Fonterra & Z Energy Lobbying Concealed By Prime Minister’s Office – Environmental Law Initiative
On behalf of Mike Smith and the Environmental Law Initiative (ELI):
Since the announcement by Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith that the Climate Change Response Act will be amended to prevent tort-based climate litigation, new information about lobbying by Fonterra and Z Energy to the Prime Minister’s Office has come to light, through the court process. This is information and meetings that have not been disclosed by the Prime Minister’s Office in Official Information Act requests by ELI.
In June 2024, Fonterra Government Affairs representatives printed out and delivered in hardcopy a briefing note in person to an official in the Prime Minister’s office on or around 26 June 2026. This has been confirmed by Fonterra, including that the document was prepared and provided on behalf of all of the defendants in Mr Smith’s case.
The briefing note:
- Has the appearance of being prepared in substantial part by external legal counsel (Chapman Tripp) acting for several defendant companies (including Fonterra and Z)
- Advocated legislative intervention to restrict tort-based climate litigation generally
- Proposed and advocated for legislative measures that would prevent the continuation of Smith’s proceedings
Mr Smith has been told of the identity of the official but the defendants have refused to allow him to release the name claiming privacy concerns. Mr Smith has sought a direction of the Court allowing him to do so.
A similar or substantially identical briefing note was printed out and delivered in hard copy by Z Energy representatives to the same adviser on or around 24 July 2024. This has been confirmed by Z Energy.
These interactions were not publicly disclosed at the time.
In March 2025, Dr Matthew Hall (Environmental Law Initiative) lodged an OIA request seeking:
- All documents relating to Smith v Fonterra
- All documents concerning any proposed legislative or regulatory responses to Smith v Fonterra or climate change related tort claims
- Communications or records of meetings with industry stakeholders about the case and proposed legislative responses
- Internal policy discussions concerning the case
The PMO initially purported to transfer or redirect the request to the Ministry for the Environment. This was resisted by Dr Hall. The PMO eventually responded after an 19 work day extension for “consultation” with unknown parties.
The final release included a limited set of heavily redacted emails and text messages and did not disclose or give any reference to:
- The briefing notes delivered by Fonterra and Z Energy
- the meetings (or any meetings) between corporate representatives and the official in the PMO
In December 2025, the High Court ordered discovery of board and senior management level including documents relating to:
- the defendants’ lobbying strategies and efforts relating to the central regulation emissions; and
- documents adverse to the defendants’ case.
The defendants’ discovery was ordered to be provided by 27 March 2026.
12 May 2026 – Proposed Legislative Change
The Minister of Justice announced proposed legislative changes that would remove tort-based climate-related civil claims, including Mr Smith’s live claim.
13 May 2026 – Discovery Concerns Raised
Smith’s legal team urgently raised concerns with the defendants about the extent of their discovery including that relevant lobbying communications had not been disclosed during discovery.
15–18 May 2026 – Late Disclosure
Following these concerns:
- Fonterra disclosed a 26 June 2024 briefing note and meeting with the Prime Minister’s office (on 15 May 2026)
- Z Energy confirmed a similar briefing note and meeting engagement with the Prime Minister’s office on or around 24 July 2024 (on 18 May 2026)
Both parties asserted confidentiality over the documents despite acknowledging provision to government representatives.
Mr Smith challenged these claims and sought release of the documents.
On 21 May 2026, Justice Andrew ruled that confidentiality claims over the briefing note were not sustained.
Against the defendant’s objections, the court ordered immediate public release of the document.
NOTE:
The Environmental Law Initiative is not acting for or involved in Mr Smith’s legal proceedings. He has his own counsel. However, ELI sees this case as immensely important, and took the OIA as mentioned, hence our combined communications on this matter.
