So the federal government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme was voted down today, with all non-government senators voting to block it.
It appears clear that this bill will return later this year, with two weeks of sitting in late November presenting an opportunity. In order to become a double dissolution trigger, there needs to be a gap of three months between the bill being defeated. The first possible date is November 16, with Parliament sitting for the two weeks following, with the last sitting day of the year being November 26.
First of all, it’s worth pointing out that any double dissolution triggered by the blocking of the CPRS literally cannot happen this year. The minimum length of a federal election campaign is 33 days. If the CPRS is blocked in the first of those two November sitting weeks, the earliest possible election day if a DD is called immediately would be Boxing Day. It’s safe to say that this would not be possible, and the earliest possible election would probably be in February, with March being much more likely. This would avoid the possible problem of a DD being called before the NSW and Queensland redistributions conclude in December. Of course, a double dissolution could be called on another bill. This doesn’t even get into all the reasons the Rudd government may not want to use any trigger it gains.
In terms of the consideration of the legislation in November, we have to consider the positions of both major parties. At the moment Malcolm Turnbull’s strategy appears to be to avoid a double dissolution trigger at any cost, which would suggest that they will do all they can to agree in November. There is still a strong chance, however, that this strategy could change. The party room could force a ‘no CPRS’ position on Turnbull, or the leadership could even shift to a more hard-line figure. In addition, you would have to think Turnbull would hope to achieve some minor policy concessions from the government in exchange for support. If the government refuses to budge at all, would Turnbull still acquiesce? Could his leadership survive such a backdown?
On the other side, the question is how far the Government is willing to move in order to get the CPRS passed. While I’m sure they would love to pass the CPRS, it is surely a secondary consideration to their political interest in damaging Malcolm Turnbull. In the case where Turnbull blocks a CPRS the second time, I tend to think Rudd’s greater credibility on climate change will allow him to paint Turnbull as backward and use it to beat him over the head. Plus I’m sure the ALP would love to have a DD trigger, whether they plan to use it or not. In the case that they wish to call a double dissolution, Rudd would need to politically justify his calling an early election. It’s much more justifiable to argue the need for clear climate policy, rather than calling an election over the Ruddbank or other mundane legislation.
The other perspective of interest is those of the Greens and those environment groups who oppose the CPRS for being too weak and ‘locking in failure’. The Greens have followed up the ‘no’ vote with a letter to Kevin Rudd calling for new negotiations on a higher target and a tighter scheme. The problem is that there simply are not the votes in the Senate for the Labor Party and the Greens to do a deal on a stronger climate policy than the current CPRS, even if Labor showed any willingness to strengthen its position.
As long Steven Fielding remains in the Senate, there is no way the Rudd government could craft legislation to satisfy both Fielding and the Greens. No Liberal opposition is going to produce a compromise that would strengthen the CPRS, and there is seemingly no Coalition senator willing to cross the floor and give a Labor-Greens-Xenophon coalition the numbers it would need to pass something stronger.
The Greens position is good, and is important in the framing of the debate. The Greens need to convince the public, particularly those concerned about climate change who are swinging between Labor and the Greens, that they are doing the right thing, and that the CPRS is so bad that it is better to have nothing.
However, all of that campaigning will come to naught in the current Senate. The numbers simply aren’t there. There are only two options to achieve any sort of climate policy that improves on the CPRS: wait until a new Senate comes into office in July 2011, which would probably see the defeat of Steven Fielding and the Greens taking the balance of power, or somehow push the government into a double dissolution, which would see a similar result much sooner.
Unless the climate movement is willing to just sit around and wait 23 months for any sort of action, the only option is to do all it can to push for a double dissolution. How do they do that? I don’t know. But it would be useful to see some environment groups come out and clearly call on Rudd to call an early election on the issue. The Greens can’t do that yet. They need to be seen to be cooperative and trying to create a functional Senate. But environment groups could be doing that now, and particularly as we head into November.
A climate change election. Really a climate change election, not just one more issue in the mix of workchoices etc. That would certainly be very, very interesting to watch.
Excellent commentary Ben. If Labor had (or still does) come up with a stronger scheme that the Greens and Xenophon were locked in behind, and which got the full weight of public support from the environment movement and others, I tend to think it’s not impossible that this full weight of across the board support could’ve at least convinced one coalition Senator to cross the floor, for the good of the country/planet. Labor’s dismal failure on this has been to craft a scheme so crappy that it’s only supported by people who are determined to have something rather than nothing, regardless of what that something is, so there just aren’t enough people willing to fight for it.
And I hope everyone is reminding Labor that the reason Fielding is there in the first place is that they didn’t want the Greens winning that seat.
Thanks for clearing up a lot of uncertainty, Ben. It’s a great post.
To just be certain, if the legislation was voted down between Thu 12 Nov and Mon 16 Nov, that wouldn’t fulfill the required 3 months and 33 days to allow for a DD election on 19th December?
I would love a climate change election, it’d be the most interesting thing to have happened in Australian politics since the GST election.
I think it probably would be fine, I’m not sure how the 3 months is exactly calculated. But Parliament isn’t sitting until November 16, and in practice nothing really happens on a Monday.
A DD on climate change in late February in late February or early March after a hot, dry summer could work out really well for the Government (even if everyone staffing the polling booths hates them
).
I disagree with Ben on the Greens Senators’ letter. I think it is weak because it reflects the fact they have backed themselves into a corner on emissions trading.
Since 2007 the Greens have tied ourselves to some form of cap & trade to curb emissions and now we are effectively saying “but this cap & trade scheme is not just not good enough, it’s so bad it’s irretrievable… except, er, we want to retrieve it”.
Yet the very problems the Senators identify with the CPRS in the letter are not simply products of political distortion of a “pure” and effective system, but flow from the choice of cap & trade as governments’ alleged solution to the problem.
If you leave something to market mechanisms, the most powerful players will always be in the best position to use it to their advantage. And governments tend to want to keep the most powerful players happy. The politics flows from Rudd and Wong’s priority: keep the big polluters on side.
Surely it would be better to start with how emissions can be reduced and implement those solutions (mass investment in renewable energy, closing down the coal industry, large scale cheap public transport, etc, etc). Instead, devotees of cap & trade approach the problem by advocating the creation of a complex, easily exploited and non-transparent market process that sets the level of emissions but provides no specific guidance on how to reduce them. Leave it to the market to fix the “greatest market failure in history”!
Now the Greens Senators are in the invidious position of having advocated cap & trade when it is becoming obvious that the whole thing is a crock. But being unable to really break from it means that the demands they raise for changes to the scheme risk giving it respectability it doesn’t deserve, because it looks like it just needs some tweaking. Their arguments miss the point that cap & trade is all about governments being seen to act while not really doing much at all.
Equally problematic is their invocation of “complementary measures”. These basic things, massively short of what is really needed to transform the economy into a carbon-neutral one, are effectively marginalised because they are seen as “complementary” to the main game (an ETS). It’s precisely the wrong way around—positive economic change (i.e. investment in renewables) should be primary and an ETS at best “complementary”.
Apart from this political weakness on the Greens’ part, Rudd and Wong have one other huge advantage if the argument is over an ETS—hardly anyone understands the damn thing. So they can appear to be doing something and most people will find it hard to understand the detail over which the Greens are arguing, even if in their guts they suspect Bob & Christine must be right because they have runs on the board.
I know Wong has been pilloried a lot this week because she seems only concerned with wedging Turnbull and not any issues of substance. But most journalists have missed that she has wedged those to her left almost as effectively. And meanwhile the world burns…
Tad, you make some interesting points about how the Greens Senators have to a large extent accepted Labor’s framing of the debate.
The problem seems to be that cap & trade is the only option the government has on the table, or is likely to put on the table, so the acceptance of cap & trade is just a reflection of the political reality. However, having read the letter, I agree that its framing is not good. They should place more emphasis on the other measures, and certainly not repeat the labeling of them as ‘complementary’, rather than what they are doing which is basically accepting the government’s framing of the debate as the CPRS being the be-all and end-all of policies to tackle climate change. The media release does place more emphasis on the other measures, but the letter certainly supports the government’s framing. Personally I think the general position is probably ok, just requires a little tweaking.
Whatever happens with the CPRS I would like to see more debate about other measures that could be implemented to more directly reduce emissions, rather than the current situation where it seems all discussion on climate policy has become focused entirely on the CPRS. And I guess the other point to consider is that if you accept that it’s certain no CPRS will pass the current Senate without the support of the Coalition (or most of them at least), the Greens are basically irrelevant to the negotiations anyway, so would be better off taking a principled stand since they’re going to be sidelined regardless. Problem is that they can’t very well come out and acknowledge that publicly, they’ve got little choice but to continue emphasizing their willingness to negotiate (doesn’t mean the letter needs to so readily accept the government’s framing though).
My own view is that it would have been possible to “walk and chew gum at the same time”: to say that cap & trade is the worst of all possible approaches to climate change and then still fight hard for the best cap & trade system possible if that was all that was on the table.
And even if at first the media had no interest in hearing about how to transform the economy, the Senators could have emphasised that aspect at every meeting and rally, in every email and blog entry. But it is clear that the nature of the debate (and the hardening up of the grassroots climate action movement against the CPRS) has opened a space for different ideas. Look at GetUp’s latest campaign which is on precisely the need to transform the economy.
We have allowed ourselves to dim our horizons to not very far beyond those set by Rudd and Wong, and the Greens are disarmed at a key moment when people are asking big questions.
A very active Greens member I know expressed some similar sentiments to me earlier in the week. She told me that, particularly referring to Bob’s ad, she didn’t think the Greens were doing a very good job explaining exactly what they supported. She said she wanted to be able to tell people what the alternatives the Greens are proposing actually are, but she doesn’t really know what the Greens are supporting because the message isn’t clear enough.
Can I just add that what I thought Ben meant in saying that the Greens position is good was with reference to the opposition to the current CPRS vs supporting it as better than nothing.
Ultimately, I think the Greens are starting to feel the difficulties of being a balance of power party just as the Democrats did. If you’re not going to be in government any time soon, but are in a balance of power position, to what extent do you stick to your principles, or do you accept compromises in order to try and get some policies adopted? The Greens constantly criticised the Dems for being too compromising (quite legitimately in some instances), but now the shoe is on the other foot and the Greens are finding themselves in the same position, and making compromises.
There are two specific instances this year where I think the Greens haven’t handled their balance of power role very well. The first was the economic stimulus package, where I don’t think they took a tough enough stance. There was an opportunity to secure billions of dollars worth of investment in renewable energy, sustainable transport infrastructure, etc (things that would’ve contributed greatly to reducing our GHG emissions) rather than having those billions spend on cash payments of questionable benefit, but all they did was get the size of the payment down by $50. Couldn’t they have at least got the payments down to $600 or $700, with the savings redirected as suggested? Secondly was the Fair Work Bill, where I was astounded in watching the Senate debate to hear Brown and Siewert both arguing that the bill should be supported, despite the fact that it didn’t include everything the Greens were asking for, because the government ‘had a mandate’ to implement its policy (GST anyone?). I’m sorry, but the argument should’ve been that it was an improvement on the status quo, not anything about ‘mandates’. Even if you accept the idea of mandates, Labor clearly did not win one since they didn’t win a majority in the Senate! The Greens arguably won an equal mandate to pursue their policies through the proportion of the Senate vote they received. To argue Labor had a ‘mandate’ is to consign yourselves to irrelevance. I was appalled.
Hey, some of you folks might have some ideas on this question that’s really been bugging me. Why did they call it a ‘Carbon Pollution’ Reduction Scheme?
Why didn’t they call it a ‘Greenhouse Emissions Reduction Scheme’ or a ‘Climate Protection Scheme’ or ‘Global Warming Prevention Scheme’, etc, etc. Why the phrase ‘carbon pollution’, which is also being echoed in NSW Government advertising, and which isn’t really scientifically accurate?
We all know the language isn’t chosen by accident, they’ve got teams os spin doctors to devise this stuff, and it would’ve been focus group tested and the whole deal. Most of you are no doubt familiar with the infamous Frank Luntz memo that advised American conservatives to talk about ‘climate change’ rather than ‘global warming’ because focus groups found ‘climate change’ less scary, and having read George Lakoff’s books I understand the significance that the choice of language can have on the way people see an issue, so it got me thinking, what is the significance of the choice of the phrase ‘carbon pollution’? What does ‘carbon pollution’ mean to people and what thoughts does it invoke? The cynic in me even wonders if, since it presumably focuses thoughts on carbon dioxide, it is actually intended to assist skeptics by opening the door for someone to copy those crazy ads that’ve been run in the US talking about how perfectly natural and wonderful carbon dioxide is.
The point is, the phrase ‘carbon pollution’ has obviously been chosen for a reason. I don’t know what that reason is, does anyone else have any thoughts?
Ben, hope you don’t mind me hijacking your blog to ask this question.
I reckon it is because they want people to feel like this is just another pollution problem that can be handled with simple anti-pollution methods, which seems easy and non-threatening. For big business it sounds like minimal fuss (they’ve had to deal with pollution restraints before) and for those who want action it seems like small changes (which is all Rudd and Wong really offer) will be enough.
Nordhaus & Shellenberger convincingly argue that environmentalists have been suckered into seeing climate change as just another pollution problem whereas in fact carbon-based energy is at the heart of the entire industrial system. So the kinds of transformations that are needed go beyond simple regulations and into the realm of massive changes to the way the economy is run.
They argue that the environment movement is kidding itself when it says the move to renewables will be cheap and simple, and so the private sector won’t take the risks of making it happen. Therefore, massive government intervention is needed to (a) develop and innovate renewable technologies on a large scale and (b) thereby create efficiencies that will make such technology cheaper over time.
N&S are Keynesians who support the private sector, but on the basic point of how renewable technologies can supplant carbon emitters, their argument is sound.
N&S reference: http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/516/Emerging-Consensus.pdf
Ah yes, it does seem ‘carbon pollution’ is an attempt to downplay the seriousness of what we’re dealing with. ‘Pollution’ is something other people cause (not governments), and which governments can address through simple regulatory measures, tax incentives, etc, not something which requires active, large-scale action and investment from the public sector, and they are only talking ‘Pollution Reduction’ after all. ‘Pollution’ does seem to be the keyword, and whilst it may appear they’re on the right track because ‘pollution’ is something bad which nobody likes, it is also something which can be handled with simple measures as you observe, so governments can obfuscate their responsibilities to take more serious steps. Thanks.
I’ve certainly always believed that the transition to a low carbon economy can’t possibly be simply left to the private sector, it must involve significant public sector investment and leadership. And I say that as someone who usually finds my views to be more moderate than the average environmentalist. I’m ideologically generally content with market capitalism, appropriately regulated of course, but firmly believe that there are proper and legitimate roles governments must play to serve the public good.
Hey Ben, do you folks have some material (such as draft motions, background notes, talking points) on what you’re looking to get councils to support? If you’ve got stuff like that you want to send me I can pass it on to some councillors I know and may be able to get 2-3 councils to support it if you’d like.
Hey Nick,
We are planning to put together a draft motion and some information for councils all around the state. I’ll pass them onto you when ready.
No worries.
Of course if you want to lobby Crs directly I can just advise on who the best ones to approach are for the councils in my area and the best ways to approach them.
Who the hell would want to lobby for a CPRS.
A massive tax grab or our fixed income earners, pensioners, small business and small farmers. I thought the Democrats would have learnt from the GST. Seems as though they havent and will push further misery on the the population. A Tax that will achieve absolutely nothing.
For once why dont the Democrats behave like a centrist party and at least attempt to swing in from the extreme left.
If you’re referring to my immediately previous comments we weren’t discussing the CPRS in general, but something specific that Ben is working on in his day job.
Oh, and since you’re clearly not reading anything here in much detail can I spell it out for you that we aren’t Democrats and have actually been ruthlessly bagging them. I was one once, but Ben, being smarter than me, has nothing to do with them.
It’s not that I’m smarter than you, so much as I’m younger than you (I think).
Yes, if I was your age I would never have joined the Dems, but you’re probably smarter than me anyway. Just those extra couple of years of remembering the Dems having credibility made me think they could regain it, as they had after their support plunged in 1993.
Actually Ben I should clarify that. I’m actually 27 tomorrow, but I don’t know exactly how old you are, I just remember from seeing your name around the place a fair bit over the years and your name sounding familiar from your previous candidacies that at some stage I read something from one of your candidacies and recall noting that you were about 3 or 4 years younger than me – then I’ve subsequently remembered your name having taken note of you as a young candidate. I’m assuming above that I remembered your age correctly.