Urgent Debates Declined — Kyoto Protocol Second Commitment Period—Withdrawal 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Urgent Debates Declined — Kyoto Protocol Second Commitment Period—Withdrawal 
[Sitting date: 13 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6503. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Kyoto Protocol Second Commitment Period—Withdrawal 
Mr SPEAKER 
: 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. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 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. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: 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. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 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. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: 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.