Justice minister says ‘piece-meal litigation’ is not proper venue for climate change response
Paul Goldsmith, justice minister, has shared the government’s plan to amend the Climate Change Response Act 2002 to prevent courts, in present and future proceedings, from finding liability for tort for climate change damage or harm arising from greenhouse gas emissions.
In the government’s news release, Goldsmith identified the reasons for this intended amendment. First, he noted that making climate change laws clearer will give businesses legal clarity and certainty regarding their obligations.
“Our government is committed to fixing the basics, and certainty of law is essential for businesses to operate, attracting overseas investment, and stimulating economic growth,” he said in the news release.
Next, Goldsmith noted that the contemplated change will prevent the development of a regime that would go against Parliament’s enacted framework for managing greenhouse gas emissions: the Climate Change Response Act and the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).
“It is essential to maintain the coherence of the regulatory system and to deliver consistent obligations for greenhouse gas emitters,” he said.
The government should respond to climate change at the national scale rather than through “piece-meal litigation in the courts,” Goldsmith stressed.
“The courts are not the right place to resolve claims of harm from climate change, and tort law is not well-suited to respond to a problem like climate change which involves a range of complex environmental, economic and social factors,” he said.
Goldsmith noted that the planned amendment will not alter the government’s responsibilities under the Climate Change Response Act or businesses’ obligations under the ETS.
In the government’s news release, Goldsmith explained that pending litigation before the High Court of New Zealand – where an applicant commenced civil claims concerning the greenhouse gas emissions of six businesses – was impacting business confidence and investment.
The Ministry of Justice noted that the applicant’s claims included public nuisance and a novel tort claim for damage to the climate system.
“The case was the first to be brought in New Zealand seeking to hold private parties liable in tort for damage caused by climate change,” stated an insight from Russell McVeagh, with contributions from partner Hannah Wilson and special counsel Hannah Bain.
In October 2021, the Court of Appeal of New Zealand struck out the case. However, in February 2024, the Supreme Court of New Zealand reinstated the matter and remitted it to the High Court for trial, scheduled to commence next April.
In the insight, Russell McVeagh’s lawyers said they expected the government to work on progressing the legislation via the House before the general elections this November.
