A heated debate has erupted in Parliament after the Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill passed its first reading, with the Government arguing the legislation will provide legal certainty for businesses while climate advocate Mike Smith says it removes an important avenue for holding major polluters accountable.
The bill, introduced by Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith, amends the Climate Change Response Act 2002 to create a statutory bar preventing courts from finding individuals, companies or the Crown liable in tort for climate change damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions. The changes would also apply to existing proceedings that have not yet been finally determined, including the landmark Smith v Fonterra case.
The Government says the legislation is designed to ensure climate policy remains the responsibility of Parliament and the Executive, rather than being determined through private civil litigation.
It argues New Zealand already has a comprehensive framework for addressing greenhouse gas emissions through the Climate Change Response Act, emissions budgets and the Emissions Trading Scheme, and that allowing courts to develop parallel climate obligations through tort law would create legal uncertainty and undermine investment.
Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith says decisions about balancing environmental protection, economic development and emissions reductions involve complex social and economic considerations that are best made through democratically elected governments rather than through individual court cases.
However, Māori climate advocate Mike Smith, whose Supreme Court victory in 2024 allowed his case against several major greenhouse gas emitters to proceed to trial, has strongly criticised the legislation.
Smith says the bill represents a significant setback for environmental accountability and public access to justice, arguing it effectively removes one of the few remaining legal mechanisms available for communities seeking redress for climate-related harm.
He maintains that the legislation places the interests of large emitters ahead of ordinary New Zealanders and weakens the ability of the courts to consider claims where government regulation is alleged to have fallen short.
The Smith v Fonterra proceedings have attracted international attention after the Supreme Court ruled that aspects of Smith’s climate-related tort claims could proceed to trial, making New Zealand one of the first common law jurisdictions to allow such claims to move beyond preliminary legal challenges.
The Government says the amendment is necessary to restore certainty following that decision and to confirm that emissions obligations should continue to be governed through legislation rather than common law.
For Māori, the debate reaches beyond legal process. Climate change continues to threaten many coastal marae, wāhi tapu, customary fisheries and other taonga, placing increasing importance on the principles of kaitiakitanga and the protection of whenua and moana for future generations.
Supporters of the bill argue it provides certainty for businesses investing in New Zealand while maintaining existing climate obligations through the country’s regulatory framework.
Opponents contend that limiting access to the courts weakens accountability and removes an important safeguard for communities seeking remedies when environmental harm occurs.
The bill will now proceed to the select committee stage, where members of the public, iwi, environmental organisations, businesses and legal experts will have an opportunity to make submissions before Parliament considers the legislation further.
#RadioWaatea #WaateaNews #ClimateChange #MikeSmith #SmithVFonterra #ClimateJustice #ClimateLaw #Kaitiakitanga #TeTiriti #Environment #Parliament #PaulGoldsmith #ClimateAction #Aotearoa #SEO
