Key Takeaways
- Climate activist and iwi leader Mike Smith alleges a coordinated effort by the New Zealand government and major corporations to hide lobbying communications that influenced legislative changes shielding emitters from climate‑related lawsuits.
- Official documents released through court discovery show that Fonterra and Z Energy each handed a printed briefing note to staff in the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) in mid‑2024, outlining the rationale for legislation to block private litigation.
- The Prime Minister’s Office says it has no record of receiving the briefing note and claims it learned of the meetings only through media reports, while Cabinet maintains it made the law change to give businesses legal certainty.
- Smith’s lawsuit, which seeks to hold Fonterra, Genesis, Z Energy, New Zealand Steel, Dairy Holdings and BT Mining liable for greenhouse‑gas emissions, was ordered to produce lobbying documents by March 2026; the briefing notes only emerged after the government announced its law‑change proposal in May 2024.
- An Official Information Act request by the Environmental Law Initiative (ELI) returned only limited material, prompting ELI to call for an Ombudsman inquiry and a Solicitor‑General review over alleged withholding of evidence.
- The controversy raises broader concerns about corporate political access, transparency of government decision‑making, and the ability of citizens to use the courts to address climate harms.
Allegations of a Concealed Lobby‑Influence Campaign
Mike Smith, an iwi leader and prominent climate activist, contends that the government, in collusion with several of New Zealand’s largest emitters, has undertaken a “co‑ordinated campaign of secret lobbying, political interference and corporate influence at the highest levels of power.” He argues that recent amendments to climate law, which aim to block private lawsuits seeking liability for greenhouse‑gas emissions, were precipitated by undisclosed communications between the Prime Minister’s Office and the very companies he is suing. Smith says the emergence of certain documents through court discovery reveals a deliberate effort to keep those interactions hidden while decisions were made behind closed doors.
Discovery of Briefing Notes from Fonterra and Z Energy
Official documents released by the High Court and seen by RNZ show that, in mid‑2024, a member of Fonterra’s government affairs team printed a briefing note and handed it directly to a staff member of the Prime Minister’s Office. Similarly, a representative from Z Energy’s government affairs team produced a copy of the same or similar note and delivered it by hand to a PMO staffer. The notes summarised the corporations’ views on the implications of Smith’s lawsuit and outlined why legislative intervention was deemed necessary to prevent private litigation that could impose liability for climate change.
Content and Purpose of the Briefing Note
The briefing note, described as “in summary,” explained the rationale for introducing legislation to block private claims seeking to impose liability for greenhouse‑gas emissions. It specifically referenced the ongoing case brought by Mike John Smith against Fonterra, Genesis, Z Energy, New Zealand Steel, Dairy Holdings and BT Mining. The note proposed a two‑sentence amendment to the Climate Change Response Act 2002 designed to “resolve the uncertainty and risks posed by private law claims” and to reinforce the Act as the primary mechanism for climate action. This legislative tweak was presented as a way to provide businesses with legal clarity and certainty.
Government’s Response and Claims of No Record
A spokesperson for the Prime Minister told RNZ that the PMO was made aware of the meetings and briefing notes only through media coverage and that “[they] have no record of either on file.” The spokesperson added that while stakeholders routinely request meetings with staff, the ultimate decisions rest with Cabinet, which made the law‑change to ensure businesses had legal certainty. The statement stressed that Cabinet’s decision was taken independently of any specific lobbying effort, despite the documented hand‑delivery of the briefing notes.
Timing of Disclosure Relative to Smith’s Legal Obligations
Smith explained that, as part of the litigation process, the defendants had been ordered to release documents relating to their lobbying efforts by the end of March 2026. However, he only obtained the briefing note after Fonterra and Z Energy disclosed it to him following the government’s public announcement of its intention to amend climate law on 12 May 2024. Smith characterised this as a failure of the defendants to fulfil discovery obligations, asserting that the documents were “kept from me, while decisions were being made behind closed doors.” He views the timing as indicative of a cover‑up of secret lobbying.
Environmental Law Initiative’s OIA Request and Calls for Inquiry
The Environmental Law Initiative (ELI) filed an Official Information Act request in March 2025 seeking any records of meetings, discussions, or communications concerning the Smith case and possible legislative responses. ELI received only limited material in response. Dr Matt Hall, ELI’s research and legal director, described the later emergence of the briefing note as “deeply troubling,” arguing that it shows the PMO withheld evidence of direct lobbying by the defendants. ELI has therefore called for an Ombudsman inquiry and a Solicitor‑General review to examine whether proper information‑disclosure obligations were breached.
Broader Implications for Climate Accountability
Smith warned that the controversy transcends the specifics of his lawsuit, framing it as a test of whether “billion‑dollar corporations can use their political access to shut down legal challenges they do not want to answer.” He warns that allowing corporate lobbying to shape climate‑related legislation in secret undermines democratic accountability and impedes the ability of citizens and iwi groups to use the courts to address climate harm. The episode has intensified scrutiny over transparency in government‑corporate interactions and the integrity of New Zealand’s climate‑policy making process.