By Cheryl Kernot
The Greens' carefully executed strategy was working well until the Liberals decided not to preference them in the Victorian election. They were building the perception of inevitable momentum propelling them to election in the various state lower houses and gaining plenty of media buy-in. But Saturday night temporarily rolled a big old-growth log across that road.
The Greens recorded a very marginal increase in their base vote and lost a seat in the upper house, dampening the hype that began with the election of Adam Bandt in the federal seat of Melbourne.
It is tempting to speculate that Victorians are not impressed by the federal Labor minority government, where the Prime Minister serves compulsory afternoon tea every parliamentary Monday afternoon to a succession of independents and Greens. Equally persuasive are the arguments that Brumby's Labor was not so unpopular as to force progressives into the Greens fold or that Australians do not easily give governments a fourth term. Maybe failure to deliver on public transport mattered.
Whatever happens in the coming NSW election, the Greens will inherit complete balance of power influence in the Senate on July 1, most likely for a period of six years. That's the reality facing Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott.
The question facing the Greens is whether managing that role will destroy them or increase their appeal. How much will they be seduced by the balance of power?
At the end of this first parliamentary term the Abbott taunt of the Greens being in control of the government has gained some traction. Quite clearly, apart from the slightly derailed national broadband network debate, the government was struggling to set the agenda.
What the Greens do better than the Democrats ever did is triumphalism and "spin'', Greens-style. And so far they have succeeded in attracting little scrutiny of the finer details of their claims. It was disingenuous of Bob Brown to say preference deals are odious and that he was not involved in the necessary negotiations in the federal election when as leader he would know exactly what was being traded. Similarly, to say the Greens abhor donations from big corporations because of their influence and to accept a $325,000 donation from a trade union is hypocritical.
To accept a gagged confidential briefing on the broadband network business case goes against all previous protestations of commitment to transparency and accountability in the house of review. It was laughable for them to boast that a potential public inquiry and parliamentary vote to make the network privatisation-proof 13 years in the future is an acceptable trade-off.
Whether the Greens are open to pursuing other pragmatic compromises next year is unclear. Will they refuse to budge on what Christine Milne calls their "different level of ambition" on emissions? Will they strike the equivalent of a Democrats/GST one-step-too-far deal, alienating their base?
The Democrats casually adopted the "Keep the Bastards Honest" tag and found it hard to claim credit for strong environmental and social policies. The Greens have found it easier to move from a single-issue party to embrace accountability without yet having to modify any of their more "radical" policies and tactics. Automatic Treasury costings may act as a brake on open-ended Greens promises.
The long-term reality of balance of power is that even entering into negotiations with the government of the day leads the voting public to presume there will be a compromise reached. Australians love compromises. They also love to have third party insurance in the Senate. The Greens' record shows them to be less open to constructive compromise on core policies.
The smiling, measured Bob Brown is an electoral asset to the Greens, but should he retire there are already indications that leadership tensions could surface. Under his leadership the Greens have cleverly masked their incredibly loose local decision-making processes where there has been acrimony over lack of consultation on preference decisions.
Many have failed to appreciate that while voters may be primarily concerned about hip-pocket issues they also support the debating of other social and environmental issues. The Greens will continue to cleverly exploit these while ever the two main parties continue to ignore them.
I do find the future prospect of Tony Abbott taking afternoon tea with a succession of independents and Greens delightful to digest.
Associate Professor Cheryl Kernot is a former leader of the Australian Democrats and former Labor MP.
CORRECTION: The Opinion article ‘‘Australia's tea party faces the real test’’, should have said the Greens refused to accept a confidential briefing on the National Broadband Network business case.