Mixed messages: Libs split on carbon

WHETHER they support the government's scheme depends on whether they are senators or MPs in marginal seats.

IF anyone in business is wondering why they can't get a straight answer out of the Liberal Party as to their exact policy in relation to the government's carbon pollution reduction scheme legislation, the reason is simple -- senators and House of Representatives MPs in marginal seats are at odds about it.

That's because marginal-seat MPs are focused on what the public thinks in the short term -- today's Newspoll reveals that while voters are becoming increasingly concerned about the CPRS, a clear majority remain in favour of it (66 per cent down from 72). So marginal-seat holders support the Coalition negotiating with the government to pass the legislation. Why?

Because blocking it could lead to electoral oblivion.

That is also why Malcolm Turnbull wants dissenting voices in the party room to shut up.

Without support for the CPRS, his chances of becoming prime minister are reduced dramatically -- not to mention the ease with which he will hold his urbane Sydney electorate of Wentworth.

In contrast, Liberal senators don't have to face the wrath of the people -- their job security is determined by the party faithful in a centralised preselection process, and most Liberal members oppose an emissions trading scheme (if not the concept of climate change altogether). No senator on either side of the major-party divide ranked No1 or No2 on their party ticket has lost at a general election since proportional representation was introduced in 1949.

That means that for senators, what the public thinks runs a distant second to what party members think.

Adding to the divide between marginal seat and upper house MPs is the fact that senators -- two-term representatives under our electoral system -- can see a long-term change in public attitudes towards the CPRS on the distant horizon. The 66 per cent of voters who tell Newspoll they back it at the moment only do so in principle -- they can't possibly understand the details of how it is going to work in practice.

Remember, the legislation that has gone before the parliament doesn't include specific regulations that will guide how it will operate if it becomes law.

Senators believe once the scheme is introduced and the tax slug realised, people will gradually turn off it.

They therefore want the Coalition well placed to take advantage of that by having opposed the scheme in its entirety, rather than supporting it when it comes before the parliament for the second time with certain amendments.

That is a luxury marginal-seat MPs (and Turnbull) can't afford, because in the interim there will be an election.

There is no second chance for an MP on a razor-thin margin or leader down in the polls.

The confusion for business trying to know which way the Coalition will jump on the CPRS debate has been magnified by the choice of replacement for Andrew Robb as the shadow minister responsible for emissions trading. Robb has stepped down from the frontbench for three months, citing depression.

Energy and resources spokesman Ian Macfarlane is filling in for him, but he is on the record as a climate-change sceptic from way back. Watching Macfarlane negotiate amendments (if that is what the Coalition does) to a scheme designed to combat a phenomenon he doesn't even think is real is the stuff of political satire and parody.

Business likes certainty. There is nothing certain about how the Coalition will proceed when it comes to emissions trading.