Greens/Labour Government could use ‘urgency’ to repeal climate bill
Wednesday, 13 May 2026
Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick would not commit to repealing Minister of Justice Paul Goldsmith’s proposed law to protect Fonterra, Z Energy and other big companies from being sued for damaging the climate, should it win power with Labour at the next election.
But her responses to the announcement of the bill on Tuesday indicates how the party, and Labour, plan to go about their first 100 days in power, should they form a government together after November’s general election.
That includes how they might use “urgency”, a method of fast-tracking laws through Parliament that the current Government has made frequent use of in a bid to get the country’s economy growing.
“Another chaotic day in this hellhole,” Swarbrick told The Post, dubbing Goldsmith’s bill “the latest insanity from this lot”.
Read More:
Govt once more intervenes to protect business from expensive lawsuits
National MP moves to shield companies from climate liability
The bill would amend the Climate Change Response Act 2002 to prevent findings of liability for tort for climate change damage, or harm caused by greenhouse gas emissions, in both current and future proceedings before the courts, Goldsmith said.
Goldsmith cited the Smith v Fonterra case as motivation for the bill.
That case is before the High Court with Ngāpuhi and Ngāti Kahu climate activist Michael John Smith suing Fonterra, Genesis Energy, Dairy Holdings, New Zealand Steel, Z Energy, the New Zealand Refining Company, and BT Mining for damaging to the climate.
The courts were not the right place to resolve claims of harm from climate change, Goldsmith said, and the Government wanted to remove the possible development of a new regime that contradicted the framework Parliament had enacted to respond to climate change.
Swarbrick said the bill would strip the public of a means of holding polluters to account which would help “their mates” make profits while destroying the planet.
She pointed to extreme weather events hitting the country.
“We have had 21 states of emergency this year. That compares to eight last year.”
But she wouldn’t commit the Greens to repealing Goldsmith’s bill just yet, saying there was so much that needed fixing in the country’s climate response framework.
Swarbrick described the speed of Government law-making as being akin to the “flood the zone” strategy Steve Bannon, former chief strategist for US President Donald Trump developed for dealing with troublesome media by flooding them with immense amounts of information, and disinformation, to overwhelm them.
The Government’s use of urgency to pass so many laws was “outrageous and unprecedented”, and left regular New Zealanders with very little ability to engage, Swarbrick claimed.
But there was so much that had been done by the current government that the Greens would like to undo, not least the Regulatory Standards Bill, that naming this one item for repeal now was not something Swarbrick would do.
“Myself and Marama have been quite actively engaged in conversations with Chris Hipkins and the Labour Party on the approach when we take government,” Swarbrick said.
There would be a 100-day plan, but exactly what would be on the repeal list, and the use that would be made of urgency, was under discussion.
“There’s a legitimate place for urgency,” Swarbrick said.
But over-using it alienated voters, she argued.
“[The Coalition Government] are using it for things they didn’t even campaign on.
“I have been in this place for almost a decade, and I have not felt the sentiment of the community as disengaged and dismayed as it is now.”
Swarbrick indicated that in the run-up to the general election in November, the Green Party would campaign on the things it intended to appeal.
“Urgency can be used when it can be argued it is in the public interest, and when you have had election debates,” she said.