Lawyers For Climate Action Files Case Challenging NZ's Climate Ambition In The Supreme Court
Press Release – Lawyers for Climate Action
Our targets arent ambitious enough. Supported by seven independent experts, were arguing that the targets are not aligned with whats required to limit warming to 1.5C, and the Commission didnt carry out its analysis in the way the law …
Lawyers for Climate Action NZ has today filed an application with the Supreme Court for leave to bring an appeal on the level of ambition of New Zealand's climate targets. The application follows the Court of Appeal's decision earlier this year dismissing the group's case against the Climate Change Commission and the Minister of Climate Change.
'We are generally very supportive of the Climate Change Commission's advice, and they play a critically important role in New Zealand's climate response', says Jessica Palairet, Executive Director of Lawyers for Climate Action NZ Inc.
'However, we believe the Climate Change Commission made errors in its early advice to the Minister of Climate Change when setting Aotearoa New Zealand's domestic emissions budgets and revised 2030 Nationally Determined Contribution under the Paris Agreement.'
'Our targets aren't ambitious enough. Supported by seven independent experts, we're arguing that the targets are not aligned with what's required to limit warming to 1.5°C, and the Commission didn't carry out its analysis in the way the law requires.'
'The Climate Change Response Act requires our emissions budgets to be ' set with a view to contributing to the global effort under the Paris Agreement to limit the global average temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels '. However, despite the science telling us that the world needs to halve emissions by 2030 to reduce warming to 1.5°C, our emissions budgets allow net emissions in 2030 to be higher than they were in 2010'.
'We do not believe that allowing our net carbon dioxide emissions to increase can be consistent with the IPCC's analysis or the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C degrees', says Palairet.
'We first filed this case in 2021, and the Court of Appeal released its judgment on 28 March 2025. The Court of Appeal found that although the Commission's advice could be judicially reviewed, the Commission's approach was not unlawful. We respectfully disagree. Because it is such an important issue, we are asking the Supreme Court to consider it. If leave is granted, it will be the first time a case about the Climate Change Response Act 2002 reaches our top court.'
'Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time. The research has been clear for years that the world needs to cut its emissions in half by 2030 to protect the planet and take advantage of the opportunities that climate action creates. However, despite this urgency, successive governments have failed to make the decisions necessary to secure a safe future.'
'If our targets aren't ambitious enough, this affects our entire climate policy response. It means that our climate policies aren't geared towards achieving the objectives our Government set in the Climate Change Response Act and the Paris Agreement: limiting warming to 1.5°C.'
'We have filed an application to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Court will decide whether to grant leave over the next couple of months, after which, if leave is granted, it will set down a hearing date.'
Lawyers for Climate Action NZ Inc is an incorporated society of lawyers committed to using the law to drive action on climate change. It is bringing this case in the public interest, to clarify the law and ensure better decision-making into the future. Our legal team is working for free, and has done so since we first filed proceedings in 2021.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
3 days ago
- Scoop
Supermarkets Slammed For Bad Behaviour
Another day, another report that reveals how badly the duopoly supermarkets of Woolworths and Foodstuffs are treating their customers and suppliers to benefit themselves. 'Kiwi consumers deserve so much better than this. We are still paying some of the highest prices on the planet to put food on the table and we have known this for more than three years,' said Grocery Action Group chair Sue Chetwin. Today's report from the Commerce Commission slams the supermarket duopoly sector for the way it treats its suppliers by making unrealistic demands of them and asking them to wear costs the supermarkets should be covering. The Commission also says this is a significant issue for any potential competitors who face an insurmountable battle to get wholesale groceries at a reasonable price. 'The report reveals the supermarkets suppliers are being subsidised by around $5 billion in rebates, discounts and promotional payments. Competitors just cannot compete with that power inbalance. 'It doesn't work for consumers either because prices bounce around so much they no longer know what a fair price might be,' Chetwin said. 'The report shows once again that despite the Commission and the Government calling out this appalling behavour the incumbents continue to treat consumers and suppliers as if they own them,' Chetwin said. 'In many respects they do. Foodstuffs and Woolworths hold more than 80% of the market. This lack of competition means consumers have no to little choice about where they shop.' Grocery Action also notes the large suppliers are complicit in this play because the lack of competition also helps keep their prices high. GAG is concerned improvements to the supply and wholesale codes proposed by the Commission, including prohibiting retaliation against suppliers who assert their rights will not be enough. 'The Commission is asking the duopoly to 'voluntarily' change the wholesale code over the next 12 months – that's like politely asking the greedy to stop being greedy. It won't work. 'We have already seen the duopoly play by its own rules. The industry has been on notice since the Commission released its Supermarket Study in 2022, which said supermarkets were making excessive profits and that a lack of competition meant we were paying some of the highest prices in the world for food, but nothing has changed. 'Hopefully this latest report will assist the Grocery Minister Nicola Willis, to conclude that forced divestment of the supermarkets to allow more competition needs to happen now, not in some distant future. Consumers will thank her.' Grocery Action background The Grocery Action Group was formed to bring down the prices of groceries for all Kiwis. Our vision is to influence government, the regulators and other parties to deliver a competitive and consumer-focused grocery sector in New Zealand. Our board is made up of consumer, industry, supplier and Māori interest experts. For more info visit
Scoop
3 days ago
- Scoop
ComCom Moves To Disrupt Power Structures In Groceries
The Commerce Commission is today spotlighting two commercial behaviours it believes are reinforcing the powerful positions of the major supermarkets and big grocery suppliers, and what's needed to address them and improve competition. 'We know the current grocery market is not serving Kiwi consumers well. The status quo lets a few major players set the rules for the rest of the industry which is negatively impacting consumers, new and expanding competitors, and small suppliers,' Grocery Commissioner Pierre van Heerden says. 'These major players are the three main supermarkets and large national and multi-national suppliers. Their significant market share allows them to influence the settings of the market. This limits the ability for competing retailers to enter and grow in the market and often results in smaller suppliers getting an unfair deal. 'The Commission has today released our draft report on our review of the Grocery Supply Code and Initial Views on our Inquiry into the Wholesale Market. These focus on two issues we believe need to be addressed to improve outcomes for consumers. Suppliers covering retailer costs 'We're proposing to simplify the Grocery Supply Code to reduce the range of payments supermarkets can charge their suppliers,' Mr van Heerden says. 'With combined purchases of over $15 billion and 82% of the New Zealand grocery market, the major supermarkets are the largest customers for most grocery suppliers. 'My concern is that the power imbalance between the major supermarkets and small suppliers creates a reluctance among suppliers to push back on supermarket demands or behaviour for fear of damaging relationships or losing access to supermarket shelves. 'This leads to smaller suppliers taking on costs and risks that are best managed by the retailer. 'The changes we're suggesting would prevent the supermarkets from charging suppliers for ordinary retailing activities such as stocking shelves and setting up displays. It would also require the supermarkets to keep records of certain activities charged to suppliers, including promotions. 'We believe that setting these rules in place will help mitigate the power imbalance and allow suppliers to be more confident market participants so they can innovate and invest in better products and more choice for consumers. Promotional payments in the wholesale market 'A significant issue new and expanding supermarket competitors face is securing access to cost-effective groceries from large suppliers. 'The prices the major supermarkets pay suppliers are subsidised by around $5 billion in rebates, discounts, and promotional payments. Competing retailers can't negotiate similar levels of support due to their weaker buying power. 'The majority of these payments go to supermarkets in exchange for products being 'on special'. 'Consumers lose out because prices jump around more. This can mean the average price is more expensive and it's harder for consumers to assess the value of products. 'The major supermarkets use high low pricing much more than supermarkets in other countries. Large suppliers and the major supermarkets need to reduce their reliance on promotions and specials so that prices can be lower and more stable. This would benefit consumers because pricing would be more straight-forward, and new competitors would put competitive pressure on existing supermarkets to deliver on price without the high-low price distraction. 'With less promotional funding we'd expect suppliers to factor that saving into the price they charge retailers, which retailers would then pass onto consumers in the form of more stable and lower everyday prices. 'The best option is for large suppliers and the major supermarkets to voluntarily change their behaviour. If they don't, we'll have to consider our other alternatives,' Mr van Heerden says. Background The Commission has responsibilities to monitor and regulate the grocery sector under the Grocery Industry Competition Act 2023 (GICA). Our work focuses on the following areas to improve competition and efficiency in the grocery sector: Creating pricing and promotional transparency for consumers Setting rules around supplier treatment Enabling wholesale access for new and expanding competitors Ongoing monitoring of the state of competition in the grocery sector and whether it is delivering benefits for New Zealanders over time Taking action to address non-compliance under GICA, the Fair Trading Act, and the Commerce Act where necessary Grocery Supply Code The Commission is seeking submissions on the draft Grocery Supply Code and will consider those before we issue our final report before the end of September 2025. The mandatory Grocery Supply Code was introduced under the Grocery Industry Competition Act to ensure negotiations between major supermarkets and their suppliers are fair and transparent. The Commission started a review of the Supply Code to make sure it was operating as intended and suppliers had confidence to innovate and invest in more choice for consumers. The Commission's draft is informed by submissions on the Request for Views published in August 2024, the results of the Grocery Supplier Survey, and information from the Commission's Anonymous Reporting Tool. The Commission is proposing the following changes to the code Restricting the range of situations where retailers can charge suppliers. Retailers would no longer be able to charge suppliers for stocking the shelves or for groceries that become unfit for sale while in the retailer's effective control. Requiring regulated grocery retailers to keep records about how they are complying with the Code when undertaking certain activities. These activities include negotiating promotions with suppliers and making deductions to payments without written consent. Adding a requirement that if a retailer has bought groceries at a promotional price for a sale period and then sells that product at a higher price after that sales period, they pay the difference to the supplier. Prohibiting retaliation against suppliers that exercise their rights under the Code. The review has also identified some priority areas to develop guidance to support fair conduct and other areas to consider over the longer term. Wholesale Supply Inquiry The Commission has released preliminary findings in relation to the current Wholesale Supply Inquiry. The wholesale access regime was introduced under the Grocery Industry Competition Act (GICA) to address a key barrier to entry and expansion in the retail grocery market in New Zealand. The Commission started an inquiry into the Wholesale Supply of groceries after the first Annual Grocery Report found the wholesale access regime was not working as intended and is unlikely to substantially improve competition or benefit New Zealand consumers in its current form. The Commission has recommended the following changes: The major supermarkets expand their wholesale product range and implement systems to pass promotional funding through to their wholesale customers so other retailers can access lower prices Suppliers reduce their reliance on promotional funding or allocate the funding across more retailers. At this time the Commission believes these changes are best achieved through voluntary action from large suppliers and major supermarkets as they are well placed to do so efficiently. If the Commission doesn't see meaningful progress in 12 months, it will decide if regulations should be changed. The Commission will consider submissions on the preliminary findings and will gather further information to make decisions on whether changes are needed. A final report on the wholesale supply inquiry will likely be completed in 2026.
The Spinoff
3 days ago
- The Spinoff
Changing our methane standards could set a ‘dangerous precedent', scientists warn
A group of scientists from around the world is urging the New Zealand government to ignore a methane report it commissioned that 'redefines the goal of climate action'. Shanti Mathias explains. I hear there's an open letter. What's that about? Twenty-six climate scientists have signed an open letter urging the government not to adopt a standard that would limit the amount of methane reduction New Zealand needs to achieve to reach its climate target. A review of New Zealand's methane targets, conducted in 2024 by a government-appointed group separate from the independent Climate Change Commission, looked at the goal of 'no additional warming'. The open letter says that 'no additional warming' is a goal that 'ignores scientific evidence' and could jeopardise New Zealand's ability to achieve the goals set out in the Paris Agreement. What does 'no additional warming' mean? This term is a way to avoid responsibility, says the open letter. 'It redefines the goal of climate action as simply stabilising the warming impact of emissions from any given source at current levels – rather than seeking to 'minimise all greenhouse gas emissions' and their contribution to global warming.' The concept of 'no additional warming' is supported by agricultural lobby groups like Beef and Lamb and Federated Farmers. It would mean that methane emissions could be kept at current levels, as long as they don't increase; essentially an endorsement of the current amount of climate change. 'It's kind of like saying 'I'm pouring 100 barrels of pollution into this river and it's killing life. If I go and pour 90 barrels of pollution in, I should get credit for it,' Paul Behrens, a professor at Oxford University and signatory of the letter, told the Financial Times. Farming lobby groups are pushing for the government of Ireland to adopt a similar approach, which scientists have also criticised. Why are New Zealand and Ireland being singled out? Both countries have large agriculture sectors which produce a lot of dairy and beef for export, and have very high per-capita methane emissions. The vast majority of methane emissions come from agriculture; more than 85% in New Zealand, from grass-eating animals like cows and sheep burping it out as they digest their food. Methane made up 28.9% of Ireland's emissions in 2022 and 43.5% of New Zealand's emissions in 2020. By comparison, methane is about 12% of the United States' emissions. Drew Shindel, an American professor who chaired the UN Environmental Programmes 2021 global methane assessment, told RNZ that the 'no additional warming' target set a 'dangerous precedent'. If New Zealand and Ireland adopted this standard and were followed by other countries, methane emissions wouldn't be reduced fast enough to meet Paris Agreement targets that are already in jeopardy. Methane is a particularly dangerous source of emissions. While it stays in the atmosphere for less time than carbon dioxide, it causes 80 times as much heating, and causes that heating almost immediately – meaning that if methane continues to be emitted, its dangerous warming effects will continue, too. As a recognition of its more short-lived nature, the amount of methane New Zealand needs to reduce by 2050 is a separate goal to carbon emissions reductions. By 2050, New Zealand is aiming to have net-zero carbon dioxide emissions and a 24% to 47% reduction of methane. By 2030, New Zealand is aiming to have a 10% reduction of methane from 2017 levels. How have New Zealand politicians reacted to this call to reduce methane? Fairly predictably. Christopher Luxon, to whom the letter was addressed, said that the scientists, whom he described as 'worthies', 'might want to direct their focus and their letters to other countries'. He told RNZ 'I'll stack New Zealand's record up against any other country on the planet Earth around our methane emissions,' saying that if New Zealand limited dairy or beef production, those emissions would be produced elsewhere by countries with less environmental efficiency. Chlӧe Swarbrick, co-leader of the Green Party, said that the 'no additional warming' measure could damage New Zealand's reputation and threaten its exports. 'It's really clear that Christopher Luxon has to end any further speculation that his government is on the climate denial bandwagon, they have wasted a year playing around with this mythical notion of 'no additional warming' and now international alarm bells are ringing,' she said. Following the report of the methane panel last year, Cabinet will decide whether to adopt a different methane target. Is New Zealand on track to meet its climate targets otherwise? No. Current policies rely on tree planting and a carbon capture and storage project in the Kapuni gas field, which currently seems completely unviable. The second emissions reduction plan, released last year, put the net zero 2050 target out of reach with domestic targets, meaning New Zealand will likely have to buy millions of dollars of international carbon credits. The organisation Climate Action Tracker rates New Zealand's progress as 'highly insufficient' with current policies headed towards heating of more than four degrees Celsius. Changes to climate finance in the recent budget also mean that New Zealand is not doing its part to support less well-off countries adapt to a warmer planet and reduce their emissions.
