Timetable makes it clear the Coalition intends to win over the Senate, and that means Palmer's coal interests come into play

The government’s speaking notes for Monday are all about piling the pressure on the new Labor leader, Bill Shorten, over the carbon tax. But it knows the fate of its promise to “axe the tax” will almost certainly be determined not by Shorten and the ALP but by mining magnate Clive Palmer.

If you look at what Tony Abbott's government is doing, rather than what it is saying, it clearly has no intention of going to a double dissolution election to get around the opposition of Labor and the Greens to the carbon tax repeal. It intends to try to win support from the new Senate – including Clive Palmer’s four-senator voting bloc (after his agreement with the Motoring Enthusiast party’s Ricky Muir) – after it meets in July.

That means the Coalition’s attempts to abolish the carbon tax will become linked with its alternative Direct Action plan. Environment minister Greg Hunt will release a “directions paper” on the plan in coming days, outlining plans for a white paper to be released in the new year and Treasury modelling by mid-2014.

Hunt said on Monday: “We are not waiting for the Senate, we have pledged to take immediate action.” The carbon tax repeal legislation would be introduced on the first day of the new parliament and it was “an early test” of whether Shorten cared about ordinary Australians’ power prices, Hunt said. He insisted “all options” were on the table.

Speaking to Sky television, parliamentary secretary Steve Ciobo claimed a double dissolution was a live option, saying: “We’ve indicated we will go to a double dissolution election, we will take it back to the people, because Australians have indicated they don’t want this toxic tax.”

But the Coalition is not expected to convene parliament until 12 November. It will immediately introduce the bill to repeal the carbon pricing scheme, but the timing barely leaves room for the repeal bills to be rejected by both houses for a first time before the Christmas break. In fact if the Senate called an inquiry into the repeal – which is very likely – even a first rejection might not be in place by the end of the year.

The constitution says a double dissolution can take place only if a bill is rejected twice, with three months between the votes. That means the conditions for a double dissolution would not exist until just weeks before the new Senate is due to sit anyway. Voters are not likely to be persuaded of the need for another election in those circumstances.

Early in Labor’s leadership campaign, some of Shorten’s key backers floated the idea of supporting the repeal on the grounds that the Coalition would wear the consequences and Shorten was never as involved with the policy as Albanese – which may be why the Coalition is pursuing the political tactic of maximising pressure on Labor to back the repeal.

But Shorten was unambiguous during the leadership contest that Labor was committed to carbon pricing and would not vote for the repeal.

For his part, Palmer has consistently said he wants to make the repeal retrospective – an expensive and unworkable idea that clearly is not going to happen – and has refused to be drawn on his views about Direct Action, a plan he says is so far vague.

But his consideration of the fate of the Coalition’s key policy promise will coincide with the government’s consideration of his prized $6bn “China first” coal project in the Galilee basin, which Hunt has said will require federal approval under the so-called “water trigger” introduced in the dying days of the Labor government to assess the cumulative impact of large coal mines on groundwater.

Independent assessments have suggested nine mega-mines planned for the Galilee region would have a large and unacceptable impact on groundwater and surface water.

This coincidence of Palmer’s powerful position in the Senate – the votes of his bloc will be needed for every piece of legislation opposed by Labor and the Greens – with crucial government decisions on his business interests, raises potential conflict of interest questions the parliament has not previously considered.