It’s the understatement of the year to say the Liberals are in for a very difficult few months until the election, now Tony Abbott has assumed the party’s leadership by one vote (with one informal/abstain vote)
This was as much an ideological contest as a personality contest or one based predominantly on leadership skills. While it is nice to see a contest around policy and ideological arguments, rather than charisma or cuddliness, such a line ball result seems likely to entrench division rather than resolve it.
A single vote win makes it hard enough, but in the absence of anything else, a win is a win and can provide a chance to move forward. But….
A single vote win with one informal vote somewhat dilutes the definitive nature of the result.
A single vote win with one informal vote and two new people likely to be elected on the weekend to join to the Party Room is worse still.
A single vote win with one informal vote, two new ones set to join and one MP absent ill – who had been seen as a supporter of the losing side – all adds up to making the victory anything but definitive.
And hard times ahead for the Liberals.
Assuming there are not seven Liberals willing to cross the floor and pass the CPRS this week, there is likely to be a majority in the Senate to delay a vote on the legislation, as Steve Fielding has also called for a delay (surely once his wacky Royal Commission idea is quashed he’d support a Senate Committee inquiry as a fallback option) and Nick Xenophon’s past statements suggest he’d have the same view. While there are undoubtedly seven Liberal Senators who support passing the CPRS, I doubt they’d feel like causing more division at this stage.
There are differing views about whether delaying a vote on the CPRS legislation, including by referring it to a Senate Committee, constitutes a ‘failure to pass’ as required under the Constitution to provide a trigger for a double dissolution election. However, I think it is fairly clear it would give sufficient grounds for the government to argue the Senate has ‘failed to pass’ the legislation, which would enable them to successfully request the Governor-General for an election.
It is possible the High Court might think otherwise after the election, if the CPRS is subsequently passed by a joint sitting. But that would just negate the legislation, not the election.
That doesn’t mean the government will call an election on this. Just that they can. The Senate is due to resume on February 2 next year. Calling an election prior to that, so early in the year, is problematic.
But regardless of whether the election is called in January or October – or somewhere in between – it seems likely it will involve significant debate about climate change. Having a solid focus on this most important of issues throughout an election year can only be a good thing.
ELSEWHERE: There are far too many posts on this topic to list them all here. But among some of the good ones (including comments thread) are The Poll Bludger and Annabel Crabb at the ABC.
15 Comments
In the party of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
If nothing else, it’s going to be interesting watching Mr People Skills trying to get people to warm to him.
“…it seems likely it will involve significant debate about climate change…”
In order for their to be a debate, the imposing party needs to make a
“…it seems likely it will involve significant debate about climate change…”
In order for there to be a debate, the imposing party needs to make available all the information pertaining to the Bill, including the regulations and laws seeking to be passed; the costs of implementation and execution; the adminstrative bureacrcay that will be created and – ultimately – the benefits (cough) of imposing such a scheme, both on the economy AND the planet.
Are you honestly expecting us to believe Kevin and Penny will be forthcoming with this information?
Funny, I don’t remember getting anything like that about WorkChoices.
LOL – like the Australian Greens Party give a shit about the electoral health of the Liberal Party!
Most Peculiar Mama
You will find that information by following the link I have provided as can anyone else claiming that information in being withheld.
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/publications/cprs/green-paper/cprs-greenpaper.aspx
Can’t wait for the 2010 election outcome to see the smile wiped of AT and his lot.
What a bunch of nohopers.
Peter Phelps?!
WTF are you talking about? Where does this post mention the Greens?
You wouldn’t be the same wacky Peter Phelps that helped lose Gary Nairn his seat and regularly hung shit on other MPs and parties, even while you were supposed to be a responsible, ‘mature’ person in a chief-of-staff position for a series of Ministers?
These Libs are unreal they blindly bring in work choices get smashed at the election then they reckon that climate change is “crap” as there new almighty leader believes. As long as they keep pushing these extreme right wing policies they will be outta Government for a while yet….
BJ,
Your quaintly-named ‘Green’ Paper says NOTHING about the laws and regulations that governments (Federal, State and Local) will seek to impose on business and households to force compliance under an ETS.
The Queensland government has already started with its ridculous carbon footprint audit compulsory to effect a transfer of property ownership.
Show me the regulatory detail…not the ‘to-do’ wishlist of some deluded Senator and Canberra bureaucrat.
@ Sandra H – firstly, why don’t you use your full name you gutless wimp.
Secondly, who is the author of this article?
Thirdly, have you seen this in the news: http://andrewbartlett.com/?p=7325?
Make yourself a bit more informed about contemporary politics before you make a fool of yourself.
for information MPM in Britain Australia and other Commonwealth countries a Green paper is an offiicial discussion paper on an issue. concrete proopsals come later in White Papers.
Perhaps check facts before commenting, particularly on systems that are different to your own.
Dermot,
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt as it is quite clear you have read NEITHER the Green NOR the White CPRS Papers released by the Australian Government, none of which make ANY reference to the laws and regulations that governments (Federal, State and Local) will seek to impose on business and households to force compliance under an ETS.
I suggest you “check facts before commenting”.
Peter Phelps
The post doesn’t mention the Green Party, and the fact that the author is a member of the Green Party does not make it an official Green Party statement, position or viewpoint. I appreciate that independent thought is a foreign concept to you, but you’ll just have to trust me that such a thing does exist amongst many people in the reality based community,
If there are aspects of the post which you disagree with, why don’t you state them, instead of being a gutless wimp and hiding behind the standard Howard-era thuggery, smear and bully-boy tactics which you are infamous for.
Trying to attack the person rather than address the substance is the age old tactic of people who stand for nothing themselves. The article doesn’t even attack the Liberals, it just describes current events. The fact that the Liberals have been happy to employ someone like you in such senior positions for so long, even after having contributed significantly to bringing about the loss of an MP’s seat makes a far more negative statement about them than anything written in this article.
When it comes to making a fool of oneself, I have to humbly concede that you have demonstrated a far greater skill at such a thing than I could ever hope to match. I must say I admire the way you appear to do it so effortlessly, although no doubt you’ve had lots of practice.