New Zealand’s parliament has adopted a controversial new law blocking a whole avenue of climate litigation and shutting down its most advanced corporate lawsuit, which has been blamed by the government for shaking business confidence and investment.
The Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill, expected to take effect in the coming days after it is formally signed by the Governor-General, prevents all current and future civil claims for climate loss or harm under tort law.
Justice minister Paul Goldsmith said last week that the aim was to give businesses “certainty around their climate change obligations”, noting it would not alter the government’s responsibilities under the Climate Change Response Act 2002 nor business obligations under the Emissions Trading Scheme.
“Our response to climate change is best managed by the Government at a national level and not through piece-meal litigation in the courts," he added in a statement.
Such litigation, he said, "risks developing a new regime that contradicts the framework Parliament has already enacted" to tackle climate change.
Upgrade to keep reading
For 15 years we’ve rigorously reported on the decisions shaping our climate. Upgrading to a paid subscription is how readers like you help keep this work going.
Or £130/year — best value.
New Zealand’s parliament has adopted a controversial new law blocking a whole avenue of climate litigation and shutting down its most advanced corporate lawsuit, which has been blamed by the government for shaking business confidence and investment.
The Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill, expected to take effect in the coming days after it is formally signed by the Governor-General, prevents all current and future civil claims for climate loss or harm under tort law.
Justice minister Paul Goldsmith said last week that the aim was to give businesses “certainty around their climate change obligations”, noting it would not alter the government’s responsibilities under the Climate Change Response Act 2002 nor business obligations under the Emissions Trading Scheme.
“Our response to climate change is best managed by the Government at a national level and not through piece-meal litigation in the courts," he added in a statement.
Such litigation, he said, "risks developing a new regime that contradicts the framework Parliament has already enacted" to tackle climate change.
Goldsmith singled out a key domestic climate lawsuit brought by Northland iwi leader and activist Mike Smith against six big companies: dairy firms Fonterra and Dairy Holdings, energy firms Genesis Energy and Z Energy, New Zealand Steel and coal mining firm BT Mining. A seventh original defendant, Channel Infrastructure, was dropped after it permanently decommissioned its Marsden Point oil refinery.
Smith argued that these companies had caused him harm under public nuisance and negligence law, as well as a third breach of a duty to cease contributing to climate change that has yet to be tested domestically. He did not seek financial compensation, instead asking for the companies to immediately stop emitting or contributing to net greenhouse gas emissions.
In one of the most advanced corporate climate accountability lawsuits in the world, a trial had been scheduled for April 2027 after the Supreme Court unanimously allowed the case to continue.
Corporate lobbying in the shadows
Smith described the passing of the bill as “deeply concerning”, particularly as it coincided with the Supreme Court hearing another of his climate lawsuits. In that case, Smith v Attorney-General, he argues that the government’s response to climate change and its impacts on Māori communities in particular breaches rights to life and culture.
“That timing raises profound questions about the separation of powers and the rule of law,” said Smith. “Whatever one’s view of the merits of these cases, it is deeply troubling when parliament intervenes to remove a legal pathway while the courts are actively considering fundamental questions about climate responsibility, rights and the crown’s obligations.”
The bill - which says that no person (including the government) can be found liable in tort for emissions-related climate change effects - followed major lobbying efforts by the companies defending themselves in Smith’s lawsuit. They outlined a proposed legal amendment in a briefing note to the government in 2024.
The centre-right government has been fiercely criticised over its lack of transparency in relation to this lobbying activity. The national ombudsman recently found that the Prime Minister's Office effectively withheld information requested by the Environmental Law Initiative about meetings, discussions and conversations regarding Smith's case.
Green groups fail to stop bill
The bill sparked huge concern among environmental campaigners in New Zealand and elsewhere. Greenpeace Aotearoa called it a “shocking abuse of executive power” and the vast majority of submissions to a parliamentary inquiry said it should be rejected.
But in the end, it was adopted with little resistance, moving relatively smoothly through parliament, passing its third reading by 67 votes to 53. Sam Bookman, climate law lecturer at Melbourne Law School, told Climate Home News he was not surprised by this, given that the coalition government has a secure majority.
A complaint has been made to the UN special rapporteur on climate change and human rights by Smith, the National Iwi Chairs Forum Pou Tikanga and youth coalition Climate Clinic Aotearoa over what they see as the government's heavy-handed approach. Smith is also challenging the new law in yet another lawsuit.
“Pathetic”: New Zealand plans to barely cut emissions between 2030 and 2035
Bookman thinks it “very unlikely” that such a challenge will succeed, noting that New Zealand's constitution is firmly anchored in parliamentary sovereignty.
But the expert in climate law does not see the bill as the end of legal action in the country, noting that New Zealand has a “sophisticated climate litigation landscape with a growing number of specialist and experienced lawyers and NGOs”.
The country is also approaching its next general election in November, and some opposition parties have pledged to restore access to the courts if elected.
Amanda Larsson, global project lead on agriculture for Greenpeace International, said: “This law deserves to be tested, and I strongly encourage the international climate litigation community to unite and help defend New Zealanders' fundamental right to hold polluters accountable before this becomes a global blueprint.”
Copycat legislation on the rise
New Zealand’s move is part of a small but growing legislative effort to shut down climate litigation around the world.
In the US, Republican politicians introduced legislation in the House and Senate in April that would shield fossil fuel firms from climate liability lawsuits. Similar laws have already been passed at state level in Tennessee, Utah, Iowa and Louisiana.
The German state of Bavaria has put forward a similar proposal to the Federal Council, aiming to block private climate claims as well as the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments imposing such liability. There are also proposals to limit available remedies and actions in the Netherlands and Belgium.
UN General Assembly backs “climate obligations” set by world’s top court
Bookman said he expects more efforts to counter climate damages litigation and advised plaintiffs to think about how to respond, including drawing on broader support in opposing them.
“Even though it's very hard for plaintiffs to win these types of cases, companies are very eager to avoid the expense, embarrassment and political accountability that come even with unsuccessful lawsuits,” he said.
Facts Only
* The Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill prevents all current and future civil claims for climate loss or harm under tort law.
* Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith stated the aim was to give businesses "certainty around their climate change obligations."
* The legislation does not alter government responsibilities under the Climate Change Response Act 2002 or business obligations under the Emissions Trading Scheme.
* The bill specifically blocks civil claims for climate loss or harm under tort law.
* The lawsuit involved Northland iwi leader Mike Smith against Fonterra, Dairy Holdings, Genesis Energy, Z Energy, New Zealand Steel, BT Mining, and Channel Infrastructure.
* Smith argued these companies caused harm under public nuisance and negligence law and breached a duty to cease emissions.
* A trial for one of the lawsuits was scheduled for April 2027 after the Supreme Court allowed it to continue.
* The bill followed lobbying efforts by the defending companies regarding Smith’s lawsuit.
* Greenpeace Aotearoa called the bill a "shocking abuse of executive power."
* The bill passed Parliament with 67 votes to 53.
Executive Summary
New Zealand's parliament adopted the Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill, which prevents all current and future civil claims for climate loss or harm under tort law. The stated aim of this legislation is to provide businesses with certainty regarding their climate change obligations, without altering government responsibilities under the Climate Change Response Act 2002 or Emissions Trading Scheme obligations. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith noted that managing climate change should be done by the Government at a national level rather than through piece-meal litigation.
The bill specifically impacts a major corporate lawsuit brought by Northland iwi leader Mike Smith against large entities, including Fonterra, Dairy Holdings, Genesis Energy, Z Energy, New Zealand Steel, and BT Mining, as well as Channel Infrastructure. Smith argued these companies caused harm under public nuisance and negligence law. The legislation followed lobbying efforts by the defending companies, who had proposed legal amendments in response to the lawsuit.
Environmental groups expressed significant concern, with Greenpeace Aotearoa calling the move a "shocking abuse of executive power." Despite this opposition, the bill passed Parliament. Legal experts suggest that while parliamentary sovereignty is strong, New Zealand maintains a sophisticated climate litigation landscape, and there remains potential for future legal challenges.
Full Take
The legislative action exemplifies a tension between administrative centralization and judicial accountability in addressing climate change. The core dynamic involves a shift of responsibility from the courts, where litigation seeks redress for specific harms, to the executive branch, which seeks to establish clear, centralized obligations. This moves the locus of accountability from individualized tort claims to governmental management frameworks.
The pattern emerging is one of jurisdictional friction: while the government frames its response as necessary national management, activists and litigants frame this move as an evasion of substantive responsibility. The fact that this outcome resulted from parliamentary majority, despite strong external critique from environmental groups and legal commentators, suggests a prioritization of executive certainty over judicial avenues for climate accountability.
This legislative maneuver reflects a global trend where states attempt to constrain liability pathways in complex areas like climate risk, often framed under the guise of necessary regulatory coherence. The continuation of litigation efforts by experts suggests that while immediate legal barriers may be erected, the underlying demand for corporate accountability persists. The question then becomes whether operational certainty achieved through this legislative framework truly equates to substantive justice or merely procedural closure. What mechanisms exist beyond domestic courts to ensure that executive certainty is not used to indefinitely suspend redress for systemic harm?
Sentinel — Human
The text exhibits characteristics of high-quality journalistic reporting, effectively synthesizing complex legal and political developments with personal commentary, suggesting human authorship.