The political debate on emissions trading is a bit like Monty Python's ''Dead Parrot'' sketch. The hapless customer (John Cleese) complains that his recently purchased Norwegian blue has joined the choir invisible, shuffled off its mortal coil, its metabolic processes are history. The pet shopkeeper (Michael Palin) disagrees. The bird is merely resting, stunned, tired after a prolonged squawk or perhaps pining for the fjords.
In the parliamentary production, ministers have auditioned to play the store owner, crossbenchers are vying for customer's role and the emissions trading scheme is the Norwegian blue.
The ETS is the centrepiece of the Federal Government's plan to tackle climate change. This week, the Opposition unveiled its long-awaited position on the scheme effectively torpedoing it.
In the aftermath, Greens Deputy Leader Christine Milne declared the proposed scheme was ''dead in the water''. Family First Senator Steve Fielding agreed, saying it was ''certainly dead''. Independent Senator Nick Xenophon said ''if it's not dead, it's looking pretty sick''.
Like Palin's character, Climate Change Minister Penny Wong and parliamentary secretary Greg Combet have nailed the ''ex-parrot'' to its perch. ''No, it's not dead and I mean if they all want it dead that's a very perverse approach to achieving the most significant change in environment policy in the country's history,'' Combet said.
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd wants Parliament to pass the legislation by June so Australia has a fixed position to take to climate change talks in Copenhagen in December.
After he emerged from the joint party meeting this week, Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull announced the Coalition would support the Government's target to cut emissions by 5 per cent by 2020 or up to 25 per cent if there was a global pact. But they would vote against legislation already before Parliament and wanted the debate postponed until next year after climate change talks in Copenhagen and the United States had devised its ETS. In the interim, the Government should set up a voluntary carbon market from January 1 and the Productivity Commission should investigate the impact of emissions trading on jobs.
In the short term, Turnbull has avoided an ugly public spilt within Coalition ranks over efforts to tackle climate change as the Nationals are highly unlikely to support any ETS.
But it is the latest in a string of excuses used by the Opposition to dodge stating its firm position. It wanted to wait on the Garnaut review. Later, it was Treasury modelling, the white paper, outcomes of an internal review, findings of a Senate inquiry. Now, the Opposition is demanding a probe by the Productivity Commission.
Turnbull defended the party's position, saying ''for the sake of six months, let's get this right. Let's not sacrifice Australian jobs on the altar of Kevin Rudd's vanity.'' Rudd argued that Turnbull was ''rolled by the climate change sceptics'' in his party. Both leaders could be right.
Rudd has also made a strategic backdown on the ETS, pushing back the start date by 12 months to June 1, 2011. Five months ago, Rudd warned ''to delay any longer would be reckless and irresponsible for our economy and for our environment''. The Government would also cut the carbon price from $40 to $10 a tonne in the first year of the scheme and boost the aspirational emissions targets from 15 per cent to 25 per cent by 2020.
British climate expert Nicholas Stern argued Australia would have ''marginal'' influence at the summit if it doesn't aim to cut carbon emissions by 25 per cent. ''Australia is extremely important because the emissions per capita are very high in Australia,'' he said. ''People will be looking very hard at Australia and they'll say, 'Given their high emissions, given the technologies the Australians have and given the ingenuity of the Australian people ... if they can't do it how can anybody expect us to.'''
At this point, the Government faces a near-impossible task of securing Senate support for its ETS. The Greens, Fielding and Nick Xenophon have also refused to support the bill if the Government brings on the vote next month.
The Greens argue the scheme is too soft on big polluters, while Fielding fears the proposal will be too tough on families. Xenophon wants more time for debate, suggesting the legislation could be dealt with in the August-September sittings.
''My message to the Government is, if you force it you'll break it,'' Xenophon said.
The Senate stand-off could trigger a double dissolution election. The Government, Greens and Xenophon will probably benefit from an early poll, which is likely to hurt Fielding and the Coalition. Nationals Senate Leader Barnaby Joyce concedes it will probably be ''extremely bad'' for colleagues in the Upper House.
''This is the reality,'' Joyce said. ''They would probably lose their jobs. So we have more political skin in this game than most.''
The Greens and Xenophon are likely to retain their seats in the Senate. If opinion polls are proved correct, the Rudd Government will secure a second term. But there is still the risk of a voter backlash for calling an early election as seen in Western Australia.
Former Labor leader Kim Beazley believes the Government will be forced to call a double dissolution election in a bid to pass its ETS legislation. But the Government is staring down the Senate now, vowing to press ahead with its legislation and is trying to enlist big business to put pressure on the Coalition to back the legislation. Combet warned effected industries that ''billions of dollars worth of assistance'' could be at risk if the legislation was scuttled.
''If we have to go back to the drawing board, everyone involved will have to run the gauntlet of the political process, something we know cannot guarantee certainty,'' Combet said.
''This is something that all industries receiving assistance should think very carefully about when they consider their approach to proposals to delay the scheme. Billions of dollars worth of assistance are involved.''
But bashing on the cage, offering a ''lovely fresh cuttle fish'' or pointing out its ''beautiful plumage'' won't revive a parrot that is declared stone dead, demised, pushing up daisies.
Danielle Cronin is Political Correspondent.
Email a friend