New Zealand Passes Legislation to Limit Climate Harm Lawsuits Against Companies

The New Zealand parliament has rushed through legislation that limits the ability of courts to hear climate harm lawsuits against companies. The move, agreed by a slim majority, comes as a Supreme Court case against major emitters was reaching its conclusion.

The legislation, the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill, was proposed by New Zealand's right-wing coalition Government and passed in parliament on 18 August by a margin of 67 votes to 53.

The Government argued that this legislation would prevent litigation from overriding current climate policy and undermining business confidence.

However, critics see it as a political intervention that undermines the legal process and signals a deeper departure from climate commitments.

## Climate Change Response Amendment Bill Details

| | Details | | --- | --- | | Bill Name | Climate Change Response Amendment Bill | | Vote Margin | 67 votes to 53 | | Date Passed | 18 August |

The Bill was introduced following a lawsuit initiated by Indigenous Māori climate activist Michael Smith, who filed litigation against six New Zealand companies, including dairy farm giant Fonterra, over their contributions to environmental damage.

While the New Zealand Supreme Court was concluding its hearing of Smith's appeal, Parliament passed the new Bill.

In response, Smith stated: "The Government's passing of the Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill is deeply concerning - particularly given the timing of the legislation alongside the Supreme Court's consideration of climate accountability."

## Government and Environmental Group Reactions

New Zealand Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith commented: "Ongoing litigation in the High Court, where an applicant has brought civil claims against six major businesses for their greenhouse gas emissions, risks developing a new regime that contradicts the framework Parliament has already enacted."

"It's creating uncertainty in business confidence and investment (…) Our response to climate change is best managed by the Government at a national level and not through piecemeal litigation in the courts."

A spokesperson for the non-profit Environmental Law Initiative commented: "As climate impacts worsen, new legal challenges will emerge, and pressure for accountability will only grow."

"And even this legislation may prove short-lived. With an election approaching and opposition parties pledging to repeal it, the Government may have handed New Zealand's biggest polluters a temporary shield from accountability, but that is unlikely to endure."

## International Context

In May this year, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) passed a resolution endorsing the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) 2025 advisory opinion that, in not taking climate action, national governments may violate their legal obligations to current and future generations under international law.

Though non-binding in and of itself, the ruling carries significant legal and political weight, having sparked and shaped a new wave of international and national climate-related litigation.

The New Zealand Government's move to limit climate harm lawsuits against companies raises profound questions about where responsibility ultimately lies for addressing climate change.