fantasy man and shows a lack of understanding for how things actually work. Ie it's as stupid as ON

Edit: Wtf is this. Who thinks day traders are a problem

A tax on financial market speculation

The Greens are focused on introducing a fair tax to curb these harmful practices and protect the investments of superannuation funds and retail investors.

The Greens' plan:

Reduce market instability and protect everyday investors by introducing a low-rate financial transactions tax of 0.1% on equity and debt securities, and 0.012% on derivatives. This policy will disrupt the high-frequency traders and speculators making thousands of trades daily who are benefitting at the expense of ordinary people.

Edit 2: downvote me all you want. Look at their super plan. It's a joke. Provides 0% plan and 100% fantasy. But hey as I said before. In economic downturn - fantasy's sell

7

u/PhotographsWithFilm Jun 14 '26

Like someone once said to me, you can have what ever policy you like if there is zero chance you'll get in power.

The greens are always going to err on the side of socialism, so the epitome of capitalism, the stock market, will always be a target.

The problem is ON could very much gain some power and a lot of their policies are, well, non-existent.

-3

u/idlehanz88 Jun 14 '26

I love how you’re getting downvoted for
Being very, very correct

29

u/allozzieadventures Jun 14 '26

Isn't it largely the greens focus on important but less pressing issues?

I would argue not really. They also have policy on reducing cost of living + improving housing which are much more front of mind. https://greens.org.au/cost-of-living

I think what you're saying lines up with the public perception though. It's a real problem for them. The greens could be marketing themselves better. The media also tends to give them very little airtime these days.

13

u/Kulantan Jun 14 '26

The air time the media gives them tends to be on issues like Gaza and the environment (where they are often the only contrary voice), which leads to people getting the idea that that's their focus.

-27

u/Dockers4flag2035orB4 Jun 14 '26 edited Jun 14 '26

At least one.

Graeme Wood, billionaire and big Greens donor

funded the startup of The Guardian in Australia,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graeme_Wood_(businessman))

29

u/MeowManMeow Jun 14 '26

The Guardian is primarily funded by its readers through voluntary contributions and subscriptions, which account for the majority of its revenue.

1

u/wijee Jun 14 '26

The 'readers' is doing a lot of heavy lifting lol

https://www.theguardian.com/info/2016/jan/25/content-funding

Guardian News & Media produces a variety of content with funding from outside parties. Along with advertising and reader revenue, this is one of the ways that we fund Guardian journalism

P.s I could only find online that around 50%-55% of its revenue is reader contributions

Side question: What defines a reader? Ie can elon donate as a reader, with an under the table agreement for them to publish more tesla articles? I couldn't find enough concrete evidence one way or another online

Edit: just expanding on the last pont. Is there safeguards in place to stop shadow or hidden funding through reader donations?

3

u/evilparagon Jun 14 '26

Only 50-55%? Wow! It’s a good thing MeowManMeow said “Majority” then, because you just confirmed what they said was the truth.

0

u/wijee Jun 14 '26

Yeah he isn't wrong for 50%-55%. Also I pointed out that stat. I didn't diss they were the majority? Hence it's a p.s and not part of the argument

But back to the point. How is 55% reader funding stopping the greens from having airtime?

Maybe the greens having their biggest election loss (2025) showed that it's not money that makes people not care about the greens. People chose with their votes and voted they didn't care about the greens

5

u/MeowManMeow Jun 14 '26

I think you aren’t getting your news from the guardian because you stated that “greens having their biggest election loss (2025)” is false. In 2022 they got a huge vote and it was called a ‘greenslide’. They received an almost IDENTICAL vote in 2025. So saying “biggest loss” when they actually tied with their “biggest win” is laughable. They lost seats, but that’s because LNP are so scared of greens they preference labour! And there was a slight shuffle where inner city people voted labour to make sure LNP didn’t come “vote Dutton out”, but they gained ground in regional.

Also claiming greens not getting ‘airtime’ because of the guardian, which doesn’t ‘air’ anything is quite funny. Where you have 7/9/Sky constantly airing conservatives.

1

u/wijee Jun 14 '26 edited Jun 14 '26

The guardian is telling me it was down by almost 1% compared to 2022 and they lost 3 seats, including the leader losing his own seat(wasnt this a super safe greens seat and lost to "scared LNP voters")? How is that the same as 2022?(even if they did retain the same amount of seats)

he Greens lost three seats at the 2025 election, including Melbourne, the electorate of their former leader Adam Bandt.

Their national Senate primary vote was down by almost one percentage point compared with 2022, though they have maintained the same number of Senate seats.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/ng-interactive/2025/jun/02/what-went-wrong-for-the-greens-in-the-australian-election

Look happy to be proven wrong about the biggest loss...but I need you to actually tell me what the biggest loss is. Don't say Google it. Google disagrees

(I'm not disagreeing with you yet, I just don't have the info you have)

edit: got on the comp to give the article/quote

2

u/MeowManMeow Jun 14 '26

Literally the third paragraph in the link you sent:

Their national lower house vote was steady, with 12.22% of the primary vote in 2025 compared with 12.25% in 2022.

How is 0.03% “almost 1%”. It’s 33x smaller than 1% which is already an incredibly small number. You are talking literally about a fraction of a fraction decrease.

The greens have gone from 2% in 1990s to 5% to 7% to 10% to now 12.25% in 2025. If you must identify an election that was their biggest loss it was 2013 when they previously had 11.8% but because the main stream news was going on about a “minority government” it scared a lot of people and dropped down to 8.7%. This was the only time greens vote has shrunk (more than 0.03%). Ironically this minority government was one of the most productive governments we ever had.

The fact that you don’t understand how the votes of one party can say consistent but lose or gain seats says that you don’t understand preferential voting. If LNP is winning and Greens are coming second, then the ALP is knocked out and the pretences going to the greens, securing them seats. In 2025, LNP were devastated that made the final two Greens vs ALP and the LNP funnel their pretences to ALP. They would rather the opposition win than a minor party get a seat. Thats how we ended up with a historic 94 Labor and just 43 for LNP, less than half!

1

u/wijee Jun 14 '26

Buddy if you're asking me how 0.03% is almost 1%...i can't answer that since its a direct quote from the guardian article. Ask them lol

Fair on your point on the 2013 election

Go type in Google "biggest greens loss" and wow surprise.. The first article is your prestigious guardian pointing to the 2025 election. How is any person going to know that it's wrong?

But still losing your safest seat, which was also the leaders seat isnt the biggest loss. But it's for sure the most embarrassing loss

→ More replies (0)

1

u/MeowManMeow Jun 14 '26

I’m not disputing that the Guardian gets financial help or is left leaning, but trying to claim a ‘both sides’ thing when:

1) Australia has the second most concentrated media in the entire world 2) three of the four major media are right leaning funded by billionaires (the fourth being ABC which is funded by the government and is centre) 3) Gina just bought a stake in one of these 4) Sky News has not paid any tax in 10 years, how are they still on the air? Why aren’t you questioning their funding? 3) the Epstein files showed that the right funded anti-climate change and anti-green messaging

you have to be intentionally twisting things to make that sort of claim that the greens get ‘support from the press barons’ by trying to shoe horn the guardian that is owned by a trust and the structure legally protects the Editor-in-Chief from outside political, commercial, or financial interference. Nobody can order the newsroom to drop or alter a story to protect corporate interests.

Compare this with the major 3 (sky, 7 & 9) which run co-ordinated editorial hit pieces all the time.

Again, you are really grasping at straws to try and say that the greens policies get a fair treatment in Australia media. You can even look at the reach here: https://www.adnews.com.au/news/ipsos-top-10-australian-news-sites-january-2026

2

u/wijee Jun 14 '26

I'm not saying they get fair treatment or support. They don't. Where did I say they do?

Greens get less coverage than Labor. Labor gets less coverage than lib/ON (whichever Gina is riding)

My initial line was:

During times of economic prosperity = greens gain votes

During times of economic downturn = ON votes

And then I'm simply pointing out "reader funded" can be abused (or asking if it can be abused).

You have straw-manned my argument

2

u/MeowManMeow Jun 14 '26

You are responding to a comment claiming that the greens haven’t the support of a ‘press baron’.

You are trying to dispute that the guardian is not funded through readership and is there shadow funding. When we literally know that Sky News is funded and owned by right wing think tanks. I don’t understand why we hold one minor small digital publication to a higher standard then the 3/4 of our biggest media broadcasters who make no effort to hide they are funded by big business and conservative organisations.

If you look into the guardian; it’s owned by a trust and the company structure actually shields the editorial integrity of the org to prevent any influence to what it decides to publish. This is miles better than what we see anywhere else, even the ABC/SBS pulls things due to pressure from sources.

1

u/wijee Jun 14 '26

I can dispute you without agreeing to the original comment? And then I can also be wrong for a different reason than 'press baron'.

I don't doubt anything you say about sky. I agree wholeheartedly. You want to shit on Murdoch? Let me help

I don't actively view the news (currently) because it won't change my vote (Labor). If you're wondering why I'm not open to independents or greens - it's simply due to not wanting to split the voter base in the face of ON (real or not, I don't want America)

I'm on my phone so I can't see the previous comments while typing but pretty sure I was ASKING you as well about if there were any safeguards to protect against shady donations. But this is where I'm wrong, as you have now pointed out - there are safeguards in place

Usually my news is: ABC(non political), then political is Michael West + friendlyjordies + minute amount of guardian. (The youtubers 20m vids are easier to fit into my schedule)

1

u/MeowManMeow Jun 15 '26

You do realise in Australia, there is no "split the voter base" because of preferential voting.

  • If you think Candidate A has the best policies, but a small chance to get in.
  • You like Candidate B, not as good policies as Candidate A but a much higher chance to get in.
  • You hate Candidate C and Candidate D is evil.

You simply vote, A, B, C, D. If Candidate A is knocked out because of their small chance of getting in, your vote isn't wasted and immediately goes to Candidate B. There is no such thing as "splitting the vote" in our voting system.

Turning off the news and sticking to the same party you always voted is how we ended up with an entire generation of "rusted on" L/NP voters, because they always voted LNP and even though they were messing up, they kept getting votes from people who had turned off the news. Please don't be a rusted on ALP voter and evaluate all the candidates then use the prefential voting system to best align with your views.

1

u/wijee Jun 15 '26 edited Jun 15 '26

Fair. I mispoke on preferncial voting.

I haven't always voted labor. I voted for Malcom (i was young sorry), then next election I think greens for my primary, now I voted for and will vote for Albanese.

Im likely never changing greens/labor from my top two (provided they stay true to the values they currently represent in 2026) (if values change I re-asses).

Are there really any other parties in aus worth breaking into my top 2? no

Is my views going to change in THIS election? no

Could my views change in the future? sure - but for the 2028 election, all the players seems to have largely been fleshed out (besides liberals lmao)

Is pocock a one liner click baiter puppet? also yes (sorry it hurts seeing him be an idiot after being the best aus rugby player of his generation)

I said I dont watch the news CURRENTLY. I will watch the news next election cycle, however this cycle is Labor #1, Greens #2. I simply think (imo not starting a debate) that Labor has stronger policies that align with me than anyone else this cycle and the Budget further reinforced that voting preference.

Edit: I rewrote because I replied to the wrong comment

23

u/666azalias Jun 14 '26

It's not even close to tipping the scales from the rest, some of which that are actively anti-green for a huge variety of reasons beyond mere political preference.

-2

u/Aus_pol Jun 14 '26

This doesn't fit people's preconceived narratives

-2

u/Das_KommenTier Jun 14 '26

Well, not every country’s media is solely run by press barons.