Written By:
- Date published:
10:01 am, May 12th, 2026 - 26 comments
Categories: climate change, national, paul goldsmith, same old national, science, you couldn't make this shit up -
Tags:
In a properly functioning democracy there is a clear dividing line between Parliament and the Judicial System.
Parliament enacts laws. The Judiciary interprets and rules on what the law means.
The rule of law, helpfully codified in the recently passed Regulatory Standards Act 2025, has some well understood and basic tenets.
The law should be clear and accessible. It should not adversely affect rights and liberties, or impose obligations, retrospectively. Every person is equal before the law. There should be an independent, impartial judiciary. And issues of legal right and liability should be resolved by the application of law, not the exercise of administrative discretion.
But the Government is taking steps to retrospectively stop a private citizen from testing in court if big greenhouse gas emitters and the Government itself are breaching the Climate Change Response Act.
A responsible Government would let the case proceed, defend its position in court, and then abide by the decision. If difficulties were identified in the decision then it could amend the law with future effect. But individuals and groups ought to be able to contest in court their interpretation of the law, and not have this right taken away retrospectively. Mike Smith should have just as much standing in Court as the Crown. And Paul Goldsmith should have let the Court resolve the issue, and not unilaterally veto the Court’s ability to do so.
But we do not have a responsible Government dedicated to upholding the rule of law.
From Radio New Zealand:
The government has announced it will amend its Climate Change Response Act, which was labelled “unlawful and risky” by climate advocates.
Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said the act would be changed to prevent courts making certain types of civil findings of liability for climate change damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions.
The changes would apply to both current and future cases.
Goldsmith said the changes were designed to give businesses certainty.
He said the government’s response to climate change was best managed at a national level not through “piece-meal” litigation in the courts.
“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.”
Goldsmith’s statement speaks volumes. Trashing the rule of law to give businesses “certainty”, that is protecting them from liability, is more important than respecting the Judiciary.
This is a constitutional outrage and shows not only contempt for the rule of law but also contempt for any action taken by a citizen against climate change.
This is banana republic stuff.
Shame on the Government.
Taken straight from the Atlas playbook. In the hopefully dying days of the COC they are trying their best to knock off as many Atlas focused initiatives as possible despite some of them not being that popular with the voters.
Some of them?
I would go further and say MOST of them.
Whilst I share your sentiment, I'll play the devil's advocate. The state is sovereign, so why complain about it exercising that sovereignty? What does "should" have to do with real life and how the world works??
Smiths should smite, to comply with ancient tradition. Mike smites iron, Paul smites gold. Each to his own. Adam Smith called it division of labour, right? All good working men ought to be hitting something often (wives & kids have trended toward exempt status in recent decades). Anyway the Old Testament of the Bible goes on ad nauseum about the necessity of smiting – which is why christians have been so reluctant to abandon that ancient tradition (Gloriavale). We could get Bishop Tamaki to expound on who should be smiting who in the current political scene. Could be devilish.
Should is a projection of morality from a shoulder onto a bunch of shouldees. If we all went around projecting personal morality onto others, life would get tedious real fast.
"Goldsmith said the changes were designed to give businesses certainty."
Fonterra once again, off the hook. They must have some sort of intimate relationship with the Government…
Aye, MS ! And big ups to RNZ (esp their Enviro Correspondents)
I have said before that IMO NACT1 are absolutely a Coalition of Climate Deniers.
And whether through Ideology/and or venal self interest, they are acting in, and with, complete disregard for Climate Science Experts..or even a basic laymans knowledge of the consequences of their actions….
NACT1 : Deny, deny, deny….IMO It will be up to our New Left Govt in November to address this.
The ACT/NAT/NZF coagulation will scream blue murder at any sign of the new Labour/Green Government spending any money at all on preventing harm from the climate. Their ability to operate at all relies on their depleting dedicated funds directed toward resilience needed as the climate deteriorates.
And IMO already well into it. Also, as we discussed, sir Keys "devil beast" will be reanimated 2.0…..
And re…
My thoughts….we (Labour/Green) need to highlight what we will do to not only avert NZ climate consequence catastrophe…but absolutely build the resilience.
And show the Thinking, Plans, and Actions we will implement. I'm Positive it can be done ! : )
NActF know their base – the CoC is the most anti-worker, anti-public services, anti-Māori, anti-environment 'government' (by and for the sorted) in a very long time, and it’s on track for a second term of wrecking NZ Aotearoa – they can't pull the ladders up fast enough.
https://maps.greenpeace.org/maps/aotearoa/know-your-nitrate/
NZ law-based environmental protests might embarrass big polluters, and NActF, so the CoC have called time. That'll stop the degradation of NZ's environment – Yeah right 🙁
So, Carry On Polluting – you can 'thank' NActF later. Or now – it's all good.
In point of fact, our CoC is profoundly ignorant of the basics.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series
This latest NActF manoeuvre comes hot on the heels of marginalising Mother Nature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_pollution_in_New_Zealand
Hipkins should say he will repeal the law on day 1.
I think that he should have a blanket bill repealing all the CoC legislation.
I suggest if/when this becomes law, that there's an attempt to develop a wide campaign challenging it, in conjunction with an attempt to get a judicial review in the courts.
Judicial review the Act of Parliament? That’s a bold strategy in a country with parliamentary sovereignty.
You can judicially review decisions made under an Act.
But the courts can't and don’t just wave away Acts of Parliament because people are upset about them. This isn’t the US Supreme Court.
https://newsroom.co.nz/2026/05/12/torts-and-tautology-govt-to-change-law-to-override-the-courts-again/
The neo-authoritarian Coalition strikes again at the heart of NZ democracy.
“individuals and groups ought to be able to contest in court their interpretation of the law, and not have this right taken away retrospectively. Mike Smith should have just as much standing in Court as the Crown. And Paul Goldsmith should have let the Court resolve the issue, and not unilaterally veto the Court’s ability to do so.”
Yet another extreme measure by this increasingly Trumpian government. Yet another piece of legislation that they did not campaign on.
Peters is a lawyer. Is he really going to back this?
Is your question rhetorical? IMO he will literally back anything that gives O'l Wily and NZ Fist power.
Have you followed any of the NZ Citizen Everlee Wihongi detained by trumps fascist stormtroopers?
She's according to family,been in shackles and…
Not so !
Yes I heard about that Psych. Peters is getting too old and lazy to check facts.
But I still say that, with his legal background, he should be able to recognise bad law being made in parliament such as the proposed amendment to he Climate Change Response Act.
Unfortunately he is now so rabidly anti-woke (where he pretends anything to do with climate change is woke, which it isn't) that he will go along with the amendment.
This is yet another reason for Hipkins to rule him out of a coalition NOW.
I hear ya : ). There is a view (which I adhere to) that linking Wily and NZ Fist to the NACT1 Coalition they have been a fully willing part of …highlights their intrinsic connection…. to the damage NZ has, and is, suffering.
Can a force that behaves that way (disestablishing the Ministry for the environment te mea te mea) be beaten by those who are appalled by such anti -democratic, anti-environment behaviours?
We are being beaten presently, hand over fist while the perpetrators are in power.
They don't have to fight these moves as battles; they've already won them. To continue achieving all they want, they just have to retain power.
They believe this deeply and act accordingly, no matter the cost.
We on this side of the issues, don't.
Their approach is mighty and righty.
Occasionally, it's our turn to call the shots (seemingly) but is it just a given to keep us occupied while they regroup?
Hmm thats some Insightful comment. And absolutely they see it as the Long Game (a term I heard many years back, applied to the Deep Right)
I think…as I replied to BG on the Roy Morgan, that our strength is, and will be in the Young. Sick of being shat on..they want, nay, demand Change. They…are NZ's Future. Its theirs. And Power to them. Its why I fight. : )
Keep up your comments, I find them…kinda refreshing : )
I'm mindful of "Big Corp" squeezing every last saleable drop out of everything, while we clatter away at its armoured hide with our flint-headed arrows. We protest, surge, we lawyer-up, we elect our people but BC sits tight, waiting… and if ever reality forces it to abandon its honey-pot, it simply chooses another while obfuscating over the first, seamlessly transitioning to a new putea. Would you say that the losses suffered during the short term of this pinched Government represents significant loss of health; society, te whenua, mana Māori, te moana, trust – loss that can't be rebuilt easily or quickly, certainly not before these snarky b*stards return to power, if in fact they are tipped out at the coming election?
If you're gonna save a building from destruction, it's really useful to have a copy of the architect's plans 🙂
I didn't even mention the young and you might be reviewing your kind comments about "refreshing" 🙂
One of the most effective strategies of BC is stalling, followed closely by turning the clock back by an hour when ‘daylight saving’ ends aka returning to BAU.
Of course he will. The principle people are outraged about here, Parliament stepping in to override or constrain a judicial pathway retrospectively, is not new territory for Winston Peters or NZ First.
They supported the Foreshore and Seabed legislation in 2004, which was itself criticised at the time for cutting off legal avenues following the Ngāti Apa decision.
Different issue entirely. Same underlying constitutional argument about Parliament intervening after the courts opened a path the government didn’t like.
People can oppose it now, but acting like this principle suddenly became unacceptable only in 2026 is selective memory.
Constitutional law is a murky minefield in NZ.
Perhaps not having a 'constitution' (just a range of constitution-like pieces of legislation) – is a factor. However, I don't see that the US is doing much better – despite their formal constitution.
I think (and mind – this is opinion from a non-legal background) – that NZ is in the midst of a slow-motion battle for supremacy between the courts and the legislature (i.e. Parliament).
Periodically the judiciary chance their arm – over a legal interpretation that arguably should be decided by parliament. Sometimes they win. Sometimes they lose (as per your prior Seabed and Foreshore example)
Periodically, parliament attempts to enforce legislation to regulate the courts (the most recent example I can think of is the 3 strikes). Judges can't reject it, but they can find loopholes in interpreting it – which undermines the intention of the act. The 'why' doesn't matter (not in the legal sense) – it's the fact that it happens which is interesting in this ongoing tension.
'Why' it happens is of some interest to me – transparency and all that. What lies behind governmental, parliamentary and judicial decisions – simple self-interest?
And action has been forthcoming – NActF is nothing if not responsive to polluter concerns. NActF (govt by and for the sorted) has shut down the Smith v Fonterra lawsuit against major climate polluters. A victory for polluters – onya CoC.
https://thestandard.nz/constitutional-outrage/
There may be more to it, of course, but how much more?
Fonterra is creaming it on the overshoot road – follow the money
Other notable retrospectively acting laws passed by the coalition government are on pay equity and on customary marine area rights.
Well it’s all come out with a hiss and a roar today:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/top/596197/a-co-ordinated-campaign-of-secret-lobbying-climate-activist
https://www.thepost.co.nz/politics/361010117/who-wrote-climate-law-lobbyists-text-reappears-government-reform
https://www.eli.org.nz/updates/skullduggery
and much more.