Government to hear bill to block climate change tort claims under urgency
Tuesday, 30 June 2026
The Government will debate under urgency controversial legislation that would retrospectively prevent courts from hearing climate change tort claims, effectively ending Mike Smith’s landmark lawsuit against polluters.
The Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill would prevent people, companies or the Crown from being sued over the effects of greenhouse gas emissions.
The bill is aimed at Smith v Fonterra, the case brought by the climate activist against six of the country’s largest greenhouse gas emitters.
It had been expected to have a first reading this week, but the bill will now be one that will be considered under urgency, the parliamentary process that allows the Government to suspend the usual rules around lawmaking - skipping select committee and sitting for extended hours to pass a bill into law quickly.
Read more:
Who wrote the climate law? Lobbyists' text closely mirrored in reform
Climate activist Mike Smith takes Govt to court over bid to halt landmark lawsuit
In 2024, the Supreme Court ruled the case could proceed to trial, noting Parliament had not excluded the possibility of climate claims under the common law.
The bill would change that. Its transitional provisions expressly apply to proceedings that have not been finally determined, meaning Smith's case would be extinguished despite years of litigation and a 15-week High Court trial set down for April 2027.
According to the bill's explanatory note, the Government considers climate policy should be determined by Parliament rather than the courts.
“The Government considers that tort law is not an appropriate mechanism for responding to greenhouse gas emissions, as there needs to be careful consideration of social, economic, and distributional implications of different climate policy choices,” the note says.
The proposed law is sweeping. It provides that no person, including the Crown, may be held legally responsible for the effects of climate change caused by emissions.
It would prevent lawsuits, whether those emissions occurred before or after the law comes into force.
And it rules out compensation for anyone whose claim is barred by the new law, such as Smith.
The bill blocks a wide range of climate claims, including public nuisance and cultural harm recognised under tikanga Māori.
But it leaves existing rights to sue over local pollution, such as smoke, ash or odours affecting neighbouring properties, unchanged.
On Monday, The Post revealed Smith has asked the High Court for a judicial review of the Government’s move to block his lawsuit.
His application claims the decision followed a corporate lobbying campaign by Fonterra and Z Energy.
In May, The Post revealed staff from the dairy and fuel giants avoided official government channels by printing briefing papers and hand-delivering them to the prime minister's then chief policy adviser, Matt Burgess, in 2024.
It remains unclear how, when, or through whom the proposals entered formal Government policy processes.
In May, more than 100 academics, legal experts and environmental groups wrote to ministers urging them to reconsider their decision to amend the law.
Their letter said retrospectively removing Smith’s right to bring the lawsuit “puts at risk a fundamental tenet of the rule of law: that parties have the right to have their case heard on the basis of the law as it stood at the time.
“The proposed amendment would act to shield a small number of companies from liability at the expense of the public interest.”