Greens bound by church-like vows of fidelity to Labor.

By Lyle Dunne

I don’t know whether it’s because the definition of marriage has been debated so much lately, including by the participants, but the marriage/divorce metaphor has proven irresistible to commentators on the Labor-Greens split – and especially to cartoonists.

This is understandable, but such analogies can only take us so far. In particular, it’s more of a short-term cohabitation, or “marriage of convenience” than a real marriage. There’s also an element of theatre. It’s claimed Hollywood stars contract sham marriages and divorces to enhance and manipulate their image. And politics, as the Americans put it, cruelly but memorably, is “showbiz for ugly people”.

So is this a case of divorce Hollywood style?

Well, the relationship is a complex one. There are policy similarities, especially with the ALP Left — but huge cultural differences. It’s not simply a case of pragmatism vs principle: the Greens, as Gillard has said, are a party of protest, and there is little electoral mileage for them in cooperating with any government. And of course they’re in competition, often for the same ecological niche.

Thus despite no longer needing to compromise with the Greens on policy, the ALP is persisting with, for example, its plan for new anti-discrimination laws that chip away at the exemptions for religious organisations.

Sham divorce?

I’ve written before about Labor’s faux friendship and faux fights with the Greens, arguing that Labor was seeking to distance itself from the Greens, but not to the extent of provoking them to jump ship. In this they seem now to have succeeded utterly: Milne has claimed the relationship is at an end, but said she would continue to maintain supply, and to support Labor in no-confidence motions.

This led a number of cynical commentators to conclude the announced split was phony — a bit like divorcing one’s spouse to claim a higher pension, while continuing to share a bed – and that it was mutually beneficial: each party could go into the election unsullied by accusations that they’d compromised their principles by getting into bed with the other.

Milne’s “It’s not me, it’s you” response was priceless: she wasn’t walking away from the agreement, she would continue to honour her end of the bargain, she was merely noting  — more in sorrow than in anger — that Labor had failed to keep up their end, what with their carryings-on with that brazen Jezebel, the Mining Industry.

In fact this may simply reflect the political realities – and the limits of the analogy. In this modern era, the betrayed spouse would be comforted by friends and family with “never mind dear, there’s lots more fish in the sea”.

But the Federal Parliament is a three-fish sea. However much the ALP and Greens may dislike each other, neither has anywhere else to go. There’s no chance of the Greens supporting Abbott – and the idea of Gillard rejecting the Greens’ support would be ludicrous, even had there not been a symbolic separation. But does anyone doubt that they’d jump straight back into bed together after the election if this were necessary (and, less plausibly, sufficient) to secure government?

The Federal Parliament is a three-fish sea.

Incidentally, it may say something about our media that no-one seems to have noticed: “What, you mean whatever they do? You mean there is no level of corruption or malfeasance that would cause you to waver in your support?”

The relationship may be something less than “marriage-like”, but this seems to go well beyond “in sickness and in health”.

In fact, given Labor’s recent history, this may almost literally be a Get-out-of-jail-free card.

But this points up one of the difficulties with modern marriage: “till death do us part” vows don’t mean much in an era of easy divorce.

The Greens’ pledges of unconditional support would be seen to have been meaningless if they could be repudiated with a unilateral “I divorce thee, I divorce thee, I divorce thee” on the transparent grounds that an election was looming – or, if not actually looming, at least visible on the horizon, like the crystalline tip of a distant iceberg.

Hence this balancing act, with Greens trying to keep faith with their supporters while trying to appear as men and women (and trans- and intersex persons) of their word.

Milne is in the position of someone with a church-sanctioned separation from a violent drunken spouse, who nonetheless remains bound by their vows of fidelity, or at least exclusivity.

Well might one ask, with Tina Turner, “What’s Love got to do, got to do with it?”

Big bad miners

This is all designed to remove distractions, and allow the Greens to focus on the simple message “Mining is Bad”. A party whose message is essentially negative needs a large and powerful villain: “four legs good, two legs bad, wheels and tracks even worse”.

At least they don’t face the coalition’s “target-rich environment” dilemma in relation to the Minerals Resources Rent Tax (MRRT): should they attack it as oppressive, or as ineffective?

Amazingly, it seems to be both – as iron ore magnate Andrew Forrest pointed out, it’s potentially crushing, but has “a build-in tax shield” for the largest miners via its depreciation provisions. Forrest was vilified by Treasurer Wayne Swan, who told him “If you don’t like it you can take your state and secede”.

John Murray, a partner in accounting firm BDO, was accused by Swan of “substantial errors” and “distorting the public debate” in his predictions of revenue from the MRRT – forecasts which have now been proven substantially correct.

Andrew Wilkie has apologised to Forrest, but Swan has apologised to nobody. Perhaps their only hope for an apology might be a Rudd takeover.

I’m only half joking here: this scenario may be surreal, but it’s not impossible.

Rudd’s denials, couched in terms of “chill” metaphors that are now approaching absolute zero faster than Gillard’s approval ratings, can of course be discounted: it’s almost expected for leadership aspirants to renounce such ambitions until the strategically opportune moment.

And it’s possible that some in the ALP might prefer the ignominy of a Rudd return to the increasing certainty of losing their seats and livelihoods – especially if they could be reasonably assured that Rudd would lose the election less convincingly than Gillard, but still lose, and thus be able to be quietly removed after the election.

It might be damage control at the macro level, but for the frontline MP – well, the electoral pendulum may not concentrate the mind quite as well as the hangman’s noose, but it would run a close second.

Meanwhile I note that Murray is now  “working as a consultant to a Perth bible college”, so perhaps he’s decided to forgive and forget, rather than pursuing legal redress, or a career in politics.