Daily review 27/05/2026

6 comments on “Daily review 27/05/2026 ”

• Comment on post

1. Drowsy M. Kram 1

   27 May 2026 at 6:05 pm

   

   Climate briefing note sent to PM's chief policy adviser, it has been revealed
   [be very very careful now RNZ, 27 May 2026]
   Finally, Swarbrick asked if it was credible for the prime minister to “not know” that one of his most senior staff members was meeting with the “largest company in the country, who was actively lobbying for a law change in their favor, which they ultimately got”.

   Luxon responded by saying he rejected the characterisation of the question. He also wouldn’t answer when exactly he learnt about the secret meetings and briefing notes.

   So, our CEO "rejected the characterisation of the question" – what does that even mean?!!!

   
   Ah, so that’s what he meant. Our very own Sergeant Schultz knew nothing about two big climate polluters (Fonterra and Z-Energy) lobbying for the retrospective law change that's now on the CoC's books – seems like just the sort of thing he wouldn't (want to) know.

   I reckon now’s the time for Luxon to suck it up, get some guts, grow a spine, and arrange an independent inquiry into potential corruption at the heart of the NActF government. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear – right? Besides, it’s distracting from the Budget bash.

   Reply
   • Mercurio 1.1

     27 May 2026 at 6:19 pm

     They are caught. Now, can they be landed?

     Reply
     • Drowsy M. Kram 1.1.1

       27 May 2026 at 7:12 pm

       Now, can they be landed?

       A(t)las I fear not – more likely to join the ranks of the knighted ones who got away

       Still, the thought of ol' Luxflakes on a political gaff even momentarily is some consolation, and there's always a NZ First time.

       Reply
       • Mercurio 1.1.1.1

         27 May 2026 at 8:17 pm

         He's gaffed alright and it won't be a momentary experience, imo. My sense is, the hook is in his flesh and the more he wriggles, the deeper it bites. I reckon he's for the frying pan with the heat turned up to char!

         Reply
2. SPC 2

   27 May 2026 at 8:22 pm

   The Cabinet Paper Trail – Legislation to prevent climate impact liability

   Part One

   Ministers asked for advice on options to address the potential legal uncertainty created by climate litigation.

   A briefing from June 2025 recommended the status quo, “allowing the common law to develop to better inform the quality of any future reform”.
   “Once the decision is issued, the Government will be in a better position to assess the facts and reasoning adopted by the courts, providing a more informed basis for any future consideration of reform.”

   The briefing suggested if the Government wants to proceed with reform, there were two legislative options: a statutory bar on claims relating to greenhouse gas emissions, or a requirement that the Attorney-General approve public nuisance claims.

   Part Two

   A draft Cabinet paper from March 2026 acknowledged the introduction of a statutory bar could have the “longer-term, unintended effect of decreasing certainty in the law” – despite the Government saying it was changing the law to address uncertainty caused by the Smith versus Fonterra case.

   By April this year, the status quo remained the Ministry of Justice’s preferred option, but the Regulatory Impact Statement (Ris) noted that wasn’t the option presented in the Cabinet paper on the proposed legislation.

   Who was behind the option presented (a lobbied Beehive)?

   The preferred option was “immediate legislative change to impose a statutory bar on emissions-related tort claims”.

   Note those doing the Ris did not know

   The Ris also concluded that the problem definition – the Government’s concern about the impact of the ongoing litigation in Smith versus Fonterra on business and investor confidence – is based on an assumption the case has a negative impact on that confidence.

   “While acknowledging that some consultation has occurred with legal experts, the panel considers that a lack of any business perspective means that the underlying question of the impact on business confidence has not been adequately tested.

   “We have not identified any evidence that the ongoing court proceedings have had a measurable impact on business confidence.”

   Consequences of adopting the preferred option to impose a statutory bar

   The Ris did, however, note a statutory bar would protect emitting businesses from tort liability, “providing greater legal certainty to … emitters”.

   “This would reduce legal-risk planning costs and minimise expenses associated with defending litigation or compliance with potential court orders.”

   The ministry (also) recommended the reforms be applied prospectively.

   The Government instead applied them retrospectively, drawing criticism from the New Zealand Bar Association.

   Chloe Swarbrick

   “Despite ministers arguing this was critical for business confidence, their official advice is clear that there was no clear business perspective available nor sought to come to such a conclusion,” she said.

   According to the Cabinet papers – the trail to the recommended option (is back to the lobbying by a number of companies, that Cabinet was not informed about).

   “There were warnings this could lead to more litigation, not less, may not even cut costs and was deeply dangerous in breaching the rule of law and applying retrospectively.”

   https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/officials-told-government-not-to-intervene-in-climate-court-case/RCVKFQ3ZCJC7PBXQLGOM6TVI5U/

   Reply
3. KJT 3

   28 May 2026 at 4:29 am

   Voters have known National has been brought, for decades.

   They still vote for them.

   Reply

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS