News | Climate Change

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/13/2925889.htm

The Federal Government and the Greens are arguing over who is to blame for the failure of the emissions trading scheme (ETS) legislation.

The decision to shelve the ETS has coincided with a dip in the polls for Labor and a lift for the Greens.
But Labor MPs say they will use the election campaign to remind voters that Australia could have had an ETS in place if the Greens had supported the Government late last year.
Government frontbencher Anthony Albanese says the Greens need to be held to account for their role in blocking the legislation late last year.
"If they had voted for a price on carbon, we'd have one today," he told Channel Ten on Sunday.
"We did everything possible to get a CPRS (Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme) introduced."
Greens leader Bob Brown says his party has no regrets about voting down the scheme.
He says the ETS did not pass the Senate because Labor chose to negotiate with the Coalition.
""They got into bed with the Liberals; now they are crying foul," he said.
"The Greens have the Ross Garnaut alternative of a carbon tax before the Parliament, before the Government. It can take it up now, get it through before the election and get back the lost public esteem."
Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young says the Government could have negotiated a deal with the Greens, but chose not to.
"If Kevin Rudd was serious about tackling climate change, why has he not met with Bob Brown?" she said.
"Why has he refused to negotiate with the Greens? This is a Government that has made mistake after mistake, backflip after backflip, and they don't want to wear the consequences or take any responsibility."
In his Deakin Lecture on Saturday night, the former opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull said Prime Minister Kevin Rudd had shown a lack of courage by shelving his emissions trading scheme.
"Right now we have every resource available to us to meet the challenge of climate change except for one, and that is leadership," Mr Turnbull said.
"Our efforts to deal with climate change have been betrayed by a lack of leadership - a political cowardice - the likes of which I have never seen in my lifetime."
Double dissolution ruled out
Mr Albanese and Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner appeared on television after a week of bad news for the Federal Government.
Opinion polls show support for Mr Rudd and the Government is falling, and there are reports some Labor MPs want Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard to take over before the federal election.
But Mr Tanner dismissed calls for Labor to call a double dissolution election over its climate change policy.
He told the ABC's Insiders program the Government did all it can to get the emissions trading scheme through the Senate, and there is no guarantee it would pass a joint sitting of Parliament.
"A double dissolution is no automatic solution," he said.
"It's quite possible - given the big gap between us and the Greens and the Liberals in the Senate - we could win an election in the House of Representatives with a double dissolution and still not have the numbers for a joint sitting."
'Kitchen cabinet' criticised
Mr Tanner says there is no move to oust the leader, and he believes Labor will win.
"Kevin Rudd will lead the Government to the election," he told Insiders.
Some Labor backbenchers have privately raised concerns that many of the important decisions are being by a small group of senior ministers including Mr Rudd, Mr Tanner, Ms Gillard and Treasurer Wayne Swan - Mr Rudd's so-called "kitchen cabinet".
The backbenchers say the wider cabinet and the caucus should have been consulted on the decision to delay the ETS.
He also defended the way the cabinet makes policy decisions, saying that decision was leaked before cabinet or the caucus could be consulted.
He says MPs do get the opportunity to have their say.
"We have cabinet committees; we have cabinet sign-off on decisions of those committees," he said.
"People have the ability to actually pursue the decisions if they have not initially been involved with them, but do then object to them.
"I think there has been a lot of ill-informed comment about this."