Roche Denise: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoche Denise: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 17 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6790. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]4.DENISE ROCHE (Green) to the Minister of Immigration: Does the Government have a plan to allow people displaced by climate change to relocate to New Zealand; if so what is that plan?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration): New Zealand acknowledges the concerns of Pacific Island countries and others around the impacts of climate change. The Government does not have specific climate-related immigration policies but New Zealand does a lot in this area through direct assistance and support to regional organisations.Denise Roche: Is he aware that all the aid in the world will not stop small Island States from sinking if countries like New Zealand refuse to do our fair share in stopping the effects of climate change by cutting emissions by at least 40 percent?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Setting aside the hyperbole in the question I think New Zealand does an extraordinary amount in mitigating and adapting to the effects of climate change on sea level in particular in the Pacific Island nations where around $100 million is being spent converting their sources of energy from fossil fuels to renewables.Denise Roche: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that we do not need a plan to deal with people displaced by climate change because “that’s not an issue that we’re going to face in the next year or two.”?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well yes I do. The Pacific nations as well first and foremost want to stay in their home countries. To suggest that they all want to dash across to New Zealand to be saved is a form of colonial paternalism that I think does not do the Greens any good whatsoever.Denise Roche: Does New Zealand need a plan to deal with people who have been displaced by climate change given that the courts have already dealt with two cases where climate change was a factor in their seeking asylum?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: As far as I am aware the courts did deal with them by saying that climate change is not a criterion to be considered in the determination of somebody’s refugee status. If in the future it is untenable for some areas to live in their home countries then an appropriate response would need to be developed at that stage and as part of a broader international response.Denise Roche: What is New Zealand’s responsibility towards people displaced by climate change given the Secretary-General of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon has warned: “By 2050 we estimate that up to one billion people could be displaced by climate change.”?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: As I said in answer to an earlier question New Zealand’s response is an appropriate one of mitigation and adaption. If at some stage in the future it is a situation where some nations and some citizens find their situation untenable then I am sure New Zealand will contribute to a global response in that regard.Denise Roche: Does he believe New Zealand has a responsibility to help our Pacific neighbours who will be displaced due to rising sea levels and adverse weather effects?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Yes and it discharges that responsibility in a number of ways—through its humanitarian response including in immigration policies where there are Pacific access categories of Samoan quota places for residency here in New Zealand. As I said we make a significant contribution towards greenhouse gas mitigation through things like the global agricultural alliance and the specific investments that we are making into Pacific nations and I think that is a very good record.Denise Roche: What do you say to our Pacific neighbours whose homes are literally drowning? Do you think it is adequate to say that we do not need to do it now?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I certainly would not be giving that sort of paternalistic colonialist white person’s guilt response to it. I am not going to apologise for this country’s response now and I am confident that future Governments will respond appropriately in the future.Kevin Hague: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister has responded to the question with a gratuitous insult that was not required to respond to that question.Mr SPEAKER: No I think—[Interruption] Order! I appreciate members may well be offended or alarmed by the answer but when I consider the tone of the question which said that some of our Pacific neighbours are literally drowning at the moment etc.—I think that in light of the tone of the question an answer like that could almost have been expected.