A government bill that would shut down climate change lawsuits, including the long running case brought by Māori activist Mike Smith against some of the country’s biggest emitters, has passed its first reading in Parliament.
The Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill cleared its first reading on 2 July with the backing of National, ACT and New Zealand First, according to RNZ. It would prevent any person, company or the Crown from being sued under tort law over the effects of greenhouse gas emissions. In plain terms, it closes off a route that would let ordinary New Zealanders take polluters to court over climate harm and ask a judge to order them to cut emissions or pay damages.
The bill is aimed squarely at one case. Mike Smith, a climate spokesperson linked to the Iwi Chairs Forum, has been suing Fonterra, Z Energy, Genesis Energy, BT Mining, Dairy Holdings and New Zealand Steel, arguing they have contributed to the damage caused by a warming climate. The Supreme Court ruled in 2024 that his claim could proceed to trial rather than being thrown out early, and a hearing has been set down for 2027. If the new bill becomes law before then, that case stops.
Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith has framed the change as a matter of certainty for business. He argues the Emissions Trading Scheme already sets the rules companies must follow on emissions, and that letting the courts build a brand new climate tort on top of that would leave firms unsure of where they stand. “Ultimately, if there is a legal uncertainty, there is less investment over time, and that affects us all by making our country less competitive,” Goldsmith told Parliament. The government says the bill is targeted and would only affect tort claims relating to climate change harm from greenhouse gas emissions.
The opposition parties came out swinging. Labour’s Deborah Russell called it “very, very bad law” and said the reasoning behind it was “not backed up by his own officials”. Labour has said it will repeal the legislation if it wins office. Green MP Steve Abel called the bill “disgusting” and said the government was “reinstating the tyranny of the wealthy” by stripping citizens of the right to hold companies to account. Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer accused ministers of “gaslighting” New Zealanders over their claims that the change was about certainty.
Government MPs pushed back just as hard. ACT’s Simon Court attacked what he described as opposition grandstanding and climate alarmism, while New Zealand First’s Mark Patterson said the bill restored Parliament’s sovereignty over the courts, casting the change as elected representatives, rather than judges, deciding how climate policy should work.
Smith himself was blunt. In a statement after the vote, he said “today is a dark day for democracy in Aotearoa New Zealand” and described the bill as “corporate protection legislation”. “If powerful corporations damage your future through climate pollution, your right to seek justice can simply be taken away,” he said. “No company should be above the law and no government should be allowed to close the courthouse doors on ordinary people.” He added that “giant corporations do not need more protection. The people of New Zealand do.”
Sitting alongside the debate is a transparency row. The Ombudsman found the Prime Minister’s office acted unreasonably when it refused to release documents that lobbyists had provided on behalf of Z Energy and Fonterra, ruling that the material should have been handed over under the Official Information Act. Critics have seized on that finding, arguing it raises questions about how much influence the affected companies had over a bill written to shield them from the courts. The companies have consistently pointed out that they already meet their obligations under the emissions scheme.
There is a genuine legal argument at the centre of all this. Supporters say a court inventing a new climate tort would be unpredictable and could expose thousands of businesses to open ended claims, and that the fairer place to set climate rules is Parliament through the Emissions Trading Scheme. Opponents counter that the scheme and the courts do different jobs, that the scheme prices emissions but does not compensate people whose homes and land are damaged, and that removing the option of a lawsuit takes away a check on corporate behaviour that exists in most other areas of life.
The bill now heads to a select committee, with the government asking for public feedback by 30 July and pushing for a faster than usual timetable. That short window means anyone with a view on whether climate lawsuits should be allowed has only a few weeks to make a submission. Climate policy is fast becoming one of the sharper dividing lines heading into the election later this year, and voters wanting to see where the parties actually stand can weigh their own priorities against each party’s platform using Newswire’s voting tool.
What do you think, should companies be able to be sued for climate harm, or does the Emissions Trading Scheme already do that job. 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