Bill banning climate tort cases like Mike Smith's passes first reading

Legislation preventing lawsuits against companies for climate-changing emissions under tort law has passed its first reading in Parliament.

It would stop climate activist Mike Smith's lawsuit against New Zealand's biggest emitters, which the Supreme Court had agreed could be heard.

When announcing plans for the law change, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith argued that with the Emissions Trading Scheme in place, companies already had legal climate requirements to comply with.

Critics have disputed that the scheme is equivalent, and argued the government was overriding the court's rulings.

In his speech, he said allowing Smith's case and others like it to go ahead would create uncertainty in business, confidence and investment.

"Ultimately, if there is a legal uncertainty, there is less investment over time, and that affects us all by making our country less competitive," he said.

"Tort law has primarily been developed through the common law, which arises from decisions made by judges in court rather than by legislation that is developed in Parliament."

He said the bill was "targeted" and would only affect tort claims relating to climate change damages or harms arising from greenhouse gas emissions, and was merely clarifying the framework New Zealand was operating in regarding climate change.

Labour's Deborah Russell said the party would repeal the legislation.

"This is very, very bad law," she said, criticising Goldsmith's reasoning as "very thin and one that is not backed up by his own officials".

She then ran through a laundry list of "the government's record on climate change", accompanied by a pile of sheets of A4 paper with her words printed on them to reinforce each point.

"They have allowed the emissions trading scheme to fray to the point of collapse; they have diluted the clean car standards; they have canceled Auckland Light Rail; they have added excessive road user charges to electric vehicles," she said.

Green MP Steve Abel said it was a "disgusting" piece of law that was "trying to eliminate the right of every New Zealander" to challenge companies on climate harms.

The legislation is also at the centre of complaints that the prime minister's office failed to meet its obligations under the Official Information Act, with the Ombudsman finding documents provided to the office by lobbyists on behalf of Z Energy and Fonterra should have been released and denying a request to do so was unreasonable.

Abel said the government needed to be "held to account for the accusation of corruption in this regard".

"The direct lobbying by a big powerful company to a politician to extinguish a citizen's rights, at what point do we name that what it really is?

"The principle of common law is that we are all equal before the law, Madam Speaker. That principle came in as an alternative to the tyranny of kings, the tyranny of the powerful, the tyranny of the wealthy. This government is reinstating the tyranny of the wealthy."

Government parties backed the bill, opposition parties voted against it.

Speaking in support of the bill, ACT MP Simon Court accused Abel of "your grandstanding, your climate alarmism, your donation-harvesting doomism, and your cult-like fearmongering," while New Zealand First's Mark Patterson said the bill restored Parliament's sovereignty and stopped a "Wild West out there, in terms of litigation".

Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer said the government's claim the bill was about certainty was "gaslighting" New Zealanders.

"When Māori ask for climate justice, we are told no. When communities ask for stronger environmental protections, we are told there are competing priorities. But when major polluters seek certainty, legislation arrives so quickly. And that's the political choice."

Goldsmith also called for a shortened timeframe for members of the public to give feedback to the select committee by 30 July.

'Dark day'

Mike Smith said it was "a dark day for democracy" and described the bill as "corporate protection legislation".

"Today this government has told New Zealanders that if powerful corporations damage your future through climate pollution, your right to seek justice can simply be taken away.

"Seven years ago I took Smith v Fonterra to the courts because successive governments were failing to hold major polluters accountable. I went to court because no company should be above the law and no government should be allowed to close the courthouse doors on ordinary people.

"But over the past month New Zealanders have seen how power really works. We have seen corporate lobbying happen behind closed doors. We have watched major polluters lean on politicians to protect their interests. And now this government has delivered exactly what those corporations wanted."