Australia’s Emissions Trading Legislation Political Football
Posted by TonyfromOz on 11/10/2009
With all the talk currently about the massive Health Care Bill, those other 2 Bills regarding the ‘perceived’ threat of Carbon Dioxide emissions may slide a little into the background. We need reminding that just because they are not at the forefront of the news, they are still important. Those two Bills, the Waxman Markey sponsored Bill in the House, and the Kerry Boxer Bill in the Senate may not be getting much in the way of news currently, but the importance attached to them still remains current, and while media attention focuses on the Health Care Bill, we still need to keep our eyes on the ball with respect to these Carbon Cap and Trade (Tax) Bills.
Australian Senator Barnaby Joyce (LNP-QLD)
Here in Australia, we have a similar Bill. It’s called the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. (CPRS) The name of the Bill is in itself anachronistic.
‘Carbon Pollution’
It’s another example of Government misdirection, using the language to ‘con’ the public, in effect trying to paint them as stupid, the thought being of how could anyone oppose something that has such a pure intent, and that the Carbon they mention in that title as pollution is Carbon Dioxide, a tiny trace gas in the Atmosphere, essential for all life here on Earth.
Currently, the CPRS Bill has become more of a political tool, and really has nothing at all to do with the Environment. That political situation is complex, and needs some explanation of the background.
The current Government is from the Labor side of politics, and for reference, this Party is from the Left, and in the U.S. the party with similar views is the Democratic Party.
The former Government was from the Conservative side of politics, and was a coalition of two similar parties, the Liberal Party and the National Party. Where I say the word Liberal here, don’t be confused, because in the U.S. that word liberal is associated with the Left, and the Democrats, while here in Australia, the Liberal Party is the main Conservative Party, and has similar views to the Republicans in the U.S. Unlike the U.S. where you have dedicated 4 year terms, here in Australia, the Government is loosely tied to 3 year terms, that 3 years being the maximum with a little leeway over that allowed. However, The Government can effectively choose the time to go to the people at any time during those three years, by calling for an early election, and this in fact has happened on numerous occasions in the past.
 |
| Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and his Deputy Julia Gillard. |
Currently the Labor Government has control of the main House of Representatives where they have quite a large majority of sitting members. There are 150 members and Labor currently has 83 of those members. The (Conservative) Coalition has 55 Liberal members and 9 from the National Party, and there are 3 Independents. The Senate however is different. Senators are elected for a six year term. At a constituted Federal Election, all members from the Representatives are up for re-election, and half the Senators are up for re-election. This is a good system in that it negates in a way the possibility of one Party which is popular at the time of the election not winning outright control of both the full houses, thus effectively making the Senate a virtual ‘rubber stamp’. Hence, only half the Senators are up for election, and if the Senate is balanced, then the Party that gains a majority of that popular vote will still not have complete control of the Senate. The main States have a complement of 10 Senators, and at each election 5 Senators are elected from each of those main States. The Senate has a total complement of 76, and currently the Labor Government has 32 Senators. The Liberal Party also has 32 and their Coalition partners, the National Party have 4 Senators. There are 5 Greens, and also 3 other Senators from minor parties and Independents. So While Labor has 32 Senators, there are in effect 44 Non Labor Senators, so while the Labor Government controls the lower House, they do not have that control in the Senate. As a matter of interest, voting in Australia is compulsory for all persons over the age of 18, and not an optional thing as it is in the U.S.
So, why has the CPRS Bill become a political tool?
Following the 2007 election when Labor took office, they then proceeded to draw up and to introduce legislation for their plank that they ran on. One of those pieces of Legislation was this CPRS. That Bill was introduced into the House of Representatives, and underwent some fierce debate, all of which was a little academic really, because with the numbers, it was certain to pass through that House.
When the Bill reached the Senate however, it was an entirely different thing altogether. It was roundly opposed by the Non Labor side of the Senate. The Liberal and National Senators opposed it for their reasons, mainly that it was an iniquitous new tax passed directly to the people, that it was a job destroyer, exporting Australian jobs to what are deemed Developing Countries, in the main China, and that it was counter productive for the farming and grazing community in regional Australia. The Greens opposed it because they said it didn’t go far enough, and the Independents opposed it for their own reasons. There was again fierce and quite long debate, and the Bill was put out to Committee as well. Labor was always going to have trouble with the numbers stacked against it, and the Bill was voted down when it did come to a vote.
That however was not the end of it. The Bill was sent back to the lower House. The intent was that it would undergo a phase of Amendment where non Labor parties might add amendments to make the Bill more acceptable to the Senate, well, hopefully anyway.
The Labor Government has made great play in calling for these amendments, in good faith they say. They keep pressing the line that the Conservative side of the fence has no real policy on the matter. Again that is more spin than anything, because it is the Government who sets policy, not the Opposition. If the Opposition was to attempt to introduce policy, the Government would not just say, “well, okay, we’ll do that then.” No Governments set policy not Oppositions, so that is patently just out and out spin on their part, and aimed specifically for the media, which, as in the U.S. leans also to the left.
They have called for amendments and say that they will consider them. Again that is also spin. because the two sides are diametrically opposed on some parts of the legislation, there is no way known they will even consider approving those amendments, be they from the Conservative Coalition, the Greens or the Independents. There are already rumblings from the Government that those amendments are not being done in good faith, which is just Government code for ‘They can propose whatever they want to. We’re not going to accept them anyway’.
So, after this process, the Bill will go back to House of Representatives for debate, Committee, and then a vote, and I can tell you now what the result of that vote will be. It will be passed easily on the Government numbers where they have that considerable majority.
Then, the Bill will be sent back to the Senate for another round. This is where it gets a little complicated now, and again I need to offer some explanation.
If a Bill has been rejected twice by the Senate, that provides the Government with a trigger for a Double Dissolution election. This means that all members in the Lower House come up for re-election, and instead of half the Senate, a Double Dissolution means that ALL senators come up for election.
What this then means is that the Party riding high in the popularity stakes when the election is called has the distinct probability of comfortably winning both the House and the Senate. This effectively means that the Senate then does become just that rubber stamp, and at the next election when it reverts back to a half Senate election, then the incumbent Government would still hold a comfortable majority in the Senate even if things do go against them. What it most effectively accomplishes is that it cements control in the Senate for one side of politics. They can then safely gain passage for whatever they want, no matter how good or bad it is, and no matter what the public thinks. They are in effect entrenching their own Party into the Senate. Not looking after the interests of the people or the Country, but strengthening their own political power, only looking out for themselves.
So then, let’s go back now to the CPRS Bill.
The Government is ’subliminally’ threatening a Double Dissolution election if this Bill fails in the Senate. They tell us that this Bill just HAS to be passed prior to the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference.
So let’s put it into the context of that trigger for a Double Dissolution election. There are 27 days until that Conference in Copenhagen, three weeks.
This CPRS Bill is in the amendment phase right now. After that it will go to the House for Debate etc and that rubber stamp vote in that House. Then it will be sent to the Senate where that procedural process will again be carried out. If it fails there again, and that is highly likely, then the Government has its trigger. It calls the Double Dissolution election, and this will mean at the shortest, a sharp two week snap campaign. After the election, the Government then has to be legally constituted. Then the Government has to convene in both Houses and go through the whole process again, taking the new Bill before both houses. This will take considerably longer than the three week lead up to Copenhagen.
So the Government has cynically used this CPRS Bill, not for the sake of the Environment which it so often tells us at interminable length, but in an effort to find a way to strengthen their own power.
This is the single most disgusting abuse of power that could ever be imagined.
 |
| Senator Penny Wong, Australian Government Minister for Climate Change and Water. To hide the Thumbnails, click on the white arrow on the right. |
All the indicators are that the Minister for Climate Change, Senator Penny Wong is angling directly for just this purpose. She is saying all the right things for the benefit of the media, things like ‘we are listening’, ‘we are working together’, ‘we are trying to find an amicable solution’, ‘we are listening to their proposals’. However, in the same breath, small snippets are coming out like ‘they are not really serious’, ‘we can’t agree with some points’, and on it goes. All this is just code for ‘Who cares what they propose. We’re the Government, and we’ll do what WE want’.
They’ll send the New Revised Bill to the House, who will knock the amendments on the head, after debate, committee, and a vote, and then send it to the Senate, who will reject it again, thus giving them their desired trigger, and then saying that it was not their fault, and that this was forced on them. It is patently transparent for all to see just what is happening.
DO NOT TRY AND TELL ME THIS IS FOR THE SAKE OF THE ENVIRONMENT.
That same Senator Wong with the help of her minions in the government funded media network, the ABC, are actively seeking to marginalise those non Labor members, branding them with the epithets of sceptics and deniers.
One of those non Labor Senators actively arguing against passage of this iniquitous Bill is Senator Barnaby Joyce from my home State of Queensland. He is one of those who actively oppose the Government on this matter, and is not afraid to come out and say so, and to be seen saying so. His is one voice among a growing chorus of non Labor politicians who are lining up against passage of this Bill.
Senator Joyce has in fact implemented an online petition where Australians can voice their opposition to this horrendous new tax that is passed off in the guise of a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. That petition is currently in the process of going ‘viral’, and has literally thousands of entries in the short time it has been posted. Here is the link to that petition, so you can see for yourself.
For some background on Senator Joyce, take this link to this earlier post where I did some background on him, and this is the link to his home page and this link is for his Bio.
So, in Australia, just like in the U.S. the passage of a Bill to place a Cap and Trade Tax on Carbon Dioxide emissions has very little, if anything at all to do with the Environment. It’s just for the sake of politics and the money that can be made from it.
