Scoop has an Ethical Paywall
Govt Changes Law To Halt Climate Lawsuits – Expert Reaction
The government intends to adjust the Climate Change Response Act, preventing the courts from finding certain types of liability for damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions.
The move will affect all current and future court cases, including Smith v Fonterra and others, set to return to the High Court next year.
The SMC asked experts to comment.
Associate Professor Stephen Young, Faculty of Law | Te Kaupeka Tātai Ture, University of Otago, comments:
“The Smith v Fonterra litigation has always sat somewhat uneasily within orthodox tort law. The Government’s proposed amendments to the Climate Change Response Act 2002 appear intended to limit or foreclose those kinds of climate litigation claims in the interests of providing greater certainty for greenhouse gas emitters. Of course, Parliament is entitled to amend the law and clarify the limits of liability if it considers that appropriate.
“At present, however, it is not entirely clear how far the proposed reforms will go or precisely what forms of litigation they are intended to prevent. That uncertainty matters because there is a broader question about whether the existing statutory framework is fully fit for purpose in addressing climate-related harms. In that context, the use of the common law to test the boundaries of responsibility has been valuable.
“With this announcement, the Government is prioritising commercial certainty over environmental security, even as climate change makes the conditions for commercial enterprise or even continued existence increasingly uncertain. Whether that is a worthwhile trade is open to debate.”
Conflict of interest statement: “None.”
Professor Alexander Gillespie, Te Piringa Faculty of Law, University of Waikato, comments:
“Climate litigation has emerged as a tool for individuals, civil society and governments to challenge inadequate action on climate change by both public institutions and private entities. This tool first came into use in 1986. Since that point it has grown considerably, especially post 2015 and the advent of the Paris Agreement. As of the middle of 2025, the cumulative number of cases includes an estimated 3,099 climate change cases filed in 55 jurisdictions and 24 international or regional courts, tribunals, quasi-judicial bodies or other adjudicatory bodies.
“New Zealand is part of this tide of which there have been a series of important cases. While some of these have failed others have found openings, which plaintiffs seek to utilise to force countries/entities to do more to respond what is an undoubtedly a very serious time in climate change matters. Within New Zealand, some of these attempts are utilising aspects of Tort law, with the tools adopted (such as nuisance and negligence) representing hundreds of years of careful evolution through the common law system. Tinkering with established areas of law should only be done with extreme caution. Some of the cases are also trying to advance novel areas of tort responsibilities in the area of climate change. This use of novel extensions to ensure entities are held accountable for their actions is a long tradition in tort law.
“The challenge for the government is that some current litigation may utilise the existing laws and apply them to climate change responsibilities of large emitting entities, making them responsible to do more to avert climate change. It is quite possible that some of the claims currently being advanced have merit and could impose costs on the named entities to do more to reduce their climate impacts. Rather than have this theory tested in court, the government seems intent on removing all possibilities of judgements in this area being reached. I expect they will be doing this because they fear the potential impacts upon the targeted companies, precedent value for other entities, and the problem that the same rules may not be applied internationally, thus putting NZ companies at a disadvantage.
“On the other hand, the clear problem is that not enough is being done to rectify the problem of climate change (especially in NZ) and accountability for what could be legal wrongs is being sidestepped; and by potentially making a blanket ban in this area, they are avoiding even theoretical findings of wrongdoing – even if liability is not attached. This type of legislative response in NZ to circumvent legitimate climate litigation may have negative implications globally, as other countries follow suit, to close down a wide array of cases involved in climate litigation.”
Conflict of interest statement: “Not really [any conflicts], but I am an expert witness at the current Waitangi Tribunal Climate Change Priority Inquiry – but my contribution is primarily around how international law works in this area, with a further giving of evidence in a couple of weeks time about the consideration of future generations in climate change matters.”
Science Media Centre NZ
Our aim is to promote accurate, evidence-based reporting on science and technology by helping the media work more closely with the scientific community.
The Science Media Centre is New Zealand's only trusted, independent source of information for the media on all issues related to science. Thousands of news stories providing context from and quoting New Zealand researchers have been published as a direct result of our work.
Gordon Campbell: On Pauline Hanson’s Rise, And The TOP Renaissance
New Zealand Alliance Party: Alliance Party Firmly Opposes “Backdoor Privatisation” Of Kiwibank
Taxpayers' Union: New Poll - Coalition Still Ahead; Luxon Regains 'Preferred Prime Minister' Top-Spot
NZ National Party: Judith Collins’ Valedictory Speech
Forest And Bird: Government Biodiversity Credit Scheme Welcomed As Opportunity For Restoration
Office of the Ombudsman: Ombudsman Publishes Findings On Ministry Of Education Sensitive Claims Scheme
Nelson City Council: Mayor Welcomes Auditor-General Decision Not To Prosecute Councillor
