The failure so far of the Rudd Government's emissions trading scheme legislation is a political case study that should make us pause to consider how well our political institutions work.
Dealing constructively with extremely divergent views is very difficult in any circumstance. So it is not surprising, therefore, that it is not something our parliamentary system deals with effectively. This can be seen in the dysfunctional way in which the debate has been conducted by the political parties and by the Parliament.
The problem is that the range of opinion on the emissions trading scheme is just too great. The gulf between the sides is so large that it is probably beyond bridging.
Within Parliament on this issue, the four parties are spread thinly across a long continuum from the Greens on the far left and Labor on the centre left to the Liberals on the centre right and the Nationals on the far right. On the right on this issue Senator Nick Xenophon is somewhere between the Liberals and the Nationals, and Senator Steve Fielding is to the right of the Nationals. That in itself shows the difficulty facing the Government as, without the support of the Coalition parties, it needs seven Senate votes from the Greens on the far left, Fielding on the far right and Xenophon closer to the centre right. It is an impossible task for the Government, short of achieving a majority in a joint sitting of the two houses following a double dissolution election in which Labor is successful. But even this complex picture of extremely divergent views is far from the full picture. We know that the two major parties themselves are divided internally. Within the Greens there are fundamentalists and realists. Within Labor, there is a green Labor tendency whose deepest convictions on the scheme lie closer to the Greens than to their own Government. Just look at the blame that has been unfairly heaped on Peter Garrett for allegedly not sticking up for his convictions. Within the Liberals there are deep splits, too. Malcolm Turnbull is close to the centre and so might be his environment spokesperson Greg Hunt. Tony Abbott says he is a pragmatist and would pass the Bill regardless of its merits. Senator Bill Heffernan, another pragmatist, wants to support farmers. There are other Liberal leaders, like Senator Nick Minchin who are deeply sceptical, and further right again there are some MPs, like Wilson Tuckey, who deny there is a problem at all and will do all in his power, even challenge his leader, to avoid any accommodation on the issue.
Xenophon, the independent, is probably closest to the green Liberals and close to the centre of the whole Parliament. He and Turnbull have co-sponsored alternative research. The divisions within the Nationals are not obvious. Joyce has been taking a no-compromise position and no one is challenging him within his party. But surely some Nationals would be willing to compromise if the very Coalition itself was threatened. Fielding is with Joyce. He has linked himself to dissenting scientists and attempted to take a conservative lead within the debate in so far as his resources will allow.
The outcome so far has been gridlock. The Government has not covered itself in glory by any means. However, it has tried to put together a compromise package that will be acceptable to its own diverse constituencies, such as environmentalists and trade unionists. It has also tried to reach out to parts of the business community and to offer concessions to those industries that would be hardest hit. It has tried to take advice from the scientific community and it has commissioned its own inquiry by Professor Ross Garnaut.
Some middle ground may be reached over the next month or two. It may be that questions of goals and timing might provide some room to manoeuvre for the major party leaders. At great risk to his leadership, but perhaps to his long-term political gain, Turnbull might just convince a majority of his party to agree on some workable amendments that might not only improve the existing legislation but gain Government support.
This would have to occur in a situation where the Climate Change Minister, Senator Penny Wong, has described the difference between the competing approaches as like the difference between tennis and golf. That's how far the two parties in the centre are apart. Kevin Rudd, despite the temptation to crash through in a double dissolution election, may decide that doing something is the preferable option.
The minor parties at the extremes are even further apart. The Greens represent taking a huge step and the Nationals represent taking no step at all. They can't just be dismissed as extremists, however. Between them, I suspect that the two minor parties speak for up to 25 per cent of the electorate on this issue.
The danger is that any future consensus outcome might be worse than useless. The middle ground is not necessarily the best place to be when the extremes are so far apart. A cautious step towards the scheme would leave a large group at both ends of public opinion dissatisfied. It will also leave a bad taste in the mouth of the majority caught in the middle bounded by Labor and a majority of the Liberals.
Politics may be the art of the possible. I regularly advocate seeking consensus, enduring negotiations and taking small steps that satisfy reasonable people in and around the centre. But in this case, what is possible ultimately may not be worth having.
John Warhurst is an adjunct professor of political science in the School of Social Sciences at the Australian National University.
John.Warhurst@anu.e du.au
Email a friend