When the Greens senator Lee Rhiannon hit ''send'' on a tweet this week, congratulating the 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 the Greens leader, Christine Milne, would even force an apology.
After all, the hoax had stirred up some hefty public outrage.
But Rhiannon did no deleting 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 the tweet ''ludicrously ignorant & idiotic'' and ''breathtakingly odd'', the Liberal frontbencher Eric Abetz deemed the Greens to be the ''epitome of extremism'', and the chief whip, Joel Fitzgibbon, labelled the remarks ''outrageous''.
Yet for the Greens digital communications co-ordinator, David Paris, the snafu was 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 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 it was ''loopy'' and ''extreme''. It is an issue the party appears to acknowledge. Last month, it revealed a new platform, to present smaller targets to critics. Many 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.
Some voters may appreciate the Greens having the guts to stand by controversial statements, rather than hastily backtracking with the usual weaselly ''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 flak 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 Greens had a disastrous showing in the October ACT elections, loosing three of their four assembly members.
The party finished the year with a Fairfax/Nielsen polled primary vote of 10 per cent, down from the 11.8 per cent it won in the last federal election.
Fund-raising material says the Greens hope to attract an extra 400,000 votes in this year's poll.
The Greens have long prided - and pitched - themselves as being different. The question is, how different can they afford to be if they want an extra 400,000 votes? Not to mention the ones they already have?
