Iwi leader and climate campaigner Mike Smith has taken his fight against the government to the United Nations, asking a UN human rights expert to step in before ministers introduce a law that would shut down his landmark case against some of New Zealand’s biggest companies.
Smith, a leader within Ngāpuhi and a long-standing climate activist, has joined the National Iwi Chairs Forum Pou Tikanga, Climate Clinic Aotearoa and Lawyers for Climate Action in filing a 125-page complaint with the UN Special Rapporteur on Climate Change and Human Rights, Elisa Morgera. The group has asked her to “intervene urgently” and write to the New Zealand government before the proposed Tort Prohibition Bill reaches Parliament, according to RNZ.
At the centre of the row is a case that has been working its way through the courts for years. In 2024 the Supreme Court ruled that Smith was entitled to take Fonterra and six other major emitters to trial over their contribution to climate change, clearing the way for one of the most significant pieces of climate litigation the country has seen. The decision was widely watched overseas because it opened the door to holding companies to account in tort, the branch of civil law that deals with one party causing harm to another.
That door is now being closed by Parliament. In May, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith announced the government would amend the law to prevent courts from making findings of liability in tort for damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions. The change would apply to both current and future cases, which means it would stop Smith’s case in its tracks before it ever reaches a full hearing. Goldsmith has argued the move is needed to deal with the “uncertainty in business confidence” created by the litigation, as 1News reported when the plan was first unveiled.
The complainants say that justification does not hold up. They point to the government’s own briefing notes, released under court order, which reportedly stated there was no evidence the case was actually affecting business confidence. Those documents also revealed that material had been sent to a senior Beehive staffer’s private email address, a detail that has fed wider concern about how the policy was put together. Smith has previously accused the government of running a “co-ordinated campaign of secret lobbying” by the companies that stood to benefit from the change.
For the groups behind the UN complaint, the issue is bigger than one case. Lawyers for Climate Action acting executive director Laura MacKay said the bill “strikes at the very heart of the rule of law” and at the right of ordinary people to have their day in court. The complaint argues that retrospectively killing off a live case that has already been approved by the country’s highest court undermines access to justice, a principle that sits at the foundation of the legal system. It also flags what it calls inconsistent information in the public domain about how much the government engaged with the companies named as defendants.
The decision to go to the United Nations is unusual. Special Rapporteurs are independent experts appointed by the UN Human Rights Council to monitor specific issues, and while they cannot force a government to change course, a formal communication from Morgera would put New Zealand’s actions under an international spotlight at a time when the country promotes itself as a good global citizen on climate. The complainants are betting that the prospect of that scrutiny, arriving before the bill is even introduced, might give ministers reason to pause.
The government has not backed away. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has pointed to investigations already under way, including a Department of Internal Affairs review and a separate inquiry by the Ombudsman into the handling of the lobbying documents and the process behind the policy. Those reviews deal with how the decision was made rather than whether it should proceed, and ministers have given no indication they intend to drop the legislation.
As of this week the Tort Prohibition Bill had been announced but not yet introduced to the House, which leaves a narrow window for the UN complaint to land before debate begins. The earlier amendment plan drew sharp criticism when it was first floated, with one legal expert warning the approach was constitutionally questionable, as Newswire reported earlier this month.
The fight sits at the intersection of climate policy, the rights of iwi to use the courts, and a broader argument about whether a government should be able to legislate away a case it does not want to see decided. With the general election due in November, climate and the rule of law are shaping up as live questions for voters. If you want to see where the parties stand before you cast your vote, you can compare their positions using our voting tool.
What do you think? Should the government be able to stop a court case it has already lost the argument over, or does Mike Smith deserve his day in court? Have your say in the comments below.
This article was written by AI, briefed to report the facts, hopefully without some of the bias people bring to the job 🙂
Leave a Reply