Explosive new details in Government secret pollution documents
‘Constitutionally abhorrent’: Expert reveals advice to government on climate law change
A legal expert who was consulted on the government’s law change that would prevent companies from being sued over climate change has released his advice publicly, explaining his opposition to the proposal at the time.
Associate Professor at Auckland Law School Vernon Rive told RNZ he suspects the main reason for the legislative move is to “remove the opportunity for corporate accountability” and likened stopping the case halfway through as being “constitutionally abhorrent”.
The Justice Minister told RNZ the assertion the legislation stops the case halfway through is “inaccurate”, given the court proceedings are still at a procedural stage.
RNZ reported last month that a previously undisclosed briefing document had been provided to the prime minister’s office by Fonterra and Z Energy regarding climate activist Mike Smith’s case against those companies and other major emitters.
RNZ also reported officials had told the government not to intervene in the court case.
Rive posted on social media on Tuesday, saying he was contacted by Ministry of Justice (MOJ) officials in July 2025 to ask whether he’d be willing to discuss an idea under consideration then by ministers, “a statutory bar on greenhouse gas-related tort claims”.
“I met virtually with officials on 15 July 2025 and conveyed my strong views on the undesirability of the proposal.”
He followed up the meeting by sending officials a 14-page briefing paper. Rive said now the matter was in the public arena, “I’ve decided to release that paper”.
The paper started by outlining the ministry’s introduction to the consultation, then Rive stated his overall stance of opposition to the proposal.
“I don’t want to belabour this, but I should just reiterate my opposition to a legislative bar on existing or future tort proceedings relating to the effects of greenhouse gas emissions.”
Rive also said a careful assessment of the likely outcome of the case was needed before deciding to intervene legislatively.
“The outcome of any litigation is unpredictable. At this stage, none of us can be sure what evidence and arguments will be presented, how they will be responded to, how the trial judge or judges will assess them, or what relief, if any, might be granted.
“However, in my view-and I believe in the view of many informed legal commentators-the prospects of injunctive relief that would create a parallel judicial regulatory framework requiring the corporate defendants to achieve quantified emissions reductions are very low.”
He also pointed to the “corporate defendants and others in similar positions” having argued “and will continue to argue” that the case should be stopped because it’s “inconceivable that the court might create a parallel regulatory regime alongside” that in the Climate Change Response Act.
“I regard this is a straw figure argument,” Rive wrote in bold font.
“It’s unlikely that a judicial regulatory regime will be created. But in the event that this occurs, there is always the option of a targeted legislative response.”
He said the best way to proceed would be to let the case play out, and that Parliament would always be able to respond legislatively once the outcome of the case was known.
“That would be far less constitutionally abhorrent than stopping a case halfway through, with all of the rights and rule of law issues attendant on an interference with live court proceedings.”
Rive also said the move was inconsistent with the Regulatory Standards Bill (RSB).
That legislation – now the Regulatory Standards Act 2025 – contains a set of principles of responsible regulation and regulatory stewardship.
“A statute neutralising Smith v Fonterra would collide with at least four of those principles” that had been proposed in the Bill he said:
- Rule of law / no retrospectivity. The RSB requires that legislation “should not adversely affect rights and liberties, or impose obligations, retrospectively”.
- Role of the courts. The RSB insists legislation must “preserve the courts” role of authoritatively determining the meaning of legislation and of resolving issues of legal right and liability by application of law, not political discretion.
- Liberties and property. The bill’s liberty principle prohibits undue diminutions of a person’s right to seek judicial vindication of interests in land or culture; its taking-of-property clause allows impairments only with justification and fair compensation.
- Good law-making and consultation. The RSB stresses that affected persons should be consulted and that legislation should be proportional and evidence-based. Rushing through an override to protect six emitters from judicial scrutiny would likely fail any “benefits outweigh costs” or consultation audit.
RNZ
The Government’s own legal experts told them not to kill off Mike Smith’s case against the big polluters, but they did it anyway!
Let’s get this straight.
A Senior Policy Analyst took secret advice from Big Polluters involved in a legal case to kill it and replace it with policy that was almost word for word the same as the secret lobbying.
We also know the Senior Policy Analyst involved was a former NZ Initiative Researcher, the NZ Initiative is the right wing think tank that works with Atlas Network and three of the seven big polluters are connected to the NZ Initiativeβ¦
β¦so you have a secret pollution agenda and right wing think tanks colluding to hide their influence!
Could you imagine if it was the Left who was doing this?
Could you imagine what the Taxpayersβ Union would be screaming?
Jordan Williams would be posting molotov cocktail recipes and the home addresses of Labour Party Ministers, but it’s the National Party and mates of the NZ Initiative, not a whisper.
It’s funny what the Taxpayers’ Union belives is worthy attacking when it’s not MΔori and is their mates.
The Super El Nino is predicted to peak over NZ this Summer, you can think about how the biggest contributors to that climate warming are writing the rules as we melt.
Corrupt as f**k
In a phrase: Prosperity Gospel CORRUPTION!
Where’s Trevor to protect the mist corrupt government in history?
It is a few months until the elections but at this point of time the polls say more people are happy with the Coalition than the alternative. They must be doing something right
What would that be Trevor, creating policy to favour Fonterra? Taking 56,000 a year in accommodation supplements?
The more Fonteera market the better of the country and its farmers are.
Accommodation benefits are claimed by Labour as well ask Willie
Read the room Trevor, your lot are as corrupt as fuck!
Fβing hell Trevor, do you not have any standards?
With all due respect Trevor, it does not suggest that the coalition is doing something right, it suggests that right wing voters are ok with corruption, which speaks to a moral vacuum with those voters.
AGAIN and AGAIN why do I have to keep asking how this lying, devious, vain corrupt, fake PM is still in office? We all know why his own party won’t do anything, but surely the Gov. General should have stepped in by now? Pinnochio Luxon’s nose must be long enough to hang his washing out the window! How TVNZ can babble on night after night without ever telling us about the hidden factors in his ego-driven LNG rort, his secret deals with major polluters; his extreme racism, in fact the list is endless. Luxon doesn’t have a skerreck of moral fortitude, just driven by his vanity, spite and greed! As I have already said, he is close to becoming certifiably insane, like his mate Trump! FGS get rid of him while we still own our own country.