At the time, I disagreed, and still do. But there has been a change in situation, one that, were the ALP up and running, they would no doubt be making great hay about.
The new government seems to have, during its wilderness years, developed quite the taste for claiming work expenses for having a gay old time at various weddings. It’s precisely the kind of thing that saw off more than half a dozen ministers during the early years of the Howard government.
But if the ALP are too busy right now sorting their stuff out (and again, that’s much more important for them right now), then who-oh-who could be in a position to make a stink about it?
The Greens, by various accounts, sunk up to $1.2 million in Adam Bandt’s campaign for the seat of Melbourne. Even if it was only half that, it was clearly a major priority for the party. Some would argue that it’s an enormous waste of money for a seat in a parliament with a stonking majority, thus a seat with no real authority or influence.
But that would be excluding the Greens’ longer game. The Greens seek to become more than a party of the senate. They see a nation wherein the progressive vote has been split between traditional, social conservative protectionists and more educated, wealthier, progressives who view open markets with far less skepticism, and are more focused on social progress and civil liberties.
It’s an electorate that, given the right circumstances, would vote for a Green-ALP coalition. And before you scoff; if it didn’t already exist, could you possibly imagine a world where the free-market Liberals lay down with the rural protectionists of the Nationals? Of course not, but politics makes for strange bedfellows.
Irrespective of how likely that alliance would be, it is the logical mid-term goal for the Greens. And you don’t reach that objective by being a party of the senate. That is why Bandt’s seat was important. Winning – and holding – a lower house seat gives the Greens legitimacy. When they start going after seats like Sydney, Grayndler and Batman, the fact that they are already in Melbourne is very important in swaying some voters.
And if they are a party of the lower house, if they aim for a seat at the table, then what do they become? To some degree, they become an opposition. And what does an opposition do when the government, fresh into the comfy seats, is caught dipping into the taxpayers’ till to go get wasted and dance at shock jocks’ and mining magnates’ weddings?
They make hay. Lots and lots of hay.
The Greens have been hampered for too long by a perception by the overwhelming majority of Australians as a stereotype that has existed since the 1980s. Effete, elite, pot-smoking, hemp-wearing (it doesn’t matter if it’s inconsistent, when did it ever?) and unconcerned with ‘real Australians’’ problems.
Well, here’s their chance. The ALP are otherwise occupied. The public are primed to get peeved off, and News Limited are unlikely to make anywhere near the song and dance out of this they would have (did) if this was a Labor government.
The Greens can pounce. There is any number of wedding/marriage puns they can turn into a tight line of attack. They have the evidence. They have the personalities that will bite back (hello Barnaby). And this could give them more than just a bit of media attention.
It could give them public legitimacy.
Ed Butler is a recovering economist and novelty blogger of the never-lamented Things Bogans Like. This article is an edited version and was originally published on AusOpinion.com.
What do you think? Join the conversation on our Facebook page.
Share
