Clive Palmer behaves like a leader in the opposition

Palmer’s credibility is also in the spotlight. If he even cares, which he might not. Before you can do anything, it’s one thing to make a big deal. When real decisions with consequences are required, it is one thing to make a big note.

The same is true for the government. The government can snarl all it wants, but in a few months, it will be forced to make compromises with Palmer.

Palmer declared in the current exchanges that he would not support the government’s direct action plan on carbon with its $ 1.55 billion emissions reduction fund. He said the direct action plan was a waste and that the money should go to pensions.

The Environment Minister Greg Hunt replied that the government could weave the funds into the budget, which Labor would not block despite Shorten’s coy response when the issue was raised on ABC’s 7.30.

Palmer was essentially being beaten with a sharp stick. Palmer stated that this was nothing but blackmail and raised fears of it becoming a constitutional issue. If the government does that, we will consider our position regarding the repeal of the mining and carbon tax, and this could trigger a double dissolution election.

Tony Abbott, before the 2013 election, pledged to dissolve himself if his carbon tax repeal failed.

In the last few weeks, we haven’t heard a lot about that. The government is waiting for the new Senate. They will do what Labor and Greens won’t – repeal the law.

After a difficult budget and despite the poor opinion polls, a double dissolution would be the last thing that the government wants.

Palmer would not want that, despite the challenge he has made. Palmer’s recent strong Senate vote in Western Australia suggests that he could do well in a second dissolution. On the other hand, voters are fickle, and such a situation can be polarising.

Palmer thinks he can be provocative after he has seen the other major parties in WA on the back foot.

But he must be cautious. It would be impossible for PUP Senators to vote in favor of repealing the mining and carbon taxes.

The government is more concerned about his threat to try to interfere with direct action legislation.

The ministers may be saying in secret, “Well, that would be a budget bonus!” but the direct action plan remains inadequate and criticized for what it is, the only feather with which the government can fly on climate change and its commitment to cut emissions by 5% under 2000 levels by 2020.

It would then do everything possible to get it up and running, hoping that Palmer would vent his anger on something minor.

It would be difficult to set up an emissions reduction fund in the absence of legislation. Money may be available in the budget, but it would be necessary to use existing structures to overcome the lack of a legal base.

The jousting this week highlights the need for a government strategy when Palmer gets enough Senate chess pieces to play with to decide the fate of legislation opposed both by Labor and Greens.

It will need to find a balance between trying to shame Palmer and blaming him for submitting legislation and engaging with him more positively and throwing some carrots at his face.

Eric Abetz will have a much more difficult time after the 1st of July. Abetz, as the leader of the government in the Senate, will be in charge of dealing with PUP on a daily basis. In the short term, it is unlikely that the previous hopes of using a divide-and-rule approach with the PUP Senators will be realized (although this could change after some time). Palmer will try to maintain control over his team.

Liberal colleagues in the Senate will be closely watching Abetz’s performance in this difficult task. He’ll be well aware of this. He is mindful that George Brandis, the Attorney-General of the United States, would like to be the Senate’s leader in the long run.

This government’s modus operandi is often blustering, trying to intimidate any opposition. Palmer is a man who can talk with the best and will have the power to match it.

Palmer’s ability to control the success of the coalition must be frightening to its leadership.