News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 Political 
 Turnbull troops find their voice in support of ETS 

Turnbull troops find their voice in support of ETS

19 Nov, 2009 06:02 AM
SUPPORTERS of the Opposition Leader, Malcolm Turnbull, have broken a long public silence to begin advocating a deal with Labor on an emissions trading scheme, taking on their colleagues who have dominated the debate for months.

As they did so, Liberals on both sides of the argument began speculating a deal would be reached with the Government, pushed through the party room and passed by the Senate next week.

As the Coalition representative, Ian Macfarlane, and the Minister for Climate Change, Penny Wong, resumed negotiations over amendments yesterday, debate began in the Senate. Those who had kept quiet so far spoke out in what one source said was a co-ordinated tactic designed to send a message to the rebels.

The Queensland Liberal senator Sue Boyce stated defiantly that she was convinced by the "overwhelming scientific evidence" underpinning climate change that "Labor's clunky scheme is better than no scheme at all" and there was no point delaying any longer as her colleagues had argued.

"I would like to see the package of bills passed and there is no reason why they cannot be passed ahead of the Copenhagen climate conference next month if the Government accepts fair, reasonable and timely amendments," Senator Boyce told the Senate.

"To suggest that there should not be an emissions trading scheme because it will increase costs, is to my mind, an immoral proposition."

The South Australian senator Simon Birmingham said he would support the bill if the Government offered concessions.

"I hope ultimately to be voting for action on climate change," he said.

Senator Birmingham conceded the party would split on a final vote but said he respected the right of his colleagues to cross the floor.

The Tasmanian senator Guy Barnett said he also would support an amended scheme.

Before the Senate rose last night one of the chief rebels, Cory Bernardi, exposed the gulf in the Liberal Party.

He said man-made climate change was nonsense and alarmism and described those who subscribed to the concept as "anthropogenic global warming rent seekers".

A fellow rebel, Mitch Fifield, said the impending failure at Copenhagen to bind the world to greenhouse gas reduction targets meant the argument to pass the scheme before the conference had "been shot".

The Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, said he was confident the Government would reach agreement with the Liberals "but I am still concerned about what is actually happening in [Coalition] ranks".

Senior Liberal sources said the desire by Mr Rudd and Mr Turnbull to reach agreement was such that it was increasingly likely a deal would be struck. The biggest hurdle for Mr Turnbull will be to then receive partyroom approval of the deal.

One Liberal hostile to a deal said there would be no ballot in the party room. Mr Turnbull would make a decision based on the mood and, so even was the split, he would be able to decide the party had approved.

The Government needs only seven Liberals in the Senate to pass the bill and more than that support an amended emissions trading scheme.

In a speech last night, Mr Macfarlane noted that amendments to stop the sharp spike in power prices Labor's scheme would cause were a key sticking point for the Coalition.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
I have voted Nationals all my life. Where have they been on this? As it looks agriculture is excluded no thanks to the Nationals. If Malcolm Turnbull hadn't taken his position Labor would have included agriculture. I don't see politically who the Nationals represent anymore. Refusing to debate the climate change issue is a stick your head in the sand response. I certainly will be looking to better representation at the next election. The bill will be passed, Joyce and others will have achieve nothing and are in no man's land in any future discussion on this issue because that is their stance.
Posted by Mike, 19/11/2009 7:54:52 AM
This mob is becoming very boring!
Posted by tigerdicky, 19/11/2009 10:40:36 AM
Why vote for something that should never be a part of our society? Nationals have my full support. Do not let this bill through in any form, as it will decimate Australia.

You have your head in the sand if you think it is about anything but control and taxes - it is definitely legislation Australia doesn't need.

Nationals are not refusing to debate. They say the legislation is so bad that they won't vote for it unless the debate results in a NO vote.

Posted by Concerned Northerner, 20/11/2009 6:47:02 AM
As a personal beef, could one argue the need to shoot the foot to save the face, as anything Australia does would seem futile in the extreme without the main carbon emitting countries on board. Why the great rush before a general global consesus response is, and if, can possibly be achieved and effected?

How come there appears so precious little detail on actual reductions and aternative lesser emitting technologies, such as nuclear power generation.

Who has got their heads in the sand? A bit more detail from our government would greatly be appreciated so as we might have some effective means to arrive at some sort of a general consensus, without the scare mongering political spin as appears the present status quo.

Posted by yofussn, 20/11/2009 7:26:14 AM
Sure you have, Mike. Any conservative politician who, after all this time, and in light of all the evidence, does not feel their flesh crawl every time a climate cretin opens their mouth, is not fit to hold office. Never mind the science, it was always a diversion.

The devil was always in the projections of future economic activity and the assumed relationship between GDP and emissions.

This part of the assessment process demands the very best econometric analysis. But the IPCC delegated this role to their own little bunch of back room climate drones who were, and still are, totally out of their depth. Take a look at what Professor Ian Castles, formerly the Australian Statistician (1986 to 1994) and head of the Australian Department of Finance (1979-86) and former president of the International Association of Official Statistics (IAOS), said to IPCC head, Pachauri in this respect at; http://www.lavoisier.com.au/artic les/climate-policy/economics/cast les-henderson2003-2.php

The problem is not what the climate muddles turned out, it is the blatant bull$#@t that was fed into them. Take note of every Liberal turkey who still doesn't get it and get rid of them.

Posted by Ian Mott, 20/11/2009 9:13:40 AM
Turnbull's total direction appears to be to look after his banking mates and not Australia. Sue Boyce must have no idea of knowing suspect science and propaganda when it is served up to her.
Posted by Len, 20/11/2009 11:00:01 AM
Ian, your increasingly nefarious attacks are detracting from your message...take a deep breath and ask Dr Phil for some pills, they helped me no end. Quoting the Lavoisier group is about as relevant as the alarmists quoting Al Gore.
Posted by the lorax, 20/11/2009 11:06:42 AM
Learned nothing obviously. Malcolm is still inept in his thinking and particularly his timing and actions. The coalition would have won a double dissolution on this issue as the truth is slowly revealed. If they support this, they will be in opposition for a long time.
Posted by denis, 20/11/2009 12:11:37 PM
Nice try Lorax but no-one is fooled. I refered to copies of correspondence from Prof. Castles to Pachauri at the IPCC which pointed out major flaws in the SRES projections and the lack of expertise by the people who did them. These letters are displayed (under an unhelpful heading) on the Lavoisier web site some 5 years after the date of the letters. Are you seriously suggesting that this might render the content of the letters invalid, or minimise the extent of Pachauri's negligence in ignoring them?
Posted by Ian Mott, 20/11/2009 12:11:41 PM
Ian thank you for the link. I had trouble making it work but found it most relevant and worth the effort. The climate scare mongers must be exposed for what they are. Little boys crying wolf!
Posted by Common Cents, 20/11/2009 2:46:51 PM

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull.
Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
18 November, 2009
POLL
Q: Do you believe your farm business can profit from an emissions trading scheme?

Yes
(20.3%)

No
(70.1%)

Undecided
(9.6%)

Total Votes: 606
Poll Date: 15 November, 2009
BLOGS
19 November, 2009

Most popular articles

ELDERS NEWS MREC SJ



Queensland Country Life







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...