A leading international law expert is warning the Government’s proposed move to legislate against climate lawsuits already before the courts could have major implications for democracy, judicial independence and the future of climate accountability in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Professor Alexander Gillespie from the University of Waikato, an expert in international law and climate litigation, says the proposal raises significant constitutional and legal concerns because it involves Parliament intervening in active court proceedings already accepted by the judiciary.

The debate follows the landmark Supreme Court case brought by Māori climate advocate Mike Smith against several major New Zealand emitters, including Fonterra and energy companies, over their contribution to climate harm.

The Supreme Court previously ruled the case could proceed toward trial, opening the door for common law arguments around corporate climate responsibility to be tested in New Zealand courts.

But the Government is now considering legislative changes that could effectively prevent such claims from continuing.

Legal observers say the move would represent a rare and highly controversial use of Parliament’s lawmaking power to shut down legal pathways already recognised by the courts.

Professor Gillespie says one of the key concerns is the precedent it may establish around the separation of powers between Parliament and the judiciary.

Traditionally, Parliament creates laws while courts interpret and apply them. Critics argue intervening directly in ongoing litigation risks blurring that constitutional boundary.

The proposal also raises broader questions about the role of the courts in developing common law, particularly in emerging and evolving areas such as climate responsibility.

Around the world, courts have increasingly become central battlegrounds for climate action as communities, indigenous groups and environmental advocates seek accountability from governments and large corporate emitters.

New Zealand’s Supreme Court decision allowing the Smith case to proceed was viewed internationally as significant because it acknowledged the possibility that common law could evolve to address modern climate harms.

The Government argues the proposed law changes are necessary to provide certainty for businesses and protect economic stability.

Supporters of the move say climate litigation creates uncertainty for industries such as agriculture and energy, potentially exposing companies to prolonged legal risk.

But critics argue removing legal avenues for accountability could weaken pressure on major emitters to reduce environmental harm.

Professor Gillespie warns that if governments begin legislating against climate litigation whenever cases become politically or economically inconvenient, it may undermine one of the few remaining mechanisms communities have to challenge environmental damage.

The issue is particularly significant for Māori and coastal communities, many of whom are already experiencing the impacts of climate change through erosion, flooding and threats to whenua and wāhi tapu.

Internationally, climate litigation is rapidly expanding.

Cases targeting governments and corporations have emerged across Europe, the United States, Australia and the Pacific as courts increasingly confront questions around emissions responsibility and environmental rights.

Legal experts say New Zealand’s approach could now attract global attention for a very different reason — whether governments can use legislation to effectively close the courthouse doors on climate claims.

Some warn the move could encourage other countries to adopt similar approaches, potentially slowing the growing international momentum around climate accountability.

For climate advocates, the concern extends beyond one case or one government.

The wider debate is becoming about whether legal systems will continue evolving to respond to climate change — or whether political and economic interests will place limits on how far courts can go.

As climate pressures intensify globally, the outcome of the debate in Aotearoa may have implications far beyond New Zealand’s borders.

#ClimateChange #MikeSmith #ClimateJustice #AlexanderGillespie #InternationalLaw #ClimateLitigation #Fonterra #CorporateAccountability #Aotearoa #EnvironmentalJustice #Māori #ClimateAction #NZPolitics #SupremeCourt #RadioWaatea #WaateaNews