Parliament passes law blocking private climate lawsuits against companies
Parliament has passed the Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill at its third reading, voting 67 to 53 to block private tort claims against companies for climate-changing emissions.
The bill — government bill 330 of 2026 — was guided through the House by Minister Paul Goldsmith. It excludes what is known as tort liability for climate change and climate change-related damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions. In plain terms, a tort is a civil wrong — like negligence or nuisance — that allows one party to sue another for harm. Under this law, no person, including the Crown, can be found liable in tort for the effects of greenhouse gas emissions (RNZ; legislation.govt.nz).
Goldsmith told the House the legislation would confirm that the role of implementing greenhouse gas emissions policy sits with the elected government and Parliament, rather than the courts (RNZ). The bill also seeks to confirm that the role of developing, setting, and implementing regulatory policy regarding greenhouse gas emissions sits with the government (Parliament select committee documents).
The legislation was aimed at stopping a climate activist lawsuit by Mike Smith against New Zealand's biggest emitters, including Z Energy and Fonterra (RNZ).
The government first signalled the law change on 11 May 2026, when Reuters reported that New Zealand planned to legislate to prevent courts from finding companies liable for climate harm in private cases (Reuters). The following day, 12 May, Goldsmith told Parliament the government was clarifying climate change laws to provide businesses with certainty around their obligations (Hansard, 12 May 2026).
Opposition members argued the bill ran against established legal principles. Labour MP Camilla Belich said the legislation would remove Mike Smith's rights and that democracy, legal certainty, and principles against retrospectivity — the idea that laws should not apply backwards to something that has already happened — were under attack (RNZ).
Green MP Steve Abel said the government acted against the public interest, ignored Ministry of Justice advice, and excluded Mike Smith while receiving solicitations of vested interests (RNZ).
The 67-to-53 split confirms a governing majority comfortable with legislatively short-circuiting active litigation rather than allowing the courts to determine whether tort law could reach emissions-related harm. Labour and the Greens framed their objections around retrospective effect, access to the courts, and the integrity of ministerial process.
The statutory bar is broad. By extending to no person, including the Crown, the legislation does not simply shield private emitters from Smith's suit. It removes tort as a vehicle for climate-related claims across the board, leaving the Emissions Trading Scheme and the Climate Change Response Act's regulatory architecture as the sole statutory mechanisms for addressing emissions (legislation.govt.nz; Parliament select committee documents).
The practical effect is immediate for corporate legal teams: tort exposure for emissions-related climate damage is extinguished by statute. The question for policy specialists is what this means for future climate accountability mechanisms. With the courts foreclosed from this path, any pressure for regulatory or quasi-regulatory approaches to emissions liability would need to run through Parliament rather than through litigation.
The bill now proceeds to Royal assent, the final step before it becomes law.
