By Abbas Nazil
The New Zealand government has announced plans to amend the country’s climate laws to stop companies from being sued over damages linked to greenhouse gas emissions, a move that has sparked outrage among climate activists, legal experts and opposition politicians.
Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said the proposed amendment would prevent courts from finding companies liable in tort claims related to climate damage, effectively halting current and future lawsuits against major emitters.
The law change is expected to immediately affect a landmark climate case brought by Māori activist and iwi leader Mike Smith against dairy giant Fonterra and several fossil fuel companies accused of contributing significantly to New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions.
Smith had secured approval from New Zealand’s Supreme Court in 2024 to pursue legal action, arguing that the companies owed a duty of care to communities already suffering from the impacts of climate change.
The case, scheduled to return to the High Court next year, sought to establish whether major polluters could be held legally responsible for emissions contributing to environmental damage and climate-related harm.
Goldsmith defended the government’s decision, saying climate change should be addressed through national policies rather than through court actions that could create uncertainty for businesses and investors.
He argued that New Zealand already has mechanisms for managing emissions through the Climate Change Response Act and the Emissions Trading Scheme, adding that litigation risk could undermine business confidence and investment stability.
However, critics described the move as an unprecedented political intervention in an active court process.
Smith condemned the proposal as “an affront to democracy,” warning that allowing Parliament to terminate ongoing legal proceedings could undermine public confidence in the justice system.
He maintained that the lawsuit was not aimed at obtaining compensation but rather at compelling major emitters to take stronger action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
According to him, the true threat to businesses and communities comes from worsening climate impacts such as droughts, flooding and environmental degradation rather than legal accountability measures.
Environmental organisation Greenpeace also criticised the decision, calling it a shocking abuse of power designed to shield major polluters from responsibility for climate-related harm.
Greenpeace executive director Russel Norman said the government was removing citizens’ rights to seek justice through the courts while intervening directly in a live legal matter.
Legal experts also expressed concern over the implications of the proposed amendment.
Jenny Cooper, president of Lawyers for Climate Action, argued that the decision appeared to override a unanimous Supreme Court ruling before the case could even proceed to trial.
She warned that the amendment could leave New Zealanders without any legal pathway to seek damages or accountability from companies whose emissions contribute to climate-related losses.
Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick accused the government of dismantling climate protections and removing one of the few mechanisms available for holding emitters accountable.
She argued that existing climate laws and the Emissions Trading Scheme do not provide compensation for people affected by climate damage, making court action one of the only remaining accountability options.
Meanwhile, another major climate-related court challenge against Climate Change Minister Simon Watts remains unaffected by the proposed law change.
That case, brought by the Environmental Law Initiative and Lawyers for Climate Action, questions the legality of the government’s climate strategy and is awaiting judgment later this year.
Environmental Law Initiative legal adviser Eliza Prestidge Oldfield criticised the government’s argument that climate issues should only be handled through policy, saying the administration had weakened several climate measures while simultaneously attempting to block judicial scrutiny.
The controversy has intensified debate in New Zealand over climate accountability, corporate responsibility and the balance between economic interests and environmental justice as the country faces increasing pressure to strengthen its climate response.
