Key Takeaways
- A former top Beehive staffer used a personal email account to receive an industry‑provided briefing note on climate‑change litigation, breaching official‑record protocols.
- The briefing note, supplied by Fonterra and Z Energy in mid‑2024, urged a statutory bar on private climate‑tort claims to reduce perceived sovereign risk.
- Despite an Official Information Act request in March 2025, the Prime Minister’s office initially withheld the note, prompting investigations by the Ombudsman and the Department of Internal Affairs.
- The controversy intensified when it was revealed the staffer had also received the document via his private email, leading to criticism from the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and civil‑society groups.
- In May 2026 the Justice Minister announced plans to amend climate‑change law to prevent liability suits, a move framed as providing business certainty but criticised as a covert lobbying win.
- Ongoing court proceedings in Smith v Fonterra continue, with the High Court refusing to split the case and the case set for trial in April 2027, leaving the legal and political fallout unresolved.
Supreme Court ruling on climate liability
On 7 February 2024 the New Zealand Supreme Court ruled that iwi leader Mike Smith had standing to sue seven major polluters—including Fonterra, Z Energy and Genesis Energy—for their role in causing climate change. Smith, of Ngāpuhi and Ngāti Kahu descent, argued that the companies owed a legal duty to communities harmed by greenhouse‑gas emissions. The decision was described as “obviously a significant legal decision,” though the Prime Minister’s initial response noted it did not directly affect the Crown and said government lawyers would consider its implications. The ruling set the stage for subsequent calls for legislative clarification on whether private tort claims could proceed against emitters.
Official advice and proposed legislative response
Following the judgment, the Justice Minister received advice from the Ministry of Justice on 23 February 2024 about whether the ministry should lead policy work on a legislative response to Smith v Fonterra. The advice, withheld from public release, questioned the need for immediate reform. On 6 March 2024 then Attorney‑General Judith Collins circulated a letter titled Options For Legislative Reform Following Smith V Fonterra 2024 NZSC 5 to fellow ministers. Collins observed that the Supreme Court had “declined to strike out” Smith’s tort claims and warned that the decision created uncertainty for business and could deter investment. She advocated a statutory bar on climate‑change tort proceedings as the most straightforward solution, a proposal that later resurfaced in industry lobbying materials.
Industry lobbying and the briefing note
Sometime “on or around” 26 June 2024 a member of Fonterra’s government affairs team printed a briefing note and handed it to a staffer in the Prime Minister’s office. The note argued that the uncertainty generated by Smith v Fonterra posed “material sovereign risk” and “significant uncertainty for the international investment community,” urging legislative intervention as “critical.” It proposed a two‑sentence amendment to the Climate Change Response Act 2002 that would block private law claims like Smith’s. A similar document was delivered by Z Energy’s government affairs team “on or around” 24 July 2024. Both notes were later characterised by Smith’s lawyers as a coordinated lobbying effort to shape government policy behind closed doors.
Legislative push and information request
The lobbying effort bore fruit when National MP Joseph Mooney introduced the Climate Change (Restriction on Civil Proceedings) Bill on 12 March 2025, aiming to prohibit tort claims arising from climate‑change matters. Mooney told RNZ he had no prior contact with Fonterra or Z Energy about the bill. In March 2025 Dr Matt Hall of the Environmental Law Initiative filed an Official Information Act request seeking all documents related to the Smith litigation and any governmental response. The Prime Minister’s office replied on 21 May 2025 with a heavily redacted set of emails and texts, omitting any mention of the briefing note or the meetings with Fonterra and Z Energy. The omission raised immediate concerns about compliance with the OIA and triggered further scrutiny.
Private email controversy and investigations
The controversy deepened on 2 June 2026 when RNZ reported that the briefing note had been sent to the staffer’s personal email address, not only delivered in hard copy. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon condemned the practice, stating it “has definitely not met the high standard that I have of staffers in the Beehive” and warned that private‑email use undermines transparency and public trust. Luxon confirmed the staffer had “left a while ago,” while the Leader of the Opposition, Chris Hipkins, declared the situation “stinks to high heaven.” The Ombudsman confirmed an investigation into the apparent withholding of official information, and the Department of Internal Affairs announced a review of the staffer’s IT account to ensure any relevant material was preserved for the public record. No formal government inquiry was announced, despite calls from the Greens for an urgent, independent review.
Policy shift and public fallout
Amid the growing scandal, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith announced on 12 May 2026 that the government would amend climate‑change law to prevent companies from being sued over damage caused by greenhouse‑gas emissions. Goldsmith said the change would apply to current and future cases, effectively halting the landmark Smith v Fonterra suit, and argued it would stop the development of a new legal regime that contradicted Parliament’s existing climate framework. The announcement was met with criticism from opposition parties and advocacy groups, who viewed it as a concessions to industry lobbying disclosed only after the private‑email revelations. Luxon’s office maintained that Cabinet made its own decisions based on the need for business certainty, but the episode damaged perceptions of governmental openness.
Litigation continues despite policy moves
Even as the government signalled legislative reform, the underlying litigation proceeded. On 4 June 2026 Ministry of Justice officials advised that no immediate reform of the public‑nuisance tort was warranted while related court cases remained ongoing. The High Court dismissed an application by defendant BT Mining to split the case on 17 June 2026, affirming that the proceedings would continue as a unified trial. The case is now set for trial in April 2027, with discovery obligations still pending; the briefing note was not produced at the 27 March 2026 discovery deadline, prompting further accusations of non‑compliance. The Justice Minister’s later “targeted, in‑confidence consultation” on a statutory bar has yet to yield concrete legislation, leaving the legal uncertainty surrounding climate‑tort claims unresolved.
Implications for governance and public trust
The episode illustrates how the intersection of industry lobbying, informal communication channels, and opaque official‑information practices can erode democratic accountability. The use of a personal email account for receiving a substantive policy briefing not only breached internal Beehive standards but also prevented the document from being subject to the Official Information Act, depriving the public and oversight bodies of vital information. While the government has moved to amend climate‑change law to address perceived business uncertainty, the process has been marred by allegations of secret lobbying and insufficient transparency. Ongoing investigations by the Ombudsman and the Department of Internal Affairs, coupled with the impending trial in Smith v Fonterra, will test whether corrective measures can restore confidence in New Zealand’s commitment to open governance and equitable climate‑justice outcomes.