Tree of Knowledge

Yesterday morning I wrote:

I haven’t read too many people suggesting that the government go to the electorate in a double dissolution on and ETS, so if you have a better option for an ETS you also have to explain how you’re going to get it through the Senate when Brown and Fielding’s positions are both miles apart and deeply entrenched.

That had the effect of being something of a red-rag to a bull and since then I have seen a slew of people raise the big DD as a viable response to the problems of getting and ETS through the Senate.

Andrew Bartlett states:

Personally, I think Labor could come out of a double dissolution election based on climate change quite well. They could easily paint the Libs as having failed to act on the climate change crisis for the last decade while in government and then after they got tossed out, blocking Labor’s ‘balanced’ and ‘moderate’ attempts at action. Given their record on the issue, it is hard to see the Liberals coming up with any alternative for action that will be seen as credible by those who believe urgent action is needed (which is a majority according to current polls).

Similarly, Mark Bahnisch also wants a gun-fight at the DD Corral:

As to how Kevin Rudd could have steered a good model through the Senate? Two words: Double dissolution.

Call me a Hollowman, but I’m a bit more hesitant.

History

A brief look at recent Australian electoral history shows that double dissolution elections never really work out as intended. Consider the results of the last four double dissolutions:

1974: Whitlam Government returned but without a Senate Majority.

1975: Fraser Government formed with Senate Majority.

1983: Fraser Government defeated in House and Senate.

1987: Hawke Government returned but without Senate Majority

So twice incumbent governments were thrown out of office (if you count ‘75) and on the other two occasions the government failed to achieve a Senate majority. Of course, failing to get a majority for the government in its own right is a different thing from not being able to get an ETS through. It may well be that the composition, if not the control, of the Senate changes sufficient for a green coalition to pass the legislation. However, keep in mind that ‘74 was the only election that the bills that triggered the double dissolution were passed (in a subsequent joint sitting of both houses).

You can see why I’m underwhelmed by the prospects! Those who are gung ho about Labor’s position in the polls and are keen to saddle up for a double dissolution should, in the words of Kevin ‘take a cold shower’ – this is a seriously risky path on which to travel.

On the other hand, a Double Dissolution election on an ETS would give Labor an opportunity to re-run Fraser’s 1983 double dissolution election slogan “We’re Not Waiting For The World” which would be good for a laugh.

The Electoral Landscape

Despite the decidedly mixed history of DD’s many will argue that Labor’s ‘position in the polls’ will deliver a crushing win to the government. Dk.au’s comment sums up the general feeling:

as for “I’m certainly not saying the government shouldn’t be criticised, but the level of vitriol that has been directed against the government on this decision is unhelpful to the broader cause”

wtf? The war is won. see Possum Comatitus’ summary of the polling - it’s overwhelmingly in favour of an effective ETS.

Mark Bahnisch similarly states:

The polling
evidence suggests that a rigorous ETS would be eminently saleable. What better issue to spend a bit of political capital on? Was Kevin Rudd elected to ensure that Australia has a sustainable future, or to mollify business interest groups and maintain a ten point lead in Newspoll at all times and at all costs?

Ah the ‘ten point lead in Newspoll’. I’m going to come off sounding like a hyper-cautious Labor hack here, but as I’ve said before, the government’s electoral position is far from strong:

As cooler heads have been trying to point out:

“It looks like the Rudd government will have a ‘margin’ of about 1.5% — ie the Coaltion will need a uniform swing of 1.5% to take back Deakin, Bennelong and government generally.”

Further:

“the record of federal governments seeking second terms is not particularly strong…

Howard 1998 -4.6%
Hawke/Keating 1984 -1.5%
Fraser 1977 -1.1%
Whitlam 1974 -1.0%
Menzies/Holt/Gorton 1951 -0.5%”

The polls are nice, but the reality is the government’s majority in Parliament is wafer thin. It wouldn’t take much of a backlash on the ETS for the government to lose office. If, as many people are, you take the GST in ‘98 as your analogy for the policy, the electoral consequences of that was a -4.6% swing. It would be more than enough to turf out the government if the politics of an ETS are at all negative.

So what are the politics of Climate Change?

Possum’s reading of the Climate Change Polls
boils down to:

If the Coalition starts trying to make political mileage out of any proposed emissions trading system, they risk alienating the very demographic groups that their standing must, absolutely must improve dramatically in if they are ever to become a government again.

In addition to Mark and Andrew, George Megalogenis and The Piping Shrike, voices that I respect, all think the politics are clearly in the government’s favour. It may well be that we’re in a new political cycle and what the public really wants is to sacrifice for the greater good. I hope so.

However, I have a nagging feeling that there’s reason to question the strength of public support for enduring back pocket costs of climate change. My suspicion is that this might be like the old chestnut that 70% of people support “higher taxes for better services”, but change the question to “Would you pay higher taxes for better services” and the figure falls to 30%. Newspoll’s question on this issue, which ostensibly found 56% support for increasing costs in the name of climate change is problematic in this regard from my perspective. The wording of the question put to respondents was:

WOULD YOU PERSONALLY BE IN FAVOUR OR AGAINST PAYING MORE FOR ENERGY SOURCES, SUCH AS PETROL, ELECTRICITY AND GAS IF IT WOULD HELP TO SLOW GLOBAL WARMING?

I’m not convinced that this conveys the impetus for the question ie Would YOU pay higher prices if you thought it would help climate change. Placing ‘personally’ before ‘be in favour’ clouds the meaning of this sentence and I wonder whether a question like the following would return a different result:

WOULD YOU PERSONALLY BE IN FAVOUR OR AGAINST PERSONALLY PAYING MORE FOR ENERGY SOURCES, SUCH AS PETROL, ELECTRICITY AND GAS IF IT WOULD HELP TO SLOW GLOBAL WARMING?

Consistent with this, Andrew Norton has written:

But another poll, also reported today but in The Age, found that half the population had either never heard of emissions trading or did not know what it was. Only 7% claimed to know a lot about it. This did not, however, stop 72% of voters telling Essential Media Communications (a left-wing PR and polling firm) that they supported a carbon emissions trading scheme….

A Climate Institute survey earlier in the year suggested that very few were prepared to pay the kinds of prices needed to significantly change behaviour.

And all of this is before the prism of an election scare campaign to really focus the attention.

None of which is to say that Climate Change isn’t real, that an ETS isn’t necessary or that the government should decide what to do based on what is most popular. However, given the history of double dissolutions, the wafer thin electoral margin the government is sitting on and the reasons to question the strength of public support for an ETS, the wisest course of action has to be trying to steer this through the Senate.

UPDATE: Not A Hedgehog is plumping for a DD too.

Campaigning, Climate Change, Psepholology | RSS 2.0 | Comment it , or trackback this post.