They're back, and we've witnessed a massive waste of time in the Senate. After several weeks away from the national capital, politicians converged on Parliament House for the first sitting since the start of this financial year.
There was ''storm and tempest'', with the chamber temporarily plunged into darkness during bad weather.
Political forecasters expected Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull would face a deluge of criticism in the party room but the dark clouds gathering only produced a sprinkle.
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has survived a political storm over the OzCar scheme to support cash-strapped car dealers amid the global recession. The Opposition has been caught outside without an umbrella, with their handling of the affair referred to the Senate Privileges Committee for investigation.
But plans for the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme have loomed largest on the political radar this week. Yesterday the Senate rejected a package of 11 bills to establish the centerpiece of Australia's plan to tackle climate change.
It was a colossal waste of time for the Upper House groaning under its legislative load. The Government never had the numbers to pass the bills and this has been abundantly clear all week. So why bring on the vote?
There are several possible reasons. A bid to again highlight the major cracks within the Coalition over the emissions trading issue and to raise the prospect of an early poll a threat that could force the Opposition to make major concessions to avoid a double dissolution election.
But yesterday's manoeuvre has undermined the Government's contention that the emissions trading scheme must be enshrined in law before global climate talks at Copenhagen in December. If this were the case, the Government would have taken the olive-branch rather than brickbat approach to try to garner support for its scheme.
The legislation will be reintroduced late this year. If rejected a second time, the Government will have the trigger to call an early election, which is an unpalatable prospect for the Opposition and Family First Senator Steve Fielding.
The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is a cap-and-trade system that is set to start from July 1, 2011. It is designed to cut emissions by 5 per cent based on 2000 levels by 2020 or up to 25 per cent if an ambitious global agreement is hammered out at Copenhagen. The scheme is described as the ''most significant environmental and economic reform ever undertaken by an Australian Government''.
The Opposition, Greens, Independent Senator Nick Xenophon and Fielding voted yesterday to reject the bills for different reasons.
Remarkably, Fielding is still arguing about the science of climate change as experts shake their heads in disbelief at the senator's ignorance and eagerness to embrace views based on according to the Australian National University's Climate Change Institute director, Professor Will Steffen ''flawed logic, misleading and inaccurate statements, and confused and inconsistent analyses''. Fielding is hardly the only politician to pitch their tent in the climate-change-sceptic camp.
At least the Greens, Xenophon and most in the Opposition are arguing about the design of the scheme. This is a positive contribution to the debate, given the economic and environmental ramifications of the proposed changes.
The Greens want deeper cuts to emissions and polluters to pay for damage done to the environment. Xenophon is pushing for ''deeper, more effective environmental cuts in a way that's economically responsible.''
Within the Opposition, an outspoken minority is unlikely to support any scheme. Turnbull has pledged his party's support for the Government's targets to reduce carbon pollution but takes issue with the design.
He waited until the 11th hour to peddle an alternative ''hybrid scheme'' envisioned by Frontier Economics, which was enlisted by the Opposition and Xenophon to produce the report.
Climate Change Minister Penny Wong called it a ''mongrel''. Turnbull promoted it as a ''greener, cheaper and smarter'' scheme which will produce deeper cuts to emissions, stem increases in power bills, protect jobs in regional areas and deliver a smaller hit to the budget bottom line. Turnbull has stressed the Frontier Economics' proposal isn't party policy, which hardly makes for a firm negotiating position.
It could be a delaying tactic or a serious contribution to the debate. After all, the Government is hardly the repository of all knowledge on emissions trading. But it has been working on the scheme's design for some time and it seems implausible that bureaucrats could have overlooked a ''greener, cheaper, smarter'' alternative.
The Opposition has been divided on the issue, while the Government's handling of the debate has bordered on belligerent. The Government has made concessions to pass other legislation, including the economic stimulus packages, luxury car tax and changes to the Medicare levy surcharge to penalise higher-income earners without private health cover.
They have refused to negotiate on the emissions trading scheme bills unless presented with ''serious and credible amendments'' when they are still working on aspects of the scheme, including finalising compensation arrangements for affected industries.
Wong warns the ''Liberal Party can do this the easy way or the hard way. One way or the other, we are going to get this through.'' If an early election is called, Fielding faces political extinction but the Greens may evolve into a stronger force within the Senate. It is risky for the Opposition and Government. The Opposition is lagging in opinion polls, while the Government could face a voter backlash for calling an early poll.
But Xenophon could double the size of his party room that, he jokes, currently involves him ''standing in front of the mirror''. ''All politicians need to pull their heads in and start talking because what's more important saving the planet or saving face?'' Xenophon asked after yesterday's vote in the Senate. Exactly.
Danielle Cronin is Political Correspondent.
danielle.cronin@ canberratimes.com.au
Email a friend