Key Takeaways
- In mid‑2024, Fonterra and Z Energy each delivered a hard‑copy “briefing note” to a staff member of the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) outlining why legislation to block private climate‑change liability suits was needed.
- The briefing note specifically referenced the ongoing case brought by Michael John Smith against Fonterra, Genesis, Z Energy, New Zealand Steel, Dairy Holdings and BT Mining.
- The document was only disclosed to Smith in May 2025 through the court‑ordered discovery process, after the government had already announced its intention to amend the Climate Change Response Act 2002.
- The PMO stated it had no record of receiving the note and said Cabinet makes its own decisions, emphasizing the need for legal certainty for businesses.
- Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith announced the legislative change would apply to current and future cases, effectively halting Smith’s landmark suit.
- Critics, including the Environmental Law Initiative (ELI), argue the PMO withheld the document, constituting a potential cover‑up of corporate lobbying, and have called for an Ombudsman inquiry and Solicitor‑General review.
- Both Fonterra and Z Energy defended their actions as appropriate engagement on issues of national economic and environmental significance.
Background of the Lobbying Documents
In mid‑2024, representatives from Fonterra’s government affairs team printed a briefing note and handed it, in hard copy, to a staff member of the Prime Minister’s Office. Around the same time, a comparable document was produced by Z Energy’s government affairs team and delivered in the same manner. Both companies confirmed to RNZ that they had provided the documents to the government, describing the material as a summary of their views on the implications of the climate‑change liability case then progressing through the courts.
Content of the Briefing Note
The briefing note laid out the “rationale for proceeding with the introduction of legislation to prevent private litigation seeking to impose liability for climate change.” It explicitly referenced the ongoing case brought by Michael John Smith against Fonterra, Genesis, Z Energy, New Zealand Steel, Dairy Holdings and BT Mining. In summary, the note argued that legislative intervention was necessary and appropriate, proposing a two‑sentence amendment to the Climate Change Response Act 2002 that would “resolve the uncertainty and risks posed by private law claims like Mr Smith’s.”
Discovery and Disclosure Timeline
Smith explained that the defendants in his case had been ordered by the court to release documents relating to their lobbying efforts by the end of March 2026. However, the briefing note was not produced until May 2025, when it emerged through the discovery process in the High Court after Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith’s public announcement of the government’s intention to amend climate laws. Smith said he only learned of the note after Fonterra and Z Energy disclosed it to him, suggesting the documents had been withheld during the decision‑making period.
Government’s Position on the Document
A spokesperson for the Prime Minister told RNZ that there was no record of the briefing note on file within the PMO. The spokesperson added that stakeholders on all sides of issues routinely request meetings with staff, but emphasized that “Cabinet makes its own decisions.” The rationale given for the forthcoming legislative change was to provide businesses with legal clarity and certainty regarding liability for greenhouse‑gas emissions.
The Proposed Legislative Change
Following the disclosure, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith announced that the government would amend the Climate Change Response Act 2002 to prevent companies from being sued over damage caused by greenhouse‑gas emissions. Goldsmith stated the amendment would apply to both current and future cases, effectively stopping the landmark suit against Fonterra and five other major emitters. He argued that the change would “remove the possible development of a new regime that contradicts the framework Parliament has already enacted to respond to climate change.”
Corporate Justifications for Engagement
Z Energy told RNZ it stood by the document, asserting that it appropriately summarized its views on the implications of the Smith case. The company said it was proper to engage with government on industry matters that carried “economic and environmental issues of national significance.” Z Energy further supported the government’s decision to progress legislation that would “reinforce the Climate Change Response Act as the primary mechanism for addressing climate change.”
Fonterra echoed a similar stance, noting that it routinely shares information with stakeholders in various formats, including hard copy, “as was the case in this instance.” The dairy cooperative maintained that its actions were consistent with standard practice for informing policymakers about industry‑relevant concerns.
Criticism from the Environmental Law Initiative
The Environmental Law Initiative (ELI) revealed it had filed an Official Information Act request in March 2025 seeking details of meetings, discussions, or conversations regarding the Smith case and any proposed legislative or regulatory response. The group received only limited material in reply. Dr Matt Hall, ELI’s research and legal director, described the later emergence of the briefing note as “deeply troubling,” arguing that it showed the PMO had withheld evidence of direct lobbying by the defendants in Smith’s case. ELI contended that the document only surfaced because of the defendants’ discovery obligations, not because of proactive transparency.
Allegations of a Cover‑Up
Michael John Smith characterized the sequence of events as an increasing indication of a “cover‑up of secret lobbying” between the government and some of New Zealand’s most powerful corporate interests. He warned that the matter transcended climate change, raising the question of whether “billion‑dollar corporations can use their political access to shut down legal challenges they do not want to answer.” In response, ELI has called for an Ombudsman inquiry and a Solicitor‑General review, citing the failure to disclose the briefing note as part of its official information request.
Implications for Climate‑Change Litigation and Governance
The episode underscores tensions between corporate lobbying, governmental decision‑making, and public accountability in climate‑policy arenas. If the legislative amendment proceeds as announced, it could set a precedent that shields major emitters from private lawsuits seeking compensation for climate‑related harm, potentially limiting a key avenue for environmental advocacy. Simultaneously, the allegations of undisclosed lobbying raise concerns about the integrity of the policy‑making process and the extent to which influential entities can shape legislation away from public scrutiny. The forthcoming investigations by the Ombudsman and Solicitor‑General will be pivotal in determining whether proper disclosure obligations were met and whether corrective measures are needed to preserve transparency in New Zealand’s climate governance.