Parliament has passed the first reading of legislation that would prevent New Zealanders taking companies to court over greenhouse gas emissions and climate damage.

The bill would halt climate activist Mike Smith's lawsuit against the country's largest emitters, a case the Supreme Court ruled could proceed before Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith announced the law change.

Government's case for intervention

Goldsmith argued that companies already face legal obligations on climate through the Emissions Trading Scheme. Goldsmith claimed that permitting Smith's case and others like it to move forward would destabilise business investment and confidence.

"Ultimately, if there is a legal uncertainty, there is less investment over time, and that affects us all by making our country less competitive," Goldsmith told Parliament.

The minister told the House that "tort law has primarily been developed through the common law, which arises from decisions made by judges in court rather than by legislation that is developed in Parliament". He described the bill as narrowly focused, affecting only tort claims relating to climate change damages from greenhouse gas emissions.

Opposition response

Labour MP Deborah Russell pledged her party would repeal the legislation, calling it "very, very bad law". Russell criticised Goldsmith's reasoning as thin and unsupported by his own officials.

Green MP Steve Abel called the legislation a disgusting piece of law attempting to eliminate New Zealanders' right to challenge companies on climate harms. "The principle of common law is that we are all equal before the law, Madam Speaker. That principle came in as an alternative to the tyranny of kings, the tyranny of the powerful, the tyranny of the wealthy. This government is reinstating the tyranny of the wealthy," Abel said.

Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer said the Government's claims about certainty amounted to gaslighting New Zealanders. "When Māori ask for climate justice, we are told no. When communities ask for stronger environmental protections, we are told there are competing priorities. But when major polluters seek certainty, legislation arrives so quickly. And that's the political choice," she told the House.

Corporate lobbying claims

Abel raised questions about corporate influence after the Ombudsman ruled that material provided to the Prime Minister's office by lobbyists representing Z Energy and Fonterra ought to have been made public under the Official Information Act. The Ombudsman found the refusal to release the documents unreasonable.

"The direct lobbying by a big powerful company to a politician to extinguish a citizen's rights, at what point do we name that what it really is?" Abel asked.

Coalition support

Government parties voted for the bill while opposition parties voted against. ACT MP Simon Court accused Abel of grandstanding, climate alarmism, donation-harvesting doomism, and cult-like fearmongering. New Zealand First MP Mark Patterson said the bill restored Parliament's sovereignty and stopped what he termed a Wild West of litigation.

Smith's response

Mike Smith described the legislation as corporate protection law and called it a dark day for democracy. "Today this government has told New Zealanders that if powerful corporations damage your future through climate pollution, your right to seek justice can simply be taken away," he said.

Smith filed his lawsuit against Fonterra and other emitters 7 years ago because he believed successive governments were failing to hold major polluters accountable.

"But over the past month New Zealanders have seen how power really works. We have seen corporate lobbying happen behind closed doors. We have watched major polluters lean on politicians to protect their interests. And now this government has delivered exactly what those corporations wanted," Smith said.

What comes next

Goldsmith has requested a compressed timeframe for public submissions to the select committee, with responses due by 30 July.