KEVIN Rudd could solve the problem of the Coalition blocking
his emissions trading scheme bill in the Senate almost instantly by
simply agreeing to delay the vote from the end of November until the
beginning of February nextyear.
A relatively minor delay would kill much of the opposition in the
Liberal ranks and ensure the passage of his Carbon Pollution Reduction
Scheme bill, even if the Nationals split and continued to vote against
it.
Malcolm Turnbull believes he could easily find a workable majority for
an amended carbon emissions trading scheme among his back bench if the
Prime Minister simply agreed to hold the vote until after the
negotiations at the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen in
December, when the position of the rest of the world, including the
biggest emitters, China, the US and India, will be known.
The Opposition Leader's argument is that it is common sense to delay a
vote until we know what China and India will be prepared to commit on
targets for greenhouse gas emissions and where the US will stand, given
its own energy bill is still not through and it is not known in what
shape that bill will be if it does get through.
Turnbull is confident he could get agreement for an amended and delayed
bill and he would be happy to do so because he wants to support an ETS
himself and desperately wants to avoid a double-dissolution election
based on climate change.
At the bottom of Turnbull's assessment are two basic beliefs: Rudd
wants the opposition to knock off his CPRS bill because it is flawed
and Coalition opposition will spare him the pain of introducing a
scheme that will not work; and the Prime Minister wants a
double-dissolution election trigger on climate change so that he can
call an early election while the polls are still so strong and the
economy is on the mend after the global financial crisis.
His confidence in being able to get workable support for a delayed ETS
vote is well placed: much of the heat from Coalition backbenchers is
directed towards the timing of the vote, not its substance.
Indeed, Brendan Nelson, who supports an ETS of some sort, lost the
Liberal leadership and his political career over whether a vote in
Australia should be delayed until we could see what China and the US
were going to do.
But Turnbull's beliefs that Rudd really wants to have his bill blocked
for political reasons and then wants to go to the polls are wrong. It
is a miscalculation that is making his job harder and more dangerous.
The Turnbull argument that Australia should not legislate ahead of the
rest of the world, that we should not lead the world, is the exact
opposite of what Rudd wants.
It is a fundamental miscalculation to think Rudd does not really want
to lead the way on global warming; this is exactly what he wants.
His visit to New York this week has amply demonstrated that while he's
only too happy to use every bit of political pressure to achieve his
aim and to frighten Turnbull over the prospect of a double dissolution,
Rudd wants to take a legislated scheme to Copenhagen.
This is the real conflict at the heart of the debate over emissions
trading in Australia: it's not about detail - even the Government knows
it must amend the scheme and must compromise with the Liberals to get
its bill through the Senate - it's about whether we lead the world.
As an energy-rich nation with huge mineral and agricultural exports,
there may be an argument for waiting and seeing to preserve our
economic advantages, but that's not an argument the Prime Minister
accepts. After chairing a round-table discussion on climate change at
the UN in New York this week, standing in front of the serried flags of
the UN Security Council members where he longs to see an Australian
flag again, Rudd set forth his overarching reasons for wanting to
legislate an ETS.
He has said similar things many times before and some of it sounds like
overblown rhetoric, but this is what he said: "Climate change will hit
Australia hardest and will hit Australia earliest. Therefore, we need
national and global action now.
"Every time a nation delays, every time a nation puts up its hand and
says, 'It's all too hard', is a further excuse to put off the measures
we need to take to deal with the challenges for climate change for
Australia. Therefore, we cannot simply use those excuses any more.
"We must embark upon a considered course of national action and a
considered course of global action."
After praising the slight advances of China's position and damning the
lack of advance by US President Barack Obama by omission, Rudd again
appealed for his vision of a "grand bargain" between the developing and
developed economies.
On the specific question of why he wants to have the legislation passed
before the Copenhagen meeting and why he's demanding a commitment from
the opposition by October 20, Rudd enunciated the normal reasons of
business certainty and Australia's need to take to the negotiations at
Copenhagen a position that is solid and in law.
The argument about business certainty is weak, if not entirely
specious: a delay of two months during the Christmas holiday break for
a vote on a bill encapsulating a scheme whose planned implementation
has already been delayed for a year until 2011 is hardly going to wreck
business confidence. What's more, there will be continuing uncertainty
until after the Copenhagen conference because Australia's scheme may
have to be changed again to adapt to global agreements.
No, as Rudd has said, he wants to take a legislated scheme to
Copenhagen because he wants to lead the world on climate change and
wants to serve his full first term as Prime Minister without calling an
unpopular and unnecessary early election.
In the end he may be forced to delay a vote until February next year;
it doesn't affect any double-dissolution election scenario if he does.
But although he has that option, it's not what he wants.
Turnbull and his energy spokesman Ian Macfarlane responded to the
government's demands for the Coalition to meet an October 20 deadline
with finalised amendments by saying it was a political stunt, and
setting out the essential concern of most of the Coalition
recalcitrants about the timing of the passage of the legislation.
The Coalition is missing the point: the reason it's opposing the bill
is the reason Rudd wants it passed by November. It makes it much harder
for Turnbull, but that's what the Prime Minister really wants.
