How the war between ‘watermelons' and ‘tree-Tories' brought down the Greens
Drew Hutton played a crucial role in the formation of the Greens – first in Queensland, then as a co-founder of the national party alongside Bob Brown.
After watching the party lose three of its four House of Representatives seats – including the stunning defeat of leader Adam Bandt, who conceded his seat of Melbourne on Thursday afternoon – Hutton says the party needs to fundamentally rethink the way it communicates with Australian voters.
'The Greens have experimented with what I would call a hyper-militant approach during the last three years,' says Hutton, who was suspended from the Queensland branch in 2023 over a debate over trans rights and free speech.
'I'm a bit of a hyper-militant myself, in many ways, but you need to know when to hold them and when to fold them.
'What will broaden their base is if they lose this terrible way they have of expressing their moral superiority over everyone else and their refusal to talk meaningfully with ordinary Australians.'
Speaking with a candour not available to Greens MPs, who can face misconduct charges for bringing the party into disrepute, Hutton says the Greens suffered from appearing obstructionist by blocking key Labor policies on housing affordability. The Greens' leadership eventually recognised this at the end of last year by waving through Labor's shared equity and built-to-rent policies, despite failing to win any concessions from the government.
'They also overplayed their hand on Gaza and needed to make it a bit clearer they were totally opposed to the politics of Hamas,' Hutton says.
When Hutton, who led the anti-mining Lock the Gate environmental group, officially retired from activism in 2017, Brown hailed him as 'a towering figure in Australian environmental and social politics for the last four decades'.
However, the long-time Greens leader has a diametrically different view of the election results, underlining the challenge the party faces as it ponders its identity in a post-Bandt era.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
West Australian
4 hours ago
- West Australian
US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth has called the attack on Iran a success with ‘severe damage and destruction'
US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth says Midnight Hammer 'did not target Iranian troops or the Iranian people' with a senior Air Force general warning it would be an 'incredibly poor choice' for Iran and its proxies to retaliate. The US launched overnight strikes on three Iranian facilities — Isfahan, Natanz and Fordow — joining Israel's push to cripple Tehran's nuclear program. In an address to media at the Pentagon on Sunday evening (Australian time), Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Air Force General Dan Caine outlined the operation and said all three nuclear sites sustained 'extremely severe damage and destruction'. 'At midnight Friday into Saturday morning, a large B-2 strike package comprised of bombers launched from the continental United States,' he said. 'As part of a plan to maintain tactical surprise, part of the package proceeded to the West and into the Pacific as a decoy; a deception effort known only to an extremely small number of planners and key leaders here in Washington and in Tampa. 'The main strike package, comprised of seven B-2 spirit bombers, each with two crew members, proceeded quietly to the east with minimal communications. 'Once over land, the B-2s linked up with escort and support aircraft in a complex, tightly timed manoeuvre requiring exact synchronisation across multiple platforms in a narrow piece of airspace, all done with minimal communications. 'At approximately 5pm EST last night, and just prior to the strike package entering Iran, a US submarine in the Central Command Area of Responsibility launched more than two dozen Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles against key surface infrastructure targets at Isfahan. 'As the operation Midnight Hammer strike package entered Iranian airspace, the US employed several deception tactics including decoys as the fourth and fifth generation aircraft pushed out in front of the strike package at high altitude and high speed.' Mr Caine said the US dropped two GBU-57 series MOP weapons on 'several aim points' at Isfahan at about 6.40pm EST. 'The remaining bombers then hit their targets as well, with a total of 14 MOPs dropped against two nuclear target areas,' he said. Mr Caine said all three nuclear infrastructure targets were struck between 6.40pm and 7.05pm EST. 'The Tomahawk missiles (were) the last to strike at Isfahan to ensure we retain the element of surprise throughout the operation,' he said. 'Following weapons release, the Midnight Hammer strike package exited Iranian airspace and the package began its return home. 'We are unaware of any shots fired at the package on the way out ... we retained the element of surprise.' Mr Caine said the US deployed up to 125 aircrafts and 75 precision guided weapons. 'This included fourteen 30,000 pound GBU-57 MOPs marking the first ever operational use of this weapon,' he said. 'Final battle damage will take some time, but initial battle damage assessments indicate that all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction. 'More than 125 US aircraft participated in this mission including B-2 stealth bombers, multiple flights of fourth and fifth generation fighters, dozens of air refuelling tankers, a guided missile submarine and a full array of intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft, as well as hundreds of maintenance and operational professionals.' Mr Caine said the US remained on 'high alert' and was 'fully postured to respond to any Iranian retaliation or proxy attacks' — a move he warned would be 'an incredibly poor choice'. 'We will defend ourselves,' he said. 'The safety of our service members and civilians remains our highest priority. 'This mission demonstrates the unmatched reach co-ordination and capability of the United States military.' Mr Hegseth said the attack had 'obliterated' Iran's nuclear ambitions but said it 'did not attack Iranian troops or the Iranian people'. 'We devastated the Iranian nuclear program but it's worth noting the operation did not target Iranian troops or the Iranian people,' he said. 'For the entirety of his time in office, President Trump has consistently stated for over 10 years that Iran must not get a nuclear weapon. 'Thanks to President Trump's bold and visionary leadership and his commitment to peace through strength, Iran's nuclear ambitions have been obliterated.'
7NEWS
6 hours ago
- 7NEWS
Scott Morrison: Donald Trump's strikes on Iran a necessary measure to achieve peace, not war in Middle East
The recent strike by the United States on Iran's nuclear facilities marks a critical turning point in global security. It is not just a matter for the Middle East or for U.S. foreign policy. It is a test for all nations that rely on the strength and credibility of the international rules-based order and the western alliance for their security, Australia included. Let me be clear, this strike was not an act of provocation. It was a necessary measure, undertaken as a last resort by a President who wants peace, not war. The purpose was clear, to disrupt the capabilities of a brutal authoritarian regime that has openly defied international norms, supported terrorist proxies, and pursued nuclear weapons with increasing brazenness. In times of geopolitical crisis, clarity of purpose and principle is essential. That is why I was compelled to speak out following the U.S. operation. What we have seen instead from the Australian government is a concerning lack of clarity and a reluctance to define where Australia stands when it matters most. It is in times like this when allies look around to see who is with them. For a country like ours, deeply integrated into global economic and security networks, reliant on open trade routes and US led allied deterrence, strategic ambiguity is not a strength. It is a vulnerability. Throughout my time as Prime Minister, I took the view that Australia's interests are best served when we speak plainly and act decisively in defence of our values. That is why we stood firmly with our allies against China's economic coercion. It is why we invested in AUKUS, strengthening our sovereign defence capabilities and deepening our technological integration with the U.S. and UK. it is why we worked so closely with our Indo-Pacific partners through the Quad to uphold regional stability. It is why we stood with Israel against those who sought their annihilation. In this context, the U.S. strike on Iran's nuclear facilities must be understood for what it is: an act of strategic deterrence, grounded in the reality that Iran has long been operating outside the bounds of good faith diplomacy. It is what President Trump meant when he spoke of peace through strength. For years, Iran has methodically violated its obligations under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), enriching uranium well beyond civilian thresholds, restricting IAEA inspections, and hardening its facilities in preparation for exactly this kind of confrontation. Attempts to revive the nuclear deal have failed, not because the West abandoned diplomacy, but because Tehran refused to comply with the very terms it had previously accepted. The question facing policymakers in Washington and, indeed, in Canberra is not whether we prefer diplomacy over conflict. Of course we do. It is whether diplomacy alone can halt a regime that has no intention of negotiating in good faith. At a certain point, the cost of inaction outweighs the risk of confrontation. That is precisely where the United States found itself. Given Iran's refusal to cooperate with international monitors and its aggressive posture across the region, including arming Hezbollah, enabling Hamas to commit atrocities on innocent Israelis, supporting Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping, the Trump administration concluded that a targeted strike was the only viable option left. Only the US could have taken this step and President Trump should be commended for his courage and leadership, especially by allies. This was not a broad campaign. It was a calibrated operation aimed at degrading the most advanced elements of Iran's nuclear infrastructure specifically, targeting Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow. The objective was not regime change. It was to halt Iran's progression toward nuclear weapons capability and to send a clear message that the West's red lines still mean something. Yet here in Australia, the official response from the government has been muted. No strong statement of support for the United States. That silence is telling. It suggests a reluctance to confront difficult choices and to support our most important ally in the righteousness of the actions that have taken. I believe that such an approach is short-sighted and fundamentally misjudges the nature of the challenge we face. Australia cannot afford to be passive in moments like this. Our voice matters, not just because we are a U.S. ally, but because we are a middle power with global responsibilities. We sit at the intersection of East and West, of advanced democracies and rising developing powers. Our stance sends signals across the region, from Beijing to Moscow, Jakarta to Seoul. We must make the case for resistance against authoritarian arrogance. That doesn't mean we should follow Washington blindly. It means we must be clear, consistent and credible in how we support a global order that has protected our prosperity and security for generations. This is a time for strategic clarity, not importantly, we must ensure our own defences are fit for purpose. AUKUS is not a theoretical construct. It is a practical framework for dealing with the kinds of threats we are now seeing unfold. That means accelerating delivery timelines, investing in sovereign capabilities, and ensuring that deterrence in our own region is not eroded by distraction or delay. The world is entering a more dangerous phase. The era of risk aversion is over. Strategic competitors are testing our resolve, our alliances, and our willingness to act in defence of shared values. The choices we make now will define the kind of world our children inherit. We must choose clarity over confusion. Strength over silence. And principle over passivity. We must know who we stand with. That is the standard Australia has upheld in the past. And it is the standard we must uphold again now
West Australian
8 hours ago
- West Australian
Scott Morrison: Donald Trump's strikes on Iran a necessary measure to achieve peace, not war in Middle East
The recent strike by the United States on Iran's nuclear facilities marks a critical turning point in global security. It is not just a matter for the Middle East or for U.S. foreign policy. It is a test for all nations that rely on the strength and credibility of the international rules-based order and the western alliance for their security, Australia included. Let me be clear, this strike was not an act of provocation. It was a necessary measure, undertaken as a last resort by a President who wants peace, not war. The purpose was clear, to disrupt the capabilities of a brutal authoritarian regime that has openly defied international norms, supported terrorist proxies, and pursued nuclear weapons with increasing brazenness. In times of geopolitical crisis, clarity of purpose and principle is essential. That is why I was compelled to speak out following the U.S. operation. What we have seen instead from the Australian government is a concerning lack of clarity and a reluctance to define where Australia stands when it matters most. It is in times like this when allies look around to see who is with them. For a country like ours, deeply integrated into global economic and security networks, reliant on open trade routes and US led allied deterrence, strategic ambiguity is not a strength. It is a vulnerability. Throughout my time as Prime Minister, I took the view that Australia's interests are best served when we speak plainly and act decisively in defence of our values. That is why we stood firmly with our allies against China's economic coercion. It is why we invested in AUKUS, strengthening our sovereign defence capabilities and deepening our technological integration with the U.S. and UK. it is why we worked so closely with our Indo-Pacific partners through the Quad to uphold regional stability. It is why we stood with Israel against those who sought their annihilation. In this context, the U.S. strike on Iran's nuclear facilities must be understood for what it is: an act of strategic deterrence, grounded in the reality that Iran has long been operating outside the bounds of good faith diplomacy. It is what President Trump meant when he spoke of peace through strength. For years, Iran has methodically violated its obligations under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), enriching uranium well beyond civilian thresholds, restricting IAEA inspections, and hardening its facilities in preparation for exactly this kind of confrontation. Attempts to revive the nuclear deal have failed, not because the West abandoned diplomacy, but because Tehran refused to comply with the very terms it had previously accepted. The question facing policymakers in Washington and, indeed, in Canberra is not whether we prefer diplomacy over conflict. Of course we do. It is whether diplomacy alone can halt a regime that has no intention of negotiating in good faith. At a certain point, the cost of inaction outweighs the risk of confrontation. That is precisely where the United States found itself. Given Iran's refusal to cooperate with international monitors and its aggressive posture across the region, including arming Hezbollah, enabling Hamas to commit atrocities on innocent Israelis, supporting Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping, the Trump administration concluded that a targeted strike was the only viable option left. Only the US could have taken this step and President Trump should be commended for his courage and leadership, especially by allies. This was not a broad campaign. It was a calibrated operation aimed at degrading the most advanced elements of Iran's nuclear infrastructure specifically, targeting Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow. The objective was not regime change. It was to halt Iran's progression toward nuclear weapons capability and to send a clear message that the West's red lines still mean something. Yet here in Australia, the official response from the government has been muted. No strong statement of support for the United States. That silence is telling. It suggests a reluctance to confront difficult choices and to support our most important ally in the righteousness of the actions that have taken. I believe that such an approach is short-sighted and fundamentally misjudges the nature of the challenge we face. Australia cannot afford to be passive in moments like this. Our voice matters, not just because we are a U.S. ally, but because we are a middle power with global responsibilities. We sit at the intersection of East and West, of advanced democracies and rising developing powers. Our stance sends signals across the region, from Beijing to Moscow, Jakarta to Seoul. We must make the case for resistance against authoritarian arrogance. That doesn't mean we should follow Washington blindly. It means we must be clear, consistent and credible in how we support a global order that has protected our prosperity and security for generations. This is a time for strategic clarity, not importantly, we must ensure our own defences are fit for purpose. AUKUS is not a theoretical construct. It is a practical framework for dealing with the kinds of threats we are now seeing unfold. That means accelerating delivery timelines, investing in sovereign capabilities, and ensuring that deterrence in our own region is not eroded by distraction or delay. The world is entering a more dangerous phase. The era of risk aversion is over. Strategic competitors are testing our resolve, our alliances, and our willingness to act in defence of shared values. The choices we make now will define the kind of world our children inherit. We must choose clarity over confusion. Strength over silence. And principle over passivity. We must know who we stand with. That is the standard Australia has upheld in the past. And it is the standard we must uphold again now Scott Morrison was Australia's 30th Prime Minister.
