We have a conundrum: The Greens want to flex a bit of muscle, and Labor wants to exercise its authority

In his interview with David Speers last week, the leader of the Greens in the Australian Parliament, Adam Bandt, came over as a contemptuous young man of little diplomacy.

He would do well to read the now old book by Dale Carnegie, How to Win Friends and Influence People. One would have thought his party had won the election; such was his obnoxious manner.

They indeed increased their position in the House of Representatives and have a healthy presence in the Senate, but they are not the Government.

Whilst not for one moment do I doubt his sincerity for the beliefs he holds; he needs to tone down how he demands his right to them.

In the interview with Speers, he outlined these demands and the conditions under which he would negotiate climate and energy policy.

Speers: “Will the Greens support a 43% target?”

Bandt: “It’s too early to tell yet.”

On the draft legislation:

“It doesn’t compel the Government to do anything.”

“We have seen the Legislation, and there are a number of problems with it, but we are willing to talk about it.”

“The 43% becomes stuck in law, and the parliament would have to come back to change it.”

Referring to new Gas and coal power stations:

“You don’t put the fire out while you’re pouring petrol on it.”

“You can’t even have this discussion if the Government is saying. It’s my way or the highway.”

Speers: “If they can fix the wording or amend the wording to give you some sort of assurance about coal and Gas in the future. Would that be enough?”

Bandt: There are four issues: 1) There can’t be a ceiling, 2) There must be a genuine floor so that we can’t go back to it, 3) Is it just symbolic, and 4) What about Coal and Gas?

“We will put them on the table in a good faith way, but there has to be an end to the “It’s my way or the highway” or else it’s going to be a very long three years.”

This sounds at worst like a man demanding he gets his way, or at best demanding he gets it even when he isn’t in Government. A man with an attitude that grates.

Note: I have taken these quotes from a video of the interview. For complete accuracy, I’d recommend viewing it.

Also critical was David Wu from Sky News:

“Greens leader Adam Bandt hopes he can sit down with the government to improve the wording on the climate legislation – but only once Prime Minister Anthony Albanese drops the ‘take it or leave it’ approach.”

After more than 10 years of debate, Anthony Albanese wins Government for the Labor Party. After being thwarted by the Liberals, the National and the Greens from implementing their policy, it now has the Greens telling it in no uncertain way what it can and cannot do by a disagreeable leader who needs to learn some political manners. You can explain your grievances without demanding their implementation.

By precisely submitting the policy, they took to the election. Labor intends to introduce its legislation when Parliament resumes on 26 July. It will lock in the emissions reduction target of 43 per cent by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050. Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen met with independents and representatives from the Greens on Thursday, 21 July, to introduce Labor’s draft of the bill.

If Adam Bandt wants to change it, he won’t be doing so in the Lower House and in the Senate. Newly elected ACT former Rugby star David Pocock has indicated he will support the legislation.

Staying too far from what the government desires would invoke memories of 2009 when the Greens voted against a bill that would have promoted action but voted against it because it couldn’t get its way. The Greens wouldn’t want to do it again. Labor has never forgiven them.

Labor legitimately claimed that if the Greens hadn’t voted against its Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS), Australia’s carbon emissions would have been more than 200 million tonnes lower, and electricity would have cost less.

The Prime Minister has said that:

“If the Greens Party haven’t learned from what they did in 2009 – that was something that led to a decade of inaction and delay and denial – then that will be a matter for them.”

Having said that, Labor doesn’t have to do anything it doesn’t want to. It can proceed with its policy without any legislation.

The Prime Minister promised a new politic. It would be better, however, if it did agree with the Greens where it can. Here is an opportunity to rise above their natural dislike of them and demonstrate it.

But if Labor isn’t willing:

“… to negotiate on even this minor tweak from the Greens, who now seem resigned to accepting the 43 per cent target, what kind of sensible, good faith amendments will it listen to? Surely not the minor party’s demands for a moratorium on new coal and gas projects, an essential part of the Greens platform that doesn’t particularly gel with Labor’s position.

And so we have a conundrum. The Greens want to flex a bit of muscle, and Labor wants to exercise its authority.

Labor should be flexible enough to concede a little to the Greens by finding a way to prove that its 43 per cent target is just a minimum commitment. And the Greens should take whatever they can get in “sensible’ good faith” (their words) or be “crucified” as a spoiler.

Who knows, the Independents might have some viable suggestions.

As reported in The Guardian, they have had briefings with the climate and energy minister, Chris Bowen, late last week and have outlined some things they want to be included in the legislation.

They also want to include what they describe as a “Dutton insurance” policy. A clause that would make it difficult for future governments to ease up on action for climate change.

I have often written that the world won’t act on climate change until something really catastrophic happens. On that, we are edging closer.