ABC’s Political Editor Jacob Greber said on 730 that the Greens’ decision on how to vote on the carbon credit method’s disallowance motion is “reprising memories of another hard-fought battle over climate policy”, the vote on the Rudd Government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) in 2009. What does a vote 17 years ago have to do with next week’s disallowance motion, and what lessons might the Greens take from the CPRS history?
Tue 8 Sep 2026 16.36 AEST
The opposing senators section at the Senate chamber in Canberra, Wednesday, Dec. 2, 2009, as they vote down the carbon pollution reduction scheme bill. Photo: AAP Image/Alan Porritt.
When CEO of the world’s biggest green bank, Ian Learmonth of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC), announced his retirement, he acknowledged that mining billionaire Clive Palmer had saved the organisation from being abolished by Tony Abbott in 2014.
This is fossil fuel expansion in 2026: a state pre-committing to a supply glut, then reverse-engineering demand to justify it, with a compliant federal government adjusting the rules.
Next week, the Greens face a key decision: will they support a new carbon credit method that will allow more climate pollution, supposedly in exchange for the creation of the Great Koala National Park?
ABC’s Political Editor Jacob Greber said on 730 that the Greens’ decision on how to vote on the carbon credit method’s disallowance motion is “reprising memories of another hard-fought battle over climate policy”, the vote on the Rudd Government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) in 2009.
What does a vote 17 years ago have to do with next week’s disallowance motion, and what lessons might the Greens take from the CPRS history?
Ahead of the 2007 federal election, both the Howard Coalition Government and the Rudd Labor Opposition committed to introducing an emissions trading scheme if elected. The goal of an emissions trading scheme is to reduce pollution, with the logic being that it will send a price signal to polluters that encourages them to reduce their emissions.
Kevin Rudd won the election, and in 2008 the Rudd Government outlined its proposed CPRS, a type of emissions trading scheme.
Rudd said that the CPRS would be “the central mechanism by which Australia tackles climate change”. But critics, including The Australia Institute, identified problems, including an unambitious emissions reduction target, failure to address petrol and billions of dollars of compensation to coal stations and other polluters.
Labor watered down the CPRS to convince the Malcolm Turnbull-led Liberals to vote for the package. The Liberals replaced Turnbull with Tony Abbott and decided to vote against the CPRS. Rudd and Climate Change Minister Penny Wong believed that major reform like the CPRS required the support of both major parties to ensure its survival. Therefore, they had “decided early not to continue to engage with the Greens.” However, because two Liberal senators crossed the floor to support the legislation, the CPRS would have become law had the Greens voted for it as well.
At the time, the Labor Government held the Liberal–National Opposition responsible, with Rudd saying, “The opposition decided to backflip on its historical commitment to bring in a CPRS” and a spokesperson for Climate Change Minister Penny Wong saying, “The blocking of the [CPRS] legislation by the opposition has caused delays and created uncertainties”.
Labor would later blame the Greens for the CPRS vote failing; a theme they have returned to over the last two decades.
In the 2010 federal election, after voting down the CPRS, the Greens received a 4% swing towards them – the largest of any party that year – and won their first lower house seat in a general election: Melbourne.
Quality research, analysis, explainers and factchecks from experts you can trust.
In the Senate, the Greens won six seats, which brought their total up to nine.
With neither major party having a majority, both Prime Minister Gillard and Opposition Leader Tony Abbott negotiated with the crossbench. Gillard successfully struck agreements with the Greens and three independents. The Labor Government served a full term and had one of Parliament’s more productive periods.
The 2010 election was the Greens’ most successful until 2022, when they picked up the same number of senators (bringing their total to 12) but also won three lower house seats in Queensland and retained Melbourne.
Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen said on ABC’s 730:
That [the Greens opposing the CPRS] was the biggest own goal for climate action in living memory.
But by opposing the CPRS, the Greens secured a better deal with the Gillard Government that replaced the Rudd Government. With support from the Greens, the Gillard Government legislated a price on carbon and other emissions reduction measures.
The Gillard government lost the next election, and the Coalition sought to repeal Gillard’s changes. But while the price on carbon was only in force from 2012 to 2014, other measures – including the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and Australian Renewable Energy Agency –remain to this day.
The Australia Institute calculated back in 2019 that these institutions had collectively supported $23 billion worth of projects, assisted the installation of 806,000 solar panel systems and 226,000 solar hot water systems and delivered emissions reductions of at least 334 million tonnes CO2-e, and the numbers have only grown since then.
—
Critics of the Greens, including Labor’s Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen and AFR journalist Phil Coorey, have compared the Greens’ upcoming decision on the carbon method disallowance to the CPRS vote 17 years ago.
But in truth, voting down the CPRS positioned the Greens to negotiate a better climate package the next year. Nor did the CPRS decision appear to hurt them electorally. On the contrary, the Greens’ vote share increased by almost 50% and the party won (shared) balance of power in the Parliament.
