My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Water. Minister, with the CPRS packages marks 1 and 2 the government took a policy position against an amendment for an independent climate change authority by arguing that the topic is too important not to have the minister and the parliament in control of various future oversight questions. But now we are about to visit CPRS mark 3, and now the CPRS has been significantly scaled back due to political lobbying. And, once again, this package has been butchered by the political mosh pit. Minister, do you now agree that your view is flawed? If so, will you reconsider the counterpolicy position that this issue is too important to be left to the political processes and, just as the Reserve Bank successfully and independently manages our economic settings, will you do likewise on the question of climate change and include an amendment for an independent climate change authority?

There is an element of that question that is Kennedy-esque. Without wishing to embarrass the member for Lyne, he has attempted to do something that Mr Katter has not tried yet, which is to ask his question of two people. I take it that he meant the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and not the Minister for Climate Change and Water, who are actually two people in this House. I take it that his question is to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change.

We could get two answers. It would even up the balance.

I understand that the Leader of the House is trying to organise things.

Don’t you trust Garrett?

Mr Pyne interjecting

Order! The member for Dickson! The member for Sturt! The question was in order. The Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change has the call.

I thank the member for Lyne for his question. Of course, the member for Lyne was the only non-government member of parliament to vote for and support the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme—an act of courage that is important to acknowledge. I recall that when the CPRS legislation was in the House in June, the member for Lyne moved an amendment in very similar terms to those in his question to me. It raises the same important public policy question, and that is whether or not the proposed Australian Climate Change Regulatory Authority should be able to independently set the cap on emissions. As I recall, that was the nature of the amendment at the time, and I take it that the question has a similar intent.

As I explained to the House at that time, the scheme caps, in the government’s view—reflected, of course, in the way in which the legislation has been constructed—should be set in regulations rather than by an independent authority, and that remains our view of this issue. The setting of scheme caps, I think on any construction, is a very major policy decision requiring the balancing of broad environmental, economic and social factors. As a consequence it is in itself a very important public policy question. The government took the view, through the consultations in the development of the white paper in particular, that such an important decision should be taken by elected officials of this parliament and should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. For that reason, the government remain committed to the approach that we have articulated.

I would emphasise, though—as I think I did at the time in June—that the government certainly welcomes the member for Lyne’s participation in the debate of these important issues and the recognition of the serious challenge that climate change presents. In particular, the government welcomes the member for Lyne’s commitment to supporting efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That is exactly the type of engagement that those opposite, members of the Liberal and National parties, should also be engaging in: taking responsibility for the greatest challenge of our time—a responsibility that to date they have demonstrably shirked.