After years of climate litigation led by Ngāpuhi and Ngāti Kahu kaumātua Mike Smith, Parliament has passed legislation blocking tort claims over emissions-related climate harm — reigniting debate over corporate accountability, access to justice and the Crown’s obligations to Māori.
The Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Act 2026 passed its third reading on August 18 and received Royal assent on August 24. It creates a statutory bar preventing people and organisations from being held liable through tort law for climate-change effects caused or contributed to by greenhouse gas emissions.
The legislation directly affects Smith v Fonterra, the landmark case brought against Fonterra, Genesis Energy, Dairy Holdings, New Zealand Steel, Z Energy and BT Mining.
Smith argues major emitters should have legal responsibilities for their contribution to climate harm. His case includes public nuisance and a proposed new climate tort, while also arguing that tikanga Māori should inform the development of common law. In 2024, the Supreme Court unanimously allowed the case to proceed towards a substantive trial, without deciding whether Smith would ultimately succeed.
That trial had been scheduled for April 2027. The new legislation, however, expressly reaches existing proceedings and prevents tort liability for emissions-related climate effects.
The Government’s position is that climate policy and responsibility for emissions should be determined through legislation and regulation rather than individual civil claims, and that allowing parallel tort liability could create uncertainty for businesses and investors.
But opponents argue the law removes an important avenue for communities experiencing climate damage to test responsibility through the courts. Lawyers for Climate Action has also argued the legislation raises constitutional, access-to-justice and Te Tiriti concerns. Those are the organisation’s legal and policy assessments rather than findings by a court.
For Māori, the legislation is particularly significant because it explicitly covers conceptions of climate harm based on tikanga Māori, while its definition of those protected from tort liability extends to corporations, government departments and the Crown.
With marae, whenua Māori and coastal communities increasingly confronting erosion, flooding and other climate risks, the debate now extends well beyond one court case.
If communities cannot pursue major emitters through tort law for climate-related harm, where should responsibility for that damage ultimately sit?
#MikeSmith #ClimateChange #ClimateJustice #ClimateLaw #SmithVFonterra #TikangaMāori #TeTiriti #WhenuaMāori #Marae #ClimateAccountability #AccessToJustice #Kaitiakitanga #Environment #ClimateCrisis #Māori #TeAoMāori #Aotearoa #WaateaNews #RadioWaatea
