Alliance Calls For Resignation Of Justice Minister
The Alliance Party is calling for the immediate resignation of Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith, citing what it says is a dangerous disregard for constitutional principles and a pattern of legislative interference designed to protect major corporate interests from legal accountability.
Alliance Justice Spokesperson Kevin Campbell says the Minister’s recent comments on climate litigation reveal a serious misunderstanding of the role of the courts in New Zealand’s legal system.
“Our justice system should not be headed by a Minister who appears to fear the possibility that the courts may develop the common law in a way that challenges the Government’s preferred policy framework,” Mr Campbell says.
Mr Campbell says New Zealand’s legal system has developed over centuries through both statute law passed by Parliament and common law developed by the courts.
“The courts interpret legislation, apply legal principles to specific cases, and develop the common law where justice requires it. That is a fundamental part of the rule of law.”
Mr Campbell says courts have always developed the law incrementally as new issues arise, and that the Minister now appears to be attempting to strip the judiciary of that role in order to protect powerful private interests.
The Alliance says the Government’s proposed intervention in climate tort law is particularly disturbing because it would apply to current proceedings, including the long-running Smith v Fonterra litigation.
Mr Campbell says there is a stark contrast with the ACC scheme, where the removal of the right to sue for personal injury was balanced by a state-funded social contract providing no-fault cover.
“In this case, the Government is not replacing access to the courts with any equivalent remedy. It is simply closing the door on justice.”
Mr Campbell says the proposed retrospective application risks setting a dangerous precedent for other emerging areas of harm.
“If the Government can retrospectively shut down climate tort claims because they are inconvenient to large emitters, what stops a future Government from blocking tort claims involving artificial intelligence, biotechnology, pollution, or other emerging technologies simply to protect corporate interests?”
He says the Government is attempting to lock Mike Smith out of court after years of litigation, despite the Supreme Court ruling that his claims should not be struck out and should be allowed to proceed to trial.
“The Supreme Court did not decide that Mr Smith would win. But it did decide that his case was arguable and should be heard. The Minister is now trying to override that process by changing the law after the fact.”
Mr Campbell is also calling on New Zealand First Leader Winston Peters, himself a lawyer, to intervene.
“Winston Peters needs to decide whether he is prepared to defend New Zealand’s constitutional traditions, or whether New Zealand First will stand by while the courts are sidelined to protect corporate interests.”
“Paul Goldsmith has shown he does not understand, or does not respect, the constitutional responsibilities of his office. He should resign.”
Background: Smith v Fonterra
The controversy centres on the landmark case Smith v Fonterra Co-operative Group Ltd [2024] NZSC 5.
Mike Smith, an elder of Ngāpuhi and Ngāti Kahu and a climate change spokesperson for the Iwi Chairs Forum, filed proceedings in 2019 against major New Zealand-based corporate entities involved in industries that either emit greenhouse gases or supply products that release greenhouse gases when burned.
Mr Smith alleged that the respondents had contributed materially to the climate crisis and had damaged, and would continue to damage, his whenua and moana, including places of customary, cultural, historical, nutritional and spiritual significance to him and his whānau.
His claim raised three causes of action in tort: public nuisance, negligence, and a proposed climate system damage tort.
The High Court struck out the public nuisance and negligence claims but allowed the proposed climate system damage tort to proceed. The Court of Appeal later struck out all three causes of action.
In February 2024, the Supreme Court unanimously allowed Mr Smith’s appeal, reinstated his claim, and held that the case should proceed to trial. The Court made clear that allowing the claim to proceed was not a decision that the claim would ultimately succeed.
The Government has now announced that it will amend the Climate Change Response Act 2002 to prevent courts from making certain findings of civil liability for climate-change damage or harm caused by greenhouse gas emissions. The Ministry of Justice says the law change would apply to the existing High Court case.
The Alliance says this is a constitutionally dangerous attempt to retrospectively shut down a case after the Supreme Court has ruled it should be heard.
