Luxon Shields Polluters From Mike Smith Climate Lawsuit
The Mike Smith climate lawsuit was supposed to test whether New Zealandβs biggest emitters could be held accountable in court. Instead, Christopher Luxonβs Government is changing the law before the case can be heard, while questions grow over corporate lobbying by Fonterra and Z Energy.
Surprise, surprise – allegations of secret lobbying by big polluters seeking protection from climate law…
‘A co-ordinated campaign of secret lobbying’ β climate activist
Iwi leader and climate activist Mike Smith is accusing the Government of a “co-ordinated campaign of secret lobbying, political interference and corporate influence at the highest levels of power”.
He says the Government’s changes to climate law to prevent lawsuits has “exposed” what appears to be a “deliberate effort” to conceal communications between the Prime Minister’s office and the companies Smith is taking to court.
A spokesperson for the Prime Minister says his office was made aware of these meetings and briefing notes through the media, “and have no record of either on file”.
Official documents released Sunday, and seen by RNZ, reveal a briefing document provided to the Prime Minister’s office regarding Smith’s case against Fonterra and other major emitters.
Z Energy confirmed to RNZ it had provided a document to government in 2024 and Fonterra confirmed it had done the same with a hard copy.
Smith explained the defendants in his case had been ordered to release documents relating to their lobbying efforts by the end of March 2026, but the briefing note was only released this month, through the discovery process in the High Court.
The documents also showed the information was not disclosed by the Prime Minister’s office, when requested as part of a separate Official Information Act request by an environmental group
A spokesperson for the Prime Minister told RNZ there was no record of the briefing note on file and stakeholders on all sides of issues requested to meet with staff, but Cabinet “makes its own decisions”.
The spokesperson said Cabinet made a decision on this issue to ensure businesses had legal clarity and certainty.
RNZ
Mike Smithβs climate lawsuit is exactly why courts matter
…Mike Smith is a legend and his fight against the interests of big polluters co-opting our political and legal landscape is righteous!
The Governmentβs move to shield corporate polluters like Fonterra from climate lawsuits isnβt just anti-democratic β itβs a declaration that the profits of big emitters matter more than the homes, livelihoods and futures destroyed by climate collapse. As floods, droughts and infrastructure failures intensify across New Zealand, the attempt to shut down legal accountability for climate pollution looks less like governance and more like corporate protection racketeering.
As the extreme wet events following extreme droughts scar the land permanently and disrupt agricultural cycles around the world, letβs not forget who is responsible for this, the big polluters!
That this Government of Climate Criminals is changing the rules to stop the people suing environmental vandals like Fonterra is an obscenityβ¦
Shocking abuse of power β Greenpeace slams Govtβs climate law change.
The Government has announced plans to pass a law retrospectively preventing companies from being sued for the damage that their climate pollution is causing New Zealanders. Greenpeace Aotearoa is slamming the announcement as a βshocking abuse of executive power to help corporate pollutersβ.
The proposed law change would prevent current cases from being heard, including the landmark case due to be heard next year brought by iwi leader Mike Smith, who is suing Fonterra and six of New Zealandβs other largest polluters for their contribution to climate change.
Greenpeace spokesperson Gen Toop says, βThis Government is trying to protect big polluting businesses from paying for the climate damage they have caused, while ordinary New Zealandersβ lives and livelihoods are threatened by repeated climate disasters.β
βBig polluters like Fonterra and the oil and gas industry are profiting from the climate crisis, and it is everyday people who are paying the price, from skyrocketing insurance premiums to the enormous cost of rebuilding roads, bridges and other infrastructure after climate storms.β
Costly floods and storms are becoming more frequent and intense as a result of rising levels of climate pollution. This year the country has already had to declare more extreme weather related states of emergency than for the entirety of 2025.
Toop says that preventing the courts from considering legitimate claims against major emitters would have a chilling effect on democracy in New Zealand, and set a dangerous precedent.
βThis is a shocking abuse of executive power. The courts exist to hold powerful interests to account and protect the public interest. Ministers should not be rewriting the law to shut down cases they donβt like.β
In 2024, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Smithβs case could proceed to trial, finding that major emitters may be held legally responsible for the harm caused by their emissions.
βIt is a remarkable act of hypocrisy that a Government that says it opposes retrospective law and says it wants to protect property rights is using retrospective law to block ordinary people from suing corporations for the property damage they have caused,β says Toop.
βMike Smithβs case is a groundbreaking effort to hold some of New Zealandβs biggest polluters accountable for the harm they are causing. But this Government is stepping in to protect corporate profits at the expense of people, nature and future generations.
βWe all want our kids and grandkids to have a safe future free from climate disruption. People will continue to stand up and fight for that, no matter what this Coalition Government does.β
Greenpeace is calling on the Government to abandon the proposed amendment bill and allow the courts to hear Mike Smithβs case.
Greenpeace
So why is the Government protecting polluters?
β¦Just 100 companies are responsible for 71% of global emissions that are causing the climate crisis, and big oil knew in the 1990βs that they were creating catastrophic climate change.
The comparisons between how Big Tobacco lied and manipulated the science linking smoking to cancer is as audacious as Big Oil has lied and manipulated the science linking CO2 to global warming.
We should be collectively suing Big Pollution now and using the payouts to fund the urgent Green transition away from fossil fuels.
It is outrageous that our Government has not led this fight and instead capitulated to the polluters rather than challenge them. Indigenous people have been at the forefront of the climate crisis battle and have been the frontline between corporate polluting greed and sustainable habitats.
You can see why the State illegally spied on MΔori Iwi fighting big oil in this country.
Ombudsman to look at it, TVNZ news.
Finally, someone they can’t slither away from and ignore.
We HOPE!
There was no climate law creating the tort.
Deciding to hear Smithβs case was a judicial frolic by the Supreme Court making it up as it went because the court members wanted to be significant and important- just like the real Supreme Court.
But in our constitution arrangements, parliament is sovereign and the SC doesnβt get to make up whole new areas of law, especially where Parliament has passed laws.
The case was idiotic. Suing only seven companies for climate change is nonsense because there are a lot more companies that emit carbon, and thatβs just in NZ.
Smith suing KFC, Cadbury, Nestle and the Chelsea Sugar Co. for causing obesity in his iwi makes as much sense.
Well, given that the Supreme Court decided to hear the case I would say you’re completely wrong.
Unless you think you know better than people with decades of legal experience.
But you do, because you’re a fucking moron.
That was quite the essay to assert that you know better than experienced professionals.
Next time you go to the doctor, ignore everything they say and do whatever Luxon recommends. I’m sure your stupidity will lessen.
The court of appeal also has decades of legal experience and they decided that the case had absolutely no merit. As did the High Court.
On what basis – in your expert opinion – would damages be determined and awarded?
What about other Major NZ emitters? And what about overseas emitters? Donβt their emissions count towards our climate change?
Did the other emitters lobby the Prime minister directly as the other corporations did? That we will never know. What the evidence shows is that the law was changed after the corporations met with government officials.
No, the law was changed after the government realised the Supreme Court was trying to create a whole new area of tort law, an area where Parliament and the Executive is already active.
Those corporations just pointed that out.
Regardless of the merits of the case, Luxon has been exposed as a corrupt liar.
As if we needed any further evidence of that assertion.
Vote. Them. Out.
Unlike you, I’m not claiming to have any legal experience. I think you’ve only just heard the word tort which is why you’re running it out like some talisman to protect your obvious ignorance.
And if you weren’t an ignorant poser you’d understand that appeals can proceed to a higher court.
It’s called due process. A legal process that should be available to everyone.
Oh look, centuries people with decades of legal experience who don’t agree with anything you’ve said:
“The New Zealand Bar Association is calling on the government to reconsider proposed legislation to prevent companies from being sued over damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions.
It said the overuse of retrospective legislation to remove existing rights or claims “creates a bigger more general uncertainty and unpredictability for citizens” than the uncertainty the government says its trying to remove.”
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/596396/nz-bar-association-calls-for-government-to-reconsider-changing-climate-law-to-prevent-lawsuits
Maybe wipe the cum off your face once you’ve taken a load from the CoC. It’s unbecoming.
You donβt comprehend much, do you?
If you read closely what the bar association wrote, it is not backing the Smith case going to court, itβs saying that overuse of retrospective legislation to remove rights creates more uncertainty than allowing the case to proceed.
The bar association is correct in one sense, but no minister thought when they passed the climate change act that an activist SC would develop and endorse environmental lawfare.
“There was no climate law creating the tort.
Deciding to hear Smithβs case was a judicial frolic by the Supreme Court making it up as it went because the court members wanted to be significant and important- just like the real Supreme Court.”
Jesus Christ, that’s a very long right wing bow to draw a conclusion on.
That’s like saying you are batshit crazy with a conspiracy theory from outer space.
Stick to facts darling rather than assumptions and you may come across better because otherwise you are simply embarrassing yourself.
I have no reason to like or support Mike Smith especially when my home faces One Tree Hill [Maungakiekie] and I cringe because there is no ‘one tree’ any more. However Luxon believes the law doesn’t apply to him. He is such a liar I can’t believe what he gets away with! How have we sunk so LOW? How have we got this apology for a PM? How in the hell can we get rid of him when there is no-one any better in his ranks? It sure tells the abysmal story about this CoC-up and its desperate, arrogant MP’s. Why can’t normally intelligent people see this? It’s so obvious it’s embarrassing!
That’s how a lot of people feel apparently, myself included. We didn’t care that it wasn’t a native tree. We just liked the brave resilient tree that stood there in that inhospitable environment for as long as we could remember.
However, it’s not about Smith and what you think of what he did decades ago.
It’s about the process of law and the underhanded deal we are getting from this present CoC govt.
All week I have been trying convince a friend of this but he’s still resentful of Smith’s actions and refuses to see the wider picture, now.
How do we get through to people that this present dodgy activity which our useless PM is engaging in, is much more important than theis lingering annoyance at Smith.
The present corrupt shambles is a pattern of behaviour which this govt. is noted for and which is dangerous and extremely dishonest.
If I worked in the PM’s office I’d be feeling pretty annoyed that my boss was actually inferring dishonesty or incompetence on my part, by denying any such papers ever existed.
The Dirty Politics of the Luxon govt. will become as notorious at the DTs of the Shonkey govt.
It’s hard to take our PM seriously when he maintains that corporate lobbyists had no role is determining their climate policies.
In other words, Luxon is lying.
Firstly – Remove money and lobbyists from politics already.
Secondly- Redesign parliament so it has a second house or citizens assembly that can reduce the all-powerful sovereign nature of our current and highly unusual political structure.
Thirdly – Boot these corrupt bastards out of power.