The climate is changing - but Green vote dries up

As the ink dries on the final results for 2006 Victorian State election, commentators are focusing their analysis on the failure of the Liberals to mount an effective challenge, the enduring strength of “Brand Bracks”, and the extraordinary return from exile of the DLP.

The Greens, however, have been largely forgotten - cast aside as disappointing non-performers.

But were the Greens election “losers” or not?

For the first time in Victorian history, the Greens will have a place in the State Parliament.

Indeed, the last-minute recount of votes in the Western Metropolitan region delivered the Greens a third seat of the Legislative Council.

The colour scheme of the Victorian Parliament will be indelibly changed with the Greens adding a different hue to the rich red tones of the Upper House.

Three seats for a party which previously had none must be considered a momentous leap forward - especially given the media frenzy around the election of a single DLP candidate.

Despite this achievement, there is solid ground for arguing that the Greens were the disappointing underachievers of the campaign. The lead-up to the election was dominated by a single issue - the weather.

Continuing drought, record high temperatures and dwindling water supplies thrust environmental issues to very front row of political debate.

At the same time, popular culture, through the success of Tim Flannery's book The Weather Makers and Al Gore's highly successful film An Inconvenient Truth, gave people an explanation for the extreme weather conditions they were experiencing around them.

And changes to the electoral system, with the introduction of proportional representation in the Upper House, meant that smaller parties would find it easier to win a place in Parliament.

It seemed that the planets had aligned, and the time had finally come for the Greens.

Pre-election polling supported this view, suggesting that the Greens were gaining support and would comfortably win the seat of Melbourne in the Lower House.

On polling day, however, the Greens primary vote was essentially static.

In the Lower House, the proportion of Green votes went up marginally from 9.73 per cent to 10.04 per cent.

In the seat of Melbourne, where the Greens were expecting to claim their first ever Lower House seat, they improved but still only received 27.41 per cent of the primary vote.

In the Upper House, provisional figures showed the proportion of Green votes fell from 10.87 per cent to 10.34 per cent, while the total number of Green votes also fell from 314,697 to 291, 456.

That's 23,241 fewer people who voted Green in the Upper House in 2006 than 2002.

According to the Greens own explanation of the election result, the Green vote suffered because of a Labor plot and from the stupidity of the electorate.

The front page of the Greens website says:

The Greens were polling so strongly against Labor incumbents in two inner-city seats that Labor was forced to parachute in Peter Garrett, who sent a letter to every household misrepresenting the Greens’ preferences.

Mr Garrett's direct mail letter highlighted the fact that the Greens had chosen to issue a "split ticket" how-to-vote card in those seats, effectively directing half of their preferences to the Liberals.

Dr Brown released his own letter to voters, telling them: "Peter Garrett is not Midnight Oil's Peter Garrett, or the Australian Conservation Foundation's Peter Garrett. "He is now an anti-Green campaigner."

Similarly, a letter to the Herald Sun on November 28 (quoted by Dr Brown in Federal Parliament) attacked both Peter Garrett and the people who chose not to vote Green.

The letter from Stephen Kress claimed "the Labor smear campaigns (about preferences) against the Greens scared enough of their wavering inner city voters to save Bronwyn Pike and neighbouring seats for the ALP.

"How such a well-educated and supposedly savvy demographic could fall for such a blatant Labor con job is mind-boggling," the letter said.

Perhaps more mind-boggling, however, is the refusal of the Greens to accept that voters are intelligent enough to make up their own minds.

Instead of blaming others, Greens should look at their policies, and their aggressive “you’re with us of you’re against us” campaign style to understand why people aren't voting for them.

The bitter, condescending rants that characterised the Victorian election, and the Tasmanian election before that reflect badly on the party.

If they want the earn the respect of voters, Green party leaders need to stop behaving like petulant school children.

It's time for the Greens to stop whining about conspiracy theories, and to accept that voters are able to think for themselves.