A bill that blocks lawsuits against companies for their climate-altering emissions under tort law has successfully passed its first reading in Parliament.
This legislation aims to prevent climate activist Mike Smith’s lawsuit against New Zealand’s largest polluters, a case that the Supreme Court had previously agreed to hear.
Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith, unveiling the proposed law change, stated that the Emissions Trading Scheme already imposes legal climate obligations on companies. He argued that the new legislation would prevent uncertainty in business, confidence, and investment by halting cases like Smith’s.
Critics, however, challenged the adequacy of the scheme and accused the government of undermining the court’s decisions.
Goldsmith explained that if legal uncertainties are allowed to persist, investment would decline over time, negatively impacting the country’s competitiveness. He noted that tort law primarily evolves through judicial decisions rather than legislative processes.
According to Goldsmith, the bill is “targeted” and would only impact tort claims related to climate change damages or harm from greenhouse gas emissions, serving to clarify New Zealand’s climate change legal framework.
Labour’s Deborah Russell pledged to repeal the legislation if her party is elected in November, calling it “very, very bad law” and criticizing Goldsmith’s justification as weak and unsupported by his officials.
Russell highlighted what she called the government’s poor track record on climate initiatives, citing the weakening of the emissions trading scheme, dilution of clean car standards, cancellation of Auckland Light Rail, and increased road user charges for electric vehicles.
Green MP Steve Abel condemned the bill as “disgusting,” claiming it seeks to remove New Zealanders’ rights to hold companies accountable for climate-related harm.
The legislation is also embroiled in controversy regarding the Prime Minister’s Office, which the Ombudsman found had unjustly withheld documents from lobbyists representing Z Energy and Fonterra, breaching the Official Information Act.
Abel accused the government of corruption, pointing to the influence of powerful companies on politicians to suppress citizens’ rights. He argued that the government’s actions contradicted the principle of common law, where all individuals are equal before the law.
The bill received support from government parties, but opposition parties voted against it.
In defense of the bill, ACT MP Simon Court criticized Abel for “grandstanding” and “climate alarmism,” while New Zealand First’s Mark Patterson said the legislation restored parliamentary sovereignty and curtailed excessive litigation.
Te PÄti MÄori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer accused the government of “gaslighting” New Zealanders by claiming the bill was about certainty, arguing that it prioritized major polluters over environmental protections and MÄori calls for climate justice.
Goldsmith also urged a reduced timeframe for public submissions to the select committee, setting a deadline of 30 July.
‘Dark day’
Mike Smith described the passage of the bill as “a dark day for democracy,” labeling it “corporate protection legislation.” He criticized the government for stripping away New Zealanders’ rights to seek justice against corporations that cause climate damage.
Smith recounted his legal challenge against Fonterra seven years ago, driven by a lack of accountability for major polluters by successive governments. He emphasized that no company should be above the law, and no government should prevent ordinary citizens from accessing the courts.
Smith asserted that recent events have revealed the influence of corporate lobbying, with major polluters pressuring politicians to safeguard their interests. He concluded that the government has delivered exactly what these corporations desired.
