New Zealand moves to block climate lawsuits, risking global commitments
New Zealand is rushing through legislation to shield companies from climate damage lawsuits, even as it backs international efforts to clarify states' climate obligations.
New Zealand's government has introduced emergency legislation designed to halt a landmark climate lawsuit and prevent future companies from being sued for damages caused by their greenhouse gas emissions—a move that legal observers say sits uneasily with the country's international climate commitments.
The case, brought by iwi leader and climate activist Mike Smith, targets major corporations including Fonterra and Z Energy, alleging they have materially contributed to the climate crisis through their emissions and caused harm to his whenua and moana—places of cultural, spiritual and historical significance to him and his whānau.
The Supreme Court's landmark ruling
In a unanimous 2024 decision, New Zealand's Supreme Court ruled that Smith's claims—including public nuisance, negligence, and a novel tort of "climate system damage"—were legally novel but raised arguable questions deserving to be tested at trial. The court ordered the case be reinstated in full, with trial currently scheduled for April 2027.
The government's Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill, introduced under urgency to parliament where it passed its first reading, would nullify that ruling. If enacted, it would apply to both current and future cases, effectively ending Smith's case before trial and blocking any subsequent lawsuits against corporate emitters.
According to the government's reasoning, climate policy should be decided by elected officials and existing laws, not by the courts, to ensure "legal clarity and certainty" for businesses around their obligations.
A challenge to the bill itself
Smith has since filed fresh proceedings in the High Court, arguing that the government's decision to introduce the law change—and the process behind it—were unlawful.
The international dimension
New Zealand's move raises questions about consistency with its own international commitments. In 2021, Vanuatu announced at the United Nations that it would seek an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on states' legal obligations in relation to climate change. New Zealand was among the countries that supported the move, and a resulting UN resolution was adopted by consensus in 2023.
The government's bill would block future lawsuits against corporate emitters—even as the country supports international efforts to clarify climate obligations.
The tension between these positions is at the heart of legal observers' scrutiny. By advancing legislation to shield corporate emitters from climate tort liability, New Zealand may be undermining the very international framework it helped endorse—one designed to establish clearer state duties in relation to climate harm.
According to the reporting, the exact details of the International Court of Justice's advisory opinion on states' climate obligations remain incomplete, leaving unanswered questions about how that opinion might bear on New Zealand's domestic legislative approach.
What happens next
Smith's High Court challenge to the bill's legality is likely to be followed closely by legal and climate advocates. Meanwhile, the amendment bill advances through parliament—passed its first reading under urgency—suggesting the government intends rapid passage.