The Greens, Labor and a pack of matches

You really have to hand it to the Greens. They are just as capable of devious acts of political bastardry on Labor as ALP's best faceless men. If not more.

Now in writing this, I am fully aware of the Twitter shitstorm this may bring down on me and as a result nearly didn't post this item. But hell, someone has to say it. There needs to be a proper public discussion about how it all went so wrong over the last six years.

Let's just rewind the clock six years and trace back most major problems Labor now face.

Sure. Labor's sheer ham fistedness on most major policy issues has a lot do with their problems. But you'll probably also find the Greens sowed the seeds.

Watching the Greens deal with Labor over the last six years is like a watching someone giving a pack of matches to a pack of delinquent kids and then feigning horror when the house goes up in flames.

The most obvious example is the Greens refusal to pass the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Now I hear Greens supporters cry: "But the CPRS was crap and would have locked in failure. The carbon price scheme is a much better scheme."

There is a certain amount of truth in that:- even though the essential design features of the CPRS and carbonnprice are the same, the latter achieved an important independent governance framework through the Climate Change Authority; set aside a $10 billion fund for renewable energy; and put in place a review of industry assistance through the Productivity Commission.

But won't perfect policy look dandy by the middle of next year when the Coalition succeeds in gutting it ?

Let's take the sliding door moment in 2009 and imagine what would have happened if the Greens had supported the CPRS.

By now, there would have been in place a price on carbon for nearly four years; making it much harder to repeal. Yes, it would have been a very, very low price - around $1. However, it would have laid a foundation for much stronger action down the track, instead of the smouldering ruins of the carbon scheme that will soon come to pass.

Contrast the approach taken by the Greens in dealing with the GFC stimulus package to the CPRS. I'm not arguing the stimulus package was not an important factor in helping Australia ride out the GFC but it could have done so at a much lower cost.

If the Greens had taken a responsible balance of power party in the Senate they would have taken a bit more critical look at some of the stimulus package components.

The cost of the School Halls program alone - nearly $16 billion and well exceeding any benefit to the community - was around half the budget deficit when Labor left office, and it was delivered long after needed to respond to the GFC.

But what did the Greens do ? They waved it through after tacking on additional money for bike paths which as the Australian National Audit Office subsequently commented was not stimulus related and did not "seek to focus funding consideration on those projects that would maximise job creation and retention outcomes for the funding  awarded  in  the  areas  of  identified  greatest  need."

However, the much bigger consequence of the Greens action in the Senate, was to start the creation of a deeply divisive political environment in which it has become nearly impossible to get anything done in climate change policy. It sewed the seeds of Tony Abbott's rise to power and of Prime Minister's Kevin Rudd downfall and that of his predecessor Julia Gillard.

Faced with the rejection of the CPRS in the Senate, Rudd took a downward spiral - panicked, rejected the option of double dissolution, dumped the CPRS, and botched the introduction of the mining tax. It worked to the benefit of the Greens at the 2010 election with scores of disillusioned Labor voters flocking to the party.  However, in the long run it has been to their detriment. 

But that's the thing about the Greens; regardless of their claims to be different from the traditional parties, they too are focused on the short-term politics rather than the long-term. It looks great on a wrist band but isn't often doesn't work so well in practice.

But I digress. Back to 2010.

After the election, buoyed by their success at Labor's expense, the Greens drove a hard bargain and demanded a coalition agreement with Gillard. As usual, it seemed like a great idea at the time but has had serious negative long-term consequences for both Labor and the Greens.

But the problems really began when they negotiated the carbon scheme. The problem was not so much the Greens demanded in return for supporting Labor - even though they should have supported the CPRS in 2009 - but rather the scheme's design features.

Unable to secure agreement from the Greens on a national emissions target, Labor had to agree to a compromise - a three-year fixed price. The Greens also set their sights on a high price - up to $40. With the talks set to collapse, Labor eventually agreed to $23. In hindsight, that high price along with the three year fixed price period made it much more difficult to sell publicly.

Now I hear the objections.

"But we need a high price on carbon, if we are to bring on more renewable energy, replace fossil fuels and urgently tackle climate change".

However, it is not the price today or next year or the year after  that which will determine investment in renewables in the long term. Rather, it is the long-term price trajectory and guess what ? We don't have one now.

A far smarter approach politically would have been to start with a much lower price and then leave it to the Climate Change Authority to set targets and a long-term emission trajectory.

But as usual, the Greens went for the policy perfect rather than make compromises that may have seen a more durable scheme. 

However, more importantly,  the Greens went for the short-term political win in order to wave around a high starting price for the gratification of ill-informed supporters.

As a result, we now have a scheme that goes from $24.15 to zero next July and a Coalition Government in power for the foreseeable future. Good job.

But not content with lumbering Labor with a carbon scheme that was electoral poison, the Greens then waited for the most politically opportune movement to shaft Gillard.

Sensing the political tsunami awaiting in September - that they helped create - the Greens then pulled then pin on the coalition agreement and sunk the boot into Labor, which was already lying in a battered foetal position on the floor.

Milne portrayed the decision as one of principle but her speech to the National Press Club couldn't disguise what was a deeply political strategy of brand differentiation to again win support from disaffected left Labor voters.

But it counted for little.  Voters didn't buy it - the Greens fell to their lowest vote since 2004. They achieved 342,000 fewer first preference votes in the lower house, a swing against it of 3.2 per cent. In the Senate, the national swing against it was 4.5 per cent – in the party’s homeland state, Tasmania, the Green vote fell by more than 8.5 per cent.

By a stroke of luck and a smelly preference deal with the very man who epitomises everything they profess to stand against, the Greens managed to scrape back with the loss of at most only one Senate seat. However, if the vote is replicated at the next election, they are likely to face a rout in the Senate.

In the wash up from the election, former Greens campaign manager Vincent McMahon put the Greens problem best.

"At issue is whether to be a party of protest or to have broader appeal. The former consigns the Greens to minor-party status," McMahon said.

"If the Greens broaden their appeal and display a maturity to move beyond being a party of protest, they can rebuild voter trust and become a third force."

On cue, McMahon's analysis met with howls of protest. But McMahon is spot on: every time the Greens define themselves by who they are not - Labor - they lose the opportunity to define their own agenda.

However, the Greens have not learned their lesson and they are back to their old tricks in parliament; playing the short-term political game and eschewing a smarter long-term agenda.

Last week, the Greens voted in the Senate with the Coalition to prevent an inquiry into the repeal of the carbon bills and force a vote much sooner on the legislation. Given the complex transitional issues for business associated with the repeal of the carbon price, an inquiry makes sense. But Milne is unmoved.

"The reason the Greens will not be supporting an inquiry into the current legislation is that we do not want to avoid a vote on this. It is time to take it straight up to the coalition government. It is time to say: this legislation is working. We are not going to cast doubt; there is going to be no equivocation on this."

To the barricades comrades and damn the logic ! Bringing the vote forward achieves nothing; even if Labor and the Greens block the legislation, it will still probably pass after June.

But the short-term political logic of the move is obvious - Labor is internally divided over whether to block the carbon repeal legislation and the Greens stategy is designed to embarrass Bill Shorten. If Shorten can prevent a vote being taken until after July 1, Labor's vote in the Senate will no longer be needed. However, Milne won't let the opportunity pass to score points and wedge Labor.

"Now is not the time to delay or equivocate," Milne said.

"Labor have back-flipped on global warming so many times already, and now they want a delay so they're not forced to vote down Mr Abbott's bad policy."

However, there is considerable risk in the Greens strategy. Labor could block the repeal legislation on the first occasion and then buckle under extreme pressure from business to pass the Bill before 1 July.  Alternatively, Labor could block the repeal bills twice and hand Abbott a Double Dissolution trigger. In the ensuing election, Labor and the Greens could then be wiped out and even more right-wing minor party senators elected

Either way, another classic Greens rat...k.