As first days go, it wasn’t too flash, but the summer break beckons. It probably can’t come soon enough for Tony Abbott and the Liberals.

When Kevin Rudd replaced Kim Beazley in December 2006, Labor cannily ran a series of summertime ads “introducing” Rudd to voters , soft ads during the cricket and the tennis emphasising his interest in education. The Howard government, lazy and figuring the inevitable honeymoon for Rudd would wear off, failed to contest this image-building, the first of a series of errors in its handling of Rudd.

Labor has already launched one attack ad on Abbott, trying to build on voter perceptions of him as a hardliner.  Whether the Liberals can even afford a TV campaign is a good question, especially now that its main fundraiser has retired to the backbench.  If no ads appear over the break, it’ll be clear the Liberals are doing it tough financially.

Yesterday, though, started well for the new leader, or at least appeared to.  The government’s wretched CPRS bills were voted down, something the Liberals will live to regret, but for now think is a good thing.  Only two courageous Liberal Senators crossed the floor, Judith Troeth and Sue Boyce. Boyce’s speech about how she was voting for what was party policy 24 hours before, and how, based on her business background, she knew there were benefits in moving early to a low carbon economy rather than waiting for the rest of the world, was excellent. When the division was called, she waited, then picked up her handbag and walked across to the other side of the chamber and sat by herself, eventually being joined by Troeth when she returned to the chamber.  Rare political courage.

Once the bills were defeated, Abbott rushed out to crow, and that’s where things went wrong.  He called a press conference and, flushed with Senatorial success, let his mouth run away with him.  There’d be no emissions trading scheme from the Liberals, he said, and no carbon tax.  As David Speers nicely pointed out, there wasn’t much in the way of Abbott’s promised consultation as he rejected, without any discussion with his shadow Cabinet (which doesn’t strictly exist) or his backbench, the only two economic instruments that could address climate change.

And while he was at it, he rejected the government’s targets on reducing emissions.  He had said the previous day he backed the government’s 5-25% emissions reduction range, but asked again if he backed the full range, Abbott said he only committed to a unilateral 5%, not the range up to 25% depending on an international agreement.  He even made a joke at Rudd’s expense, saying he wouldn’t go into any further “specificity”.

It’s clear from that that either Abbott simply has no understanding of the overall international carbon emissions reduction process or doesn’t care.  Otherwise, he wouldn’t have so blithely walked away from the 5-25% reduction range, to which Malcolm Turnbull agreed, thereby giving Australia a guaranteed position in international negotiations regardless of the party in power.

By late afternoon it had sunk in to Abbott’s advisers that he had stumbled on the issue.  His office reversed his position.  He  again supported 5-25%.

So much for the line, recycled by Greg Craven today, that “Abbott clearly does unequivocally stand for something and is prepared to lead in that direction”, especially coming a day after he reversed himself on the existence of climate change.

On a positive policy note, he maintained the Liberals’ interest in restoring individual contracts.  There’s nothing wrong with individual contracts in industrial relations provided they are hedged in with suitable protections, but the Liberals buggered that up when they decided it would be smart to strip out the protections, thereby convincing voters the whole idea was a plot to rip them off. Complaining about Labor scare campaigns on Workchoices is, consequently, a bit rich from the coalition. Even so, the party of personal freedom surely cannot do other than back individual contracts.

Julia Gillard, Penny Wong and Greg Combet came out after the failure of the CPRS bill, as well, to announce that it would return in February.  Rather like the temporary, recession-based polluter assistance announced early this year that ended up being permanent despite there being no recession, the government’s limited-time, one-week-only polluter giveaway for the coalition has not merely become Labor policy but will form the basis of a new double-dissolution trigger next year.

There was some head-scratching in the press gallery yesterday over that announcement. Did that mean the government didn’t have a double-dissolution trigger now?  Would there be an early election?  Had the government blinked in the face of Tony Abbott’s decisiveness?

Some in the gallery tend to forget that the government thinks only about what voters see and hear, not what journalists think.  By bringing the CPRS bill back again in February, climate change will continue to dominate political debate in the new Parliamentary year, and voters will see government doing everything it can to get its Bills through an obstructionist Senate.

The government could use its existing double-dissolution trigger early next year, or get a new trigger from the amended Bill by June, for a post-July double dissolution election, or it could run a full term.  Which option it will eventually choose is known only to Kevin Rudd, and even he hasn’t decided yet.

In the meantime, the conversation will stay on climate change.  And after the past two weeks, does anyone seriously think that won’t just go on hurting Tony Abbott?