Climate legislation changes an attack on the rule of law - Environmental Defence Society

Proposed changes to climate legislation are an attack on the rule of law, the Environmental Defence Society says.

The government announced on Tuesday it would amend climate law to prevent companies from being sued over damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions.

But Environmental Defence Society chief executive Gary Taylor told RNZ that the fact it was about climate law was incidental.

"It's actually an attack on the rule of law," he said.

In 2024, iwi leader and activist Mike Smith was granted permission by the Supreme Court to sue Fonterra and other major dairy and fossil fuel companies.

He argued the companies, which collectively contributed about a third of New Zealand's emissions, had a legal duty to him and others in communities that are being damaged by the effects of greenhouse gas emissions.

The hearing, which was sent back to the High Court, was due to start in April next year.

Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said the change would apply to current and future cases.

Goldsmith told Morning Report the changes to climate legislation are about ensuring a parallel enforcement regime does not develop alongside laws already enacted by Parliament.

"Having two regimes, or a parallel regime, would create a great deal of uncertainty, and so we moved to stop that and assert that the arrangements that parliament has made to deal with emissions [is] what we want to deal with," he said.

Goldsmith said the courts weren't the right place to resolve claims for harm from climate change.

He said New Zealand responded to its climate change obligations through the emissions trading scheme and the Climate Change Response Act 2002.

Asked whose interests he's protecting in intervening in a civil lawsuit brought by a private individual, Goldsmith said he was protecting the interests of all New Zealanders to have a clear and predictable regime when it comes to climate change.

Taylor said there were two things wrong with the proposal.

"The first is that the government is proposing to limit New Zealanders' rights to sue in civil proceedings, and the second is that it's doing it when there's an active case, Mr Smith's case, before the courts that the Supreme Court has ruled should be heard."

Taylor said Goldsmith should be ashamed of himself "for bringing a bill of this kind to Parliament".

"I think his colleague, the Attorney General, should be investigating it for lack of consistency with the Bill of Rights Act.

"It's pretty outrageous, and it raises issues that go far beyond climate change into the so-called comity between the different arms of government - the executive, the Parliament, and the courts - and here we've got a prime example of executive overreach, where they're wanting to intervene in a judicial process and take someone's legitimate rights away from them."

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.