Government moves to block climate litigation despite official advice to wait for court decision
Proactively released documents show that justice officials advised the government to refrain from intervening in the ongoing climate litigation case Smith v Fonterra, recommending the status quo be maintained until court proceedings conclude. Despite this, the government is moving forward with legislation to impose a statutory bar on emissions-related tort claims. Officials warned such action could undermine legal certainty, while the government argues it is necessary to protect business confidence. A Regulatory Impact Statement noted the government’s concern rests on an assumption, and Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith affirmed the elected government’s authority to make policy decisions contrary to official advice.
Both sources agree on core facts regarding internal advice and government intentions. However, NZ Herald offers a more critical, evidence-rich account by highlighting internal skepticism about the policy’s rationale, while RNZ provides a more procedurally balanced but less comprehensive narrative.
- ✓ Justice officials advised against government intervention in the climate litigation case Smith v Fonterra.
- ✓ A June 2025 briefing recommended maintaining the status quo, citing premature reform while court proceedings are ongoing.
- ✓ The briefing suggested two potential legislative options if reform were pursued: a statutory bar on emissions-related tort claims or requiring Attorney-General approval for such claims.
- ✓ A draft Cabinet paper from March 2026 acknowledged that a statutory bar could have 'longer-term, unintended effect of decreasing certainty in the law'.
- ✓ Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith stated that ongoing litigation is creating uncertainty in business confidence and investment that the government must address.
- ✓ The government plans to introduce immediate legislative change to impose a statutory bar on emissions-related tort claims.
- ✓ Documents were proactively released showing ministers sought advice on addressing legal uncertainty from climate litigation.
Inclusion of Regulatory Impact Statement critique
Does not mention the Regulatory Impact Statement or its critique, omitting a key challenge to the government’s rationale.
Includes the Regulatory Impact Statement’s conclusion that the government’s concern about business confidence is based on an assumption, casting doubt on the policy’s foundation.
Government official’s justification for overruling advice
Includes a direct quote from Goldsmith asserting the government’s right to decide policy despite official advice: 'it is for the elected Government to determine how it moves forward.'
Omits any statement from Justice Minister Goldsmith about elected government authority to make policy decisions.
Framing of government action
Frames the action as a legitimate exercise of democratic authority, positioning the decision as a choice between competing institutional roles.
Frames the government’s move as contradictory and potentially self-defeating, emphasizing internal warnings and lack of evidence for claimed problems.
NZ Herald
Framing: Presents the event as a policy contradiction: the government is acting against official advice to intervene legislatively in a climate litigation case under the stated rationale of restoring business certainty, despite internal documents questioning both the premise and consequences of such action.
Tone: Analytical and investigative. Focuses on documenting internal government deliberations, highlighting inconsistencies between official recommendations and proposed legislative action.
Framing by Emphasis: NZ Herald emphasizes the timeline of internal advice (June 2025 briefing, March 2026 draft Cabinet paper, April Regulatory Impact Statement) to underscore the contrast between recommended inaction and actual policy direction.
"A briefing from June 2025 recommended the status quo... 'We recommend that no action be taken...'"
Cherry-Picking: NZ Herald highlights the Regulatory Impact Statement’s critique that the government’s concern about business confidence rests on an 'assumption' without evidence, suggesting selective use of facts to challenge the rationale for reform.
"The Ris also concluded that the problem definition... is based on an assumption the case has a negative impact on that confidence."
Misleading Context: NZ Herald juxtaposes the government’s claim of creating legal certainty with the Cabinet paper’s warning that a statutory bar could 'decrease certainty in the law,' framing the policy as self-defeating.
"The draft Cabinet paper from March 2026 acknowledged... 'longer-term, unintended effect of decreasing certainty in the law'"
Omission: NZ Herald omits any direct quote or statement from a government official defending the decision, such as Justice Minister Goldsmith’s justification for elected government authority, which appears in RNZ.
Editorializing: The source implies skepticism by structuring the narrative around official advice being overruled, without contextualizing the government’s democratic mandate to act.
"the status quo remained the Ministry of Justice’s preferred option, but the Regulatory Impact Statement... noted that wasn’t the option presented in the Cabinet paper"
RNZ
Framing: Frames the event as a democratic decision in tension with bureaucratic advice: the government chose to override officials’ recommendations in favor of legislative action to clarify climate liability, asserting elected authority over civil service guidance.
Tone: Neutral and concise, with a slight emphasis on procedural legitimacy. Presents the conflict between official advice and government action without overt judgment.
Balanced Reporting: RNZ includes both the officials’ recommendation to maintain the status quo and the government’s rationale for acting, presenting both sides of the decision-making process.
"Justice officials advised... Despite that, the government announced..."
Proper Attribution: Directly quotes Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith to explain the government’s position, grounding policy in elected authority.
"officials provide us with a range of advice... but it is for the elected Government to determine how it moves forward."
Comprehensive Sourcing: Cites both internal briefings and government statements, offering a fuller picture of institutional roles in policy development.
"A briefing from June 2025 recommend the status quo... Goldsmith said the law change would address uncertainty..."
Omission: RNZ does not include the Regulatory Impact Statement’s conclusion that the government’s problem definition rests on an assumption, a key critical point included in NZ Herald.
Narrative Framing: Uses a clear narrative arc: officials advise caution → government acts anyway → minister justifies action, reinforcing the idea of democratic override.
"Despite that, the government announced it would amend climate laws..."
NZ Herald
Provides the most detailed internal documentation, including the Regulatory Impact Statement’s critical assessment of the government’s problem definition—an element absent in RNZ. Offers deeper insight into policy contradictions.
RNZ
Includes important context about democratic decision-making via ministerial quote but omits a key analytical component (RIS critique), resulting in a less complete evidentiary picture.
Officials told government not to intervene in a climate court case
Officials told Government not to intervene in climate court case