When Greens senator Lee Rhiannon hit send on a tweet earlier this week, congratulating activist Jonathan Moylan for his hoax against Whitehaven Coal, the Twittersphere held its breath.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Surely Rhiannon would delete the tweet quick smart. Maybe Greens leader Christine Milne would even force an apology, as is sometimes the case when a politician says something outre.
After all, Moylan’s hoax, which saw Whitehaven’s share price temporarily tumble, had already stirred up some hefty public outrage about the cost to mum and dad investors. ASIC was also making inquiries.
But Rhiannon did no deleting whatsoever and Milne came out to back her senator with fighting words.
The Greens leader told Fairfax Media Moylan’s actions were ''part of a long and proud history of civil disobedience, potentially breaking the law, to highlight something wrong''.
Eyebrows were raised.
Online commentators called Rhiannon’s tweet ''ludicrously ignorant & idiotic'' and ''breathtakingly odd'', while Liberal frontbencher Eric Abetz deemed the Greens to be the ''epitome of extremism'', and chief government whip Joel Fitzgibbon labelled the remarks ''outrageous''.
Yet for Greens digital communications coordinator, David Paris, the snafu was in fact no snafu at all, but a positive development for the party.
''If there is a little bit of controversy and it kicks up a great discussion, I think that’s a good thing,'' he told The Australian Financial Review on Thursday.
On paper, a ''no such thing as bad publicity'' mentality would seem to be unusual for any party - let alone the Greens - as they head into an election year.
The party has long had to deal with accusations that they were ''loopy'' and ''extreme''. And we’ve all heard the old joke about watermelons.
It is an issue the party appear to acknowledge themselves.
Last month, the Greens revealed a new platform, to present smaller targets to critics. Many of their core beliefs are now listed under ''aims and principles'', rather than explicit policies.
It is of course, possible that in speaking their minds - going against the political consensus and standing up to big companies - the Greens might get some electoral thumbs up. Particularly among younger voters who like a bit of bolshiness.
Some voters may appreciate the Greens having the guts to stand by their more controversial statements, rather than hastily backtracking with the usual weasel words and ‘‘I-was-taken-out-of-contexts’’.
The Greens hoax-stance also paints newish leader Milne as strong and definite as she shapes the party in the post Bob Brown era. And yet, in recent times, the Greens standing by their principles hasn’t necessarily pleased the electorate.
The party copped flack last year during the asylum seeker debate. In September, the party’s Newspoll vote dropped to 8 per cent - its lowest in more than three years - in the wake of the parliamentary impasse.
Analysis suggested people did not like the Greens refusal to make and back a compromise.
The polls have continued to look unpromising since. The Greens had a disastrous showing in the October ACT elections, losing three of their four members in the territory’s Assembly.
The party finished the year with a Fairfax/ Nielsen polled primary vote of 10 per cent, down from the 11.8 per cent it captured in the last federal election.
According to fundraising material, the Greens are hoping to attract an extra 400,000 votes across Australia in this year’s contest.
The Greens have long prided - and pitched - themselves as being different from the other parties.
The question is, how different can they afford to be if they want an extra 400,000 votes. Let alone the ones they already have?
