GNV News, 25 August 2026

On 18 August 2026, the New Zealand Parliament passed a law that blocks lawsuits seeking to hold companies responsible for environmental damage caused by climate change. In response to a lawsuit filed by Māori activist Michael Smith against six major companies, the ruling parties argued that the court case could create new regulations that conflict with the framework set by Parliament and could undermine business confidence and investment by creating uncertainty. The government, taking the view that policy decisions on greenhouse gas emissions should be made by “the elected government and Parliament,” proceeded with the legal revision. As a result, Smith’s lawsuit, which the Supreme Court had allowed to proceed, has effectively come to an end.

The legal revision has drawn a wave of criticism. The opposition argues that forcibly terminating an ongoing court case by changing the law after it has begun is akin to unilaterally changing the rules in the middle of a dispute and closing off the other party’s avenue for asserting their claims, and that this violates the rule of law. In addition, there are claims that the companies concerned lobbied the government while they were at a disadvantage in the lawsuit, and it has also come to light that lobbying documents sent from the companies to staff in the Prime Minister’s Office were not disclosed in response to an information disclosure request.

The latest report from the Climate Change Commission also points out that New Zealand’s approach to climate action is inadequate beyond this case. Regarding adaptation to climate change, only 3% of disaster-management spending is allocated to reducing future risk, while 97% is used to respond to disasters once they occur. The consequences are being felt by the public as well: insurance premiums are soaring in flood-prone areas, and some residents are unable to obtain insurance at all. Behind this lies the tendency of politicians to postpone problems rather than implement costly new adaptation measures; in practice, although local councils are required to draw up adaptation plans, no clear guidance has been given on how the financial burden should be shared.

On the emissions-reduction front as well, the relaxation of regulations such as fuel-efficiency standards that were designed to encourage a shift to low-emission vehicles has meant that more than half of the reduction targets for 2026–2030 are now difficult to achieve. The government’s main policy tool is the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which allows emissions allowances to be bought and sold. However, the agricultural sector is not subject to an emissions cap, and some industries receive free allocations of emissions units, giving them preferential treatment. As a result, only 36% of total emissions actually bears a price burden. Against this backdrop, New Zealand is being criticized for falling behind the pace required on both adaptation and emissions reduction.

Learn more about efforts to pursue states’ legal responsibility for climate change → “A major step in addressing climate change: Bringing the issue before the ICJ”

Learn more about corporate responsibility for climate change → “111 major fossil fuel companies linked to climate damage worth US$28 trillion”

Learn more about recent developments in climate change → “The reality of exceeding 1.5°C: Global climate challenges, responses, and coverage in Japan”

Learn more about the responsibility of the wealthy for climate change → “Solving the climate crisis and the responsibility of the wealthy”

In connection with the ETS, learn more about carbon credits, which involve trading the value of emission reductions and removals → “Questioning the carbon credit system”

New Zealand Parliament (Photo: Peter / Flickr [CC BY-NC 2.0])