Urgent Debates Declined — Greenhouse Gas Emissions—2020 Target

I have received a letter from the Hon Clayton Cosgrove seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the Government’s announcement about details of the float of Meridian Energy. The announcement today simply confirms that instalment receipts will be used in the Meridian share offer expected in November. For there to be a particular case of recent occurrence, there must be a new situation of significant and sufficient importance to warrant a debate being held. The accumulation of information in regard to an issue is not of itself a particular case of recent occurrence. The urgent debate procedure is a means of debating matters of importance that have occurred. Furthermore, where the House has only recently considered an issue in principle, every subsequent decision under the legislation will not necessarily justify setting aside the business of the House. The application is, therefore, declined.

I have also received a letter from the Hon Maryan Street seeking to debate the decision by the Government to set a target of a 5 percent emissions reduction below 1990 levels by 2020. The member has not provided any authentication with her application, which in itself is a reason not to accept it. The announcement allows for action to be taken in the interim while the Government works towards a binding agreement under the United Nations framework convention that will apply from 2020. It is part of an existing situation. I am not convinced that it heralds a new development of significant importance and sufficient importance in itself to warrant a debate being held today. The application is also declined.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand the requirement for authentication. I have exactly four footnotes authenticating the assertions I have made and the need for the debate. Secondly, the last time a debate of this nature was sought, by my colleague Grant Robertson at the end of last year, the Speaker then said that because there were Government decisions pending, it was not appropriate to take up the time of the House. Last week’s announcement represents the decision that has been awaited, and that was the grounds on which I thought it was time for the House to put aside time for this debate.

I appreciate the point the member is making. The second point she made was certainly included in her letter, and I acknowledge that. I have ruled that it is not of significant importance and sufficient importance to warrant a debate today. That is the end of the matter. But I am quite happy to meet with the member in my office, after question time, to explain further my decision.