The three biggest election stories: The Greens, Advance, and the resurrection of Tim Wilson

Eric Dettman writes: After 60 years in politics I have seen some dirty campaigns and this was up there with the worst. The Labor party was absent from the seat but every other group that could be energised against Zoe Daniel was. Zoe’s problem is that she is too decent. Some of the behavior at the booth I was on for 10 hours should not have been allowed by the AEC. There is a real back story in this electorate that needs to be exposed.

Simon Mansfield writes: Wilson ran a ruthless postal vote harvesting campaign both locally and overseas in aged care centres and the like. Anyone not enrolled but who could be legally enrolled was added. Combined with a nasty ground campaign that falsely accused [Zoe] Daniel of any and all things that would motivate key target voters. That his campaign would not mirror his ruthless everyday self is ridiculous.

That the Australian media is incapable of deconstructing Wilson is to be expected. Perfect deputy Liberal leader to Ley… and he could even get to be deputy opposition leader if the L/NP goes postal.

Paul Sullivan writes: All this “woo-haa” over Wilson just winning one of the wealthiest seats in the country. The media is acting like he has swept himself and the Liberals back into relevancy. All it means is a slight majority of voters put greed before need, and think their often inherited wealth is not for taxing.

Len Hobbs writes: Once again, you have failed to understand the true nature of the Greens. We are not the party of “old white affluent voters with the time and income to worry about environmental issues”. That’s the “teals”!

Nor have we suddenly switched to a “Nationals-style sectional interest party”. Since the Australian Greens were founded over 40 years ago we have always followed our four founding pillars used by the German Greens, namely: the environment, social justice, democracy, and peace and non-violence.

We are a party of principle, even though this may cost us votes. This is why condemning the genocide in Gaza is so important to us. That is also why we have to take firm action to alleviate the national scandal of rentals and first time house-buyers’ problems. I myself own a rental property, but that doesn’t stop me deeply caring for those less fortunate than myself in terms of housing. We can’t just take a “what’s in it for me” attitude. 

We also have a duty to force Labor, wherever possible, to take more action on things like housing and the environment. 

Remember: we are the party for young people. Around 35% of under 30s vote Greens, they are our future. In my area of Western Sydney we achieved our highest votes ever in the last election, as well as achieving a record number of councillors in the previous election.  

Fernanda Trecenti writes: I appreciated your recent analysis of the Greens’ election outcome. However, I’d like to clarify some details regarding the electorate of Wills, where I was actively involved in the “Vote Palestine” Wills campaign.

Wills experienced a significant swing towards progressive candidates — particularly Greens candidate Samantha Ratnam and the Socialist Alliance’s Sue Bolton — despite national trends moving in the opposite direction. I believe a key factor in this shift was voter dissatisfaction with Labor’s weak stance on Israel’s ongoing genocide in Palestine.

This was no coincidence: the pro-Palestine movement deliberately concentrated all grassroots efforts exclusively in Wills, aware of our limited resources.

Ratnam’s prospects, however, were severely undermined by Labor’s targeted and ethically dubious tactics. These included substantial pork-barrelling, exemplified by the Albanese government’s $15 million grant to the Bachar Houli Foundation, misleading flyers falsely claiming that voters not putting Labor first risked a Dutton government, and former prime minister Julia Gillard’s intervention via a letter specifically aimed at Wills voters reinforcing this misleading narrative.

Grassroots activists faced a steep uphill battle against such heavily resourced and strategically targeted misinformation efforts. But hey, democracy isn’t cheap!

Mark Taylor writes: Given the Green’s vote largely held up and even increased slightly in the Senate I don’t think they are doing too much wrong. However they could learn from the “teals” in giving female leaders more prominence and demonstrating a more collaborative and conciliatory style.

It is doubtful whether that would be reciprocated by Labor though, given the Greens are more of a threat to Labor than the teals.

I also think that the Greens could collaborate much more closely with NGOs and civil society groups. That way they would not be seen so much as radical mavericks, out on a limb, but representing key constituencies that are neglected by the major parties. A change of emphasis and style, but it may help consolidate and even grow the Greens vote.

The Greens, like all parties, need renewal from time to time and this is as good a time as any while they are still a significant player.

Chris McLenaghan: Given that the Liberal Party funded Advance to the tune of $500,000 in donations via The Cormack Foundation in 2024, as revealed by the AEC, this result is as much an own goal by the Liberal Party itself, a political funding version of opening your mouth to change feet. Remarkable.