Political commentators say that the change in leader will make things harder for the Albanese Government. But did the Greens’ more forceful negating strategy under Bandt hold back Labor’s agenda? If not, it is unclear why Shoebridge would be any different.
Fri 9 Oct 2026 15.59 AEDT
Photo: AAP Image/Con Chronis
The Greens' recent leadership change from Larissa Waters to David Shoebridge was both rapid and polite. But while the change might have come as a surprise, what is more predictable is the hand wringing from much of the commentariat and the Prime Minister about whether the Greens should be 'populist' or 'pragmatic', and whether they should act like a ‘party of government’ or a ‘party of protest’.
Victoria’s anti-corruption watchdog has been given new powers to investigate non-criminal misconduct and trace public money into private organisations, as part of the Labor Government’s broader reform push ahead of the November election.
After Senator David Shoebridge replaced Senator Larissa Waters as Greens leader last week, much has been made of their differing leadership styles. Waters had promised to be “firm but constructive” while Shoebridge intends to challenge the “dead politics” of Labor, the Coalition and One Nation and ultimately “replace the Labor Party”.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese compares Shoebridge’s rhetoric to that of former party leader Adam Bandt, who drove a hard bargain with Labor in the Albanese Government’s first term in government (2022 to 2025). In a protracted fight over housing, the Greens under Bandt used their balance of power position in the Senate to extract an extra $1 billion for community and public housing.
Political commentators say that the change in leader will make things harder for the Albanese Government. Patricia Karvelas writes that Shoebridge will “be a thorn in Labor’s side rather than a deal maker” and that Labor’s “pathway through the Senate just got a whole lot harder.” David Speers writes that Shoebridge’s leadership represents “a new layer of difficulty for Labor”.
But did the Greens’ more forceful negating strategy under Bandt hold back Labor’s agenda? If not, it is unclear why Shoebridge would be any different.
The Greens were ready supporters of the landmark economic reform of the Albanese Government’s first term, the changes to the Stage 3 tax cuts, as they have been for negative gearing and capital gains tax reform in this second term. And with common cause around workers’ rights and trade unionism, the parties worked together on industrial relations reform in 2022 and 2023.
A less conciliatory approach to negotiations may be uncomfortable, but historically it has not stopped collaboration. In the first term of the Albanese Government, Labor and the Greens voted together on legislation (bills and amendments) almost as often as Labor and the Coalition did, and when it came to passing legislation Labor was much more likely to go with the Greens than the Coalition.
The graph below compares legislative votes from the Albanese Government’s first and second term. The data shows little visible difference between “thorn in Labor’s side” and “deal maker”.
Quality research, analysis, explainers and factchecks from experts you can trust.
It is true that the Albanese Government has mostly failed to deliver its democracy and integrity agenda. It dropped its own truth in political advertising laws. It watered down planned donation transparency laws, settling on the Coalition’s preferred $5,000 threshold even though Labor policy is to disclose donations above $1,000. Labor pulled its plan to give the territories a fairer allocation of senators. The government managed only modest changes to whistleblower protection laws and did not deliver a dedicated Whistleblower Commissioner to provide advice and support to those who report wrongdoing or a National Anti-Corruption Commission free to hold public hearings.
But it was not the Greens’ negotiating posture that stopped these reforms from being won. Labor dropped these policies because they did not have the support of the Liberal–National Coalition. Even when there was a path through the Senate with the Greens, Albanese chose to give the Liberal Party a veto.
The consequence is that Labor went to an election without the protection of truth in political advertising laws, even though the party insists that its own advertisements would “sail through” a truth in politics framework. And the NACC’s camera-shy and scandal-prone start suggests Labor would have been better off backing Greens’ proposals for public hearings whenever they were in the public interest and stronger independent oversight of the Commission.
Labor has shied away from ambitious reforms in this term as well, getting spooked by Opposition Leader Angus Taylor into ruling out an expanded Parliament.
It was under Waters that Labor passed major environmental reforms, after “high stakes” negotiations with Labor Environment Minister Murray Watt. This is a notable achievement. But under Bandt, the Greens struck a very similar deal with then Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek. It was Albanese who tore up the original deal at the last minute because there was not a “majority”.
There was a majority; it just didn’t contain Opposition Leader Peter Dutton and his Liberal Party colleagues.
Whether the Greens leader is more combative or more conciliatory is not the deciding factor in whether the Albanese Government can implement its policy. It is Labor, not the Greens, that gave up on truth in political advertising laws, disclosure of $1,000 political donations, NACC public hearings, nature positive laws and an expanded Parliament. It is Albanese’s reluctance to deal with the Greens that has held back Labor’s agenda, not the other way around.
Bill Browne is Director of the Australia Institute’s Democracy and Accountability Program.
