Full Breakdown
New Zealand Climate Law Lobbying Scandal: Briefing Note Links Corporations to Prime Minister’s Office
5/24/2026, 8:06:23 PM
Briefing Note Triggers Climate Law Amendment
In mid-2024 senior staff from Fonterra and Z Energy handed an identical briefing note to a Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) staffer. The note argued that private climate-damage lawsuits – Michael John Smith’s claim against Fonterra, Genesis, Z Energy, New Zealand Steel, Dairy Holdings and BT Mining – created legal uncertainty and urged a two-sentence amendment to the Climate Change Response Act 2002. On 12 May the government announced it would adopt the amendment, which would block the Smith case and similar claims.
Background: Smith Climate Lawsuit
Smith’s suit seeks to hold the six emitters liable for greenhouse-gas emissions, arguing that private law can impose climate liability.
Timeline of Key Developments
- Mid-2024: Fonterra and Z Energy deliver the briefing note to the PMO.
- 12 May 2024: Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith announces the amendment.
- Late 2024: High Court discovery forces defendants to release the note, exposing lobbying.
Legislative Proposal and Government Position
The amendment adds a statutory bar on private climate-damage claims, aiming to prevent a legal regime that would conflict with Parliament’s existing climate framework. The PMO said Cabinet decides independently and that the change provides legal clarity for businesses.
Official Statements
Goldsmith said the amendment is needed to preserve the climate framework. The PMO spokesperson claimed no record of the briefing note existed and Cabinet’s independence. Z Energy said engaging on “economic and environmental issues of national significance” is appropriate. Fonterra said sharing documents with stakeholders is routine. ELI urged an Ombudsman inquiry and a Solicitor-General review.
Criticism and Opposition
Smith said the undisclosed note suggests a cover-up of secret lobbying that undermines legal accountability. Dr Matt Hall of ELI called the note’s late emergence “troubling,” implying undue corporate influence.
Conflicting Reports
The PMO’s claim of no record conflicts with the court-disclosed briefing note. ELI’s March 2025 request received limited material, raising transparency concerns. The note surfaced through mandatory disclosure, not voluntary release.
Verbatim Quotes
- “remove the possible development of a new regime that contradicts the framework Parliament has already enacted to respond to climate change” — Paul Goldsmith, Justice Minister
- “These documents were supposed to have been discovered by the defendants, but it seems they were kept from me while decisions were being made behind closed doors,” — Michael John Smith, Plaintiff
- “This is not just about climate change anymore,” — Michael John Smith, Plaintiff
- “To see this document emerge later in such an important case is deeply troubling,” — Matt Hall, Research and Legal Director, Environmental Law Initiative
Next Steps
ELI has asked the Ombudsman and Solicitor-General to review the briefing note and lobbying. The amendment remains under parliamentary debate, with potential to reshape New Zealand’s climate-damage litigation.
