Gordon Campbell | Parliament TV | Parliament Today | News Video | Crime | Employers | Housing | Immigration | Legal | Local Govt. | Maori | Welfare | Unions | Youth | Search

 


Judgment: Teitiota v MBIE - 'climate refugee' claim


[Full judgment: Teitiota_v_MBIE_CA502014_judgment.pdf]

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for an extension of time for the leave application is granted.

B The application for leave to appeal to the High Court is dismissed.

C The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs as for a standard application for leave to appeal under r 14 of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 on a band A basis with usual disbursements.

[…]

Background

[5] Mr Teitiota is unlawfully in New Zealand. He and his wife came here from Kiribati in 2007 and remained after their permits expired, in Mr Teitiota’s case on 7 October 2010. Although their three children were born in New Zealand none is entitled to New Zealand citizenship.

[6] After being apprehended, Mr Teitiota applied for refugee status and/or protected person status. That was declined in a decision of a Refugee and Protection Officer. Mr Teitiota then appealed to the Tribunal. Mr Teitiota applied only for himself. The Tribunal asked Mr Teitiota’s counsel why the application had not extended to Mr Teitiota’s wife and the three children. Mr Kidd’s explanation was that “the health authorities and the kindergarten” had continued to care for the children, notwithstanding that applications for refugee status had not been filed on their behalf.

[7] At the start of its admirably well structured, carefully reasoned and comprehensive decision the Tribunal summarised the basis for Mr Teitiota’s application and the issue it needed to decide in this way:

[2] The appellant claims an entitlement to be recognised as a refugee on the basis of changes to his environment in Kiribati caused by sea-level-rise associated with climate change. The issue for determination is whether the appellant is able to bring himself within the Refugee Convention or New Zealand’s protected person jurisdiction on this basis.

[…]

Summary

[39] For the reasons we have given, it is not appropriate to grant leave to appeal to the High Court on any of the proposed six questions of law.

[40] Although the Court has every sympathy with the people of Kiribati, Mr Teitiota’s claim for recognition as a refugee is fundamentally misconceived. It attempts to stand the Convention on its head. Priestley J succinctly explained why:

[55] The appellant raised an argument that the international community itself was tantamount to the “persecutor” for the purposes of the Refugee Convention. This completely reverses the traditional refugee paradigm. Traditionally a refugee is fleeing his own government or a non-state actor from whom the government is unwilling or unable to protect him. Thus the claimant is seeking refuge within the very countries that are allegedly “persecuting” him. …

[41] No-one should read this judgment as downplaying the importance of climate change. It is a major and growing concern for the international community. The point this judgment makes is that climate change and its effect on countries like Kiribati is not appropriately addressed under the Refugee Convention.

Result

[42] The application for leave to appeal to the High Court is dismissed.

[43] The applicant is to pay the costs of the respondent as for a standard application for leave to appeal under r 14 of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 on a band A basis with usual disbursements.

[Full judgment: Teitiota_v_MBIE_CA502014_judgment.pdf]

© Scoop Media

 
 
 
 
 
Parliament Headlines | Politics Headlines | Regional Headlines

 

PARLIAMENT TODAY:

Arming Police: Frontline Police To Routinely Carry Tasers

"In making the decision, the Police executive has considered almost five years worth of 'use of force' data… It consistently shows that the Taser is one of the least injury-causing tactical options available when compared with other options, with a subject injury rate of just over one per cent for all deployments." More>>

ALSO:

Gordon Campbell: On D-Day For Dairy At The TPP

While New Zealand may feel flattered at being called “the Saudi Arabia of milk” it would be more accurate to regard us as the suicide bombers of free trade. More>>

ALSO:

Leaked Letter: Severe Restrictions on State Owned Enterprises

Even an SOE that exists to fulfil a public function neglected by the market or which is a natural monopoly would nevertheless be forced to act "on the basis of commercial considerations" and would be prohibited from discriminating in favour of local businesses in purchases and sales. Foreign companies would be given standing to sue SOEs in domestic courts for perceived departures from the strictures of the TPP... More>>

ALSO:

"Gutted" Safety Bill: Time To Listen To Workplace Victims’ Families

Labour has listened to the families of whose loved ones have been killed at work and calls on other political parties to back its proposals to make workplaces safer and prevent unnecessary deaths on the job. More>>

ALSO:

Regulators: Govt To ‘Crowd-Source’ Regulatory Advice

A wide-ranging set of reforms is to be implemented to shake up the way New Zealand government agencies develop, write and implement regulations. More>>

ALSO:

Board Appointments: Some Minister Appoint Less The 3 In 10 Women

“It’s 2015 not 1915: Ministers who appoint less than 3 in 10 women to their boards must do better, they have no excuse but to do better,” said Dr Blue. More>>

Gordon Campbell: On The 1990s Retro Proposals For Our Health System

As we learned yesterday, the reviews propose that the democratically elected representation on DHBs should be reduced, such that community wishes will be able to be over-ridden by political appointees. In today’s revelations, the reviews also propose a return to the destructive competitive health model of the 1990s. More>>

ALSO:

Get More From Scoop

 

LATEST HEADLINES

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Politics
Search Scoop  
 
 
Powered by Vodafone
NZ independent news