New Zealand shields corporate polluters by banning climate lawsuits

Goldsmith’s law amendment

A few days ago, Justice Miniter Paul Goldsmith announced that the government plans to amend the Climate Change Response Act 2002. The Act was initially designed to help New Zealand meet its international climate obligations, but Goldsmith’s proposed amendment would just end up shifting its effect in the opposite direction.

Why? Well, it seeks to prevent courts from establishing tort liability for climate change damage caused by GHG emissions. In other words, it would effectively bar individuals from suing companies over their contribution to these emissions, and by extension the impact it has on the people in the country.

If passed, the amendment would apply retrospectively, which means that not only would it block future claims but also automatically terminate Smith’s ongoing lawsuit before it reaches trial.

In making such a move, Goldsmith has argued that climate policy should remain at a national level, managed by the government, rather than being shaped through court mandates. He also suggested that the complexity of tort cases, involving environmental, economic, and social factors, make them harmful to investment confidence.

He emphasised that companies should solely by guided by the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme rather than unpredictable court mandates.

Criticisms and implications

Unsurprisingly, the corporate sector reacted with relief. While several defendants in Smith’s case declined to comment, a spokesperson for Z Energy publicly welcomed Goldsmith’s proposal.

However, on the other side of the fence, the reaction was significantly filled with criticism. Mike Smith described the move as ‘an affront to democracy’, arguing that if Parliament can cancel an active court case simply because it’s politically inconvenient, then no legal claim is secure.

Organisations such as Greenpeace also condemned the proposal as an abuse of power ‘to help corporate polluters’, while legal experts warned that it effectively prevents courts from being judicially independent.

For the critics, this issue goes beyond Smith’s case, as the amendment would remove a major legal pathway for citizens to get compensation for climate-related damage. This is particularly significant as the nation’s current emissions framework does not compensate for such damage. Hence, affected communities are forced to absorb any financial, emotional and cultural losses entirely on their own.

Ultimately, by slamming the courtroom door on its own citizens, New Zealand is on the path to setting a dangerous global precedent. And that is to protect short-term corporate profits at the direct expense of human and environmental livelihoods.

Enjoyed this? Click here for more Gen Z focused change stories.