Urgent Debates Declined — Kyoto Protocol, Second Commitment Period—Withdrawal

Honourable members, I have received a letter from Grant Robertson seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the decision of the Government not to sign up to a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol. The release of the Government’s decision is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. The test for whether a particular case requires the immediate attention of the House, though, is a high one. The business of the House should not be set aside just because a ministerial announcement has been made, even though it may be important. There must be an element of urgency for the matter to take precedence over other business. As the authentication for the application notes, further decisions are required. Cabinet will set a formal target for New Zealand’s future emissions track through to 2020 once the final rules on crucial technical issues, including access to international carbon markets, are known. I do not think I would be justified in giving priority to this particular decision over other business of the House today. The application is therefore declined.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether I could ask you to investigate whether or not the confidentiality and security of your decisions as to rulings on these matters has in any way been compromised. The reason I ask that, and I am doing it sincerely, is that almost the moment you got up, Mr Speaker, the responsible Minister, the Minister for Climate Change Issues, left the Chamber—well before you gave your decision. I think all of us who expect that these matters will be awaited in terms of your rulings ought to stay in the Chamber and wait for those rulings when it is a matter that concerns their portfolio, unless they have by some means come to prior knowledge of those rulings. I would hate that to have been the case here.

I can assure the honourable member I have been in touch with no one—no member of this House or any staff member of any member of this House—in respect of this application. Well, I cannot speak for any—but I would be very surprised if anyone in my office had. I understand the member’s concern, but I can absolutely assure him that I certainly have not, and I would not think any member of my office has.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. On behalf of the member who left the House, he left before you had even enunciated what the letter was about, so he would have had no idea as to what was going to be put before you.

I think the matter has been raised, and it is genuinely raised. I think it is a fair point, and I just want to give the member an assurance that I—I have not checked it out, and I will do so because I think the member raises an important point.