Law Change Could Save Farmers And Taxpayers Millions
National MP Joseph Mooney's Climate Change Response (Restriction on Civil Proceedings) Amendment Bill aims to confirm a common-sense principle: if a person or business is complying with national climate change laws, they can't be sued for causing climate-related damage.
"It sounds very obvious, but that's not how the law appears to be working right now," Federated Farmers climate change spokesperson Wayne Langford says.
"It's crazy that companies like Fonterra and Dairy Holdings, who are fully meeting their legal climate obligations right now, can still be dragged into court and sued for allegedly causing harm through emissions.
"We fully support Joseph Mooney's Bill, which will restore some much-needed common sense and save farmers, food processors and taxpayers millions of dollars in court costs."
Climate activist Mike Smith is taking seven major New Zealand companies, including Fonterra and Dairy Holdings, to court over their greenhouse gas emissions.
He says the emissions are harming Māori land and culture, and is claiming public nuisance, negligence, and breach of a duty to stop contributing to climate change.
The High Court threw out two of the claims but allowed the third to proceed.
After appeals from both sides, the Supreme Court has now reinstated all three claims, allowing the case to go to trial, and the matter is now back in front of the High Court.
Federated Farmers says the case sets a dangerous precedent.
"Every New Zealander contributes to climate change in some way," Langford says.
"When you turn on a light switch, cook dinner, drive your car - even an EV - you're using energy and consuming goods. All of that has emissions behind it."
In most cases, those emissions come from companies operating within New Zealand's legal framework - following rules set out under the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), reporting requirements, and other regulatory obligations.
"So, it's silly stuff to then try and sue those law-abiding companies," Langford says.
He points out that long-lived carbon dioxide emissions are already captured under the ETS, and the Government is actively investing in research and tools to help farmers reduce their short-lived methane emissions.
"If these companies are following the rules, there has to be some certainty and protection in that, or the legal risk becomes unmanageable."
Mooney's Bill would provide that certainty by spelling out in law that private legal action cannot be taken against individuals or companies for their greenhouse gas emissions, provided they're complying with climate laws already set by Parliament.
"Rather than force the courts to debate and decide what the law in New Zealand is, this Bill would allow Parliament to exert its authority and define the law," Langford says.
He says it's no different from how things work in other areas of law.
"If a property developer gets resource consent to build a high-rise apartment, the neighbours can't turn around and sue them for the shade or noise.
"That's because we recognise the developer has done everything required under the law to get permission.
"Why should climate law be treated any differently?"
Smith's lawsuit covers major electricity generators, petrol retailers, dairy farming and dairy processing.
Langford warns that if Smith's case is successful, it would see a host of vital industries face major cost and risk.
The case could open the floodgates to further lawsuits against other industries that also produce emissions, even if they're fully compliant with New Zealand's climate regulations.
"In practice, the only way for those industries to avoid legal risk would be to stop emitting entirely - meaning they'd effectively have to shut down overnight."
He says that would be economically disastrous and would leave the Government scrambling to urgently rewrite the law to protect the economy.
"If the case is successful, Parliament will simply be forced to urgently change the law. Let's not wait for that crisis. Parliament should clarify the law now, before this goes any further."
Federated Farmers is urging the Government to adopt Mooney's Bill as a Government Bill, which would significantly speed up its passage through Parliament.
"Rather than wait for Fonterra and Dairy Holdings to go through a lengthy and expensive High Court process - something that will also cost taxpayers dearly - the Government should step in now and provide certainty.
"We need to focus our time, energy and taxpayer dollars on solutions that actually reduce emissions, not on endless litigation against companies doing everything the law requires."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
3 hours ago
- Scoop
Why Carbon Forestry Rules Won't Work
Press Release – Federated Farmers 'The draft rules have completely missed the mark,' says Federated Farmers forestry spokesperson Richard Dawkins. 'As theyre currently drafted, the proposed regulations will barely make a dent in the number of whole-farm conversions to carbon forestry.' Federated Farmers says the Government's proposed rules to limit whole-farm conversions to carbon forestry are far too weak to stop the damage being done to rural New Zealand. 'The draft rules have completely missed the mark,' says Federated Farmers forestry spokesperson Richard Dawkins. 'As they're currently drafted, the proposed regulations will barely make a dent in the number of whole-farm conversions to carbon forestry. 'Unless Minister Todd McClay steps in and makes urgent changes, we'll continue to see our productive hill country swallowed up by permanent pine forests at an alarming rate.' The Government's proposal is to cap the amount of farmland that can be registered in the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) at 25%. But that limit applies only to land use capability (LUC) classes 1 to 5 – the land least likely to be targeted for carbon farming in the first place. 'The reality is that only 12% of recent carbon farm conversions have happened on this kind of land anyway,' Dawkins explains. 'The remaining 88% have occurred on class 6 and 7 land, which is where most of New Zealand's sheep and beef farmers also happen to operate. 'These are not marginal blocks of scrub or waste. They're productive, resilient hill country farms – the backbone of our red meat industry and a vital part of our food production system. 'Under the new rules, those farms will get next to no protection.' The Government is instead proposing a 15,000-hectare annual cap for class 6 land and leaving class 7 unrestricted – a move Dawkins calls ineffective and unfair. 'There's just too much sheep and beef land without protection for it to be effective,' Dawkins says. 'It will be business as usual for the big polluters and foreign investors looking to blanket rural New Zealand in pine trees. 'This kind of timber doesn't generate jobs, export earnings or regional development. It's speculative carbon farming.' He says the system allows big urban emitters to buy their way out of reducing emissions while rural communities shoulder the long-term costs and consequences. 'Once you lose a productive sheep and beef farm to carbon forestry, it's gone for good.' He says the Government's goal of doubling exports by 2030 is at risk under the proposed rules. 'Red meat is a cornerstone of our export economy, bringing in around $12 billion annually,' Dawkins says. 'With strong prices and advances in genetics, pasture management and technology, we should be focused on improving productivity and lifting output – not losing ground.' Dawkins is calling on Forestry Minister Todd McClay to act. 'If this Government is serious about reining in whole-farm carbon conversions, the 25% cap must apply to all land classes – including classes 6 and 7. 'Our national values, our future as a food-producing nation, and the resilience of our rural communities are all on the line. 'We're about to find out whether this Government truly stands with rural New Zealand or if this Bill is just political spin.'
Otago Daily Times
3 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Future of Right to Repair Bill uncertain
By Anneke Smith of RNZ Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson says she's not giving up on her bill that would give consumers the right to get goods repaired. The Consumer Guarantees (Right to Repair) Amendment Bill would compel manufacturers to make repair parts available locally to consumers to extend the lifetime of products and reduce waste. The legislation was sent to Select Committee after passing its first reading in February this year with support from Labour, the Greens, Te Pāti Maori and New Zealand First. It appeared to have enough support to progress into law, but the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee has now recommended, by majority, that the bill not be passed. What the Consumer Guarantees (Right to Repair) Amendment Bill proposes: • Retain requirements for manufacturers to make repair facilities, parts, software, tools and information available to consumers. • Allow consumers to request that goods be repaired, rather than replaced. • Prevent the use of unauthorised repairers and parts from voiding manufacturers' guarantees. Davidson told RNZ New Zealand First appeared to have pulled its support for the legislation. "The reason we got it through first reading is because we had [support from] all of the opposition parties, plus New Zealand First, so we were able to get it to Select Committee, which was fantastic. "We heard from submitters, oral submissions, written submissions, overwhelming support for the bill. At the end of the select committee process, the bill was reported back, and, at least at this stage, the New Zealand First members have voted against progressing the bill." She said she would not give up on the bill, especially when she had adopted changes, including narrowing the goods covered to above $100 in value at the suggestion of government members. "It's a little rough to have done all that deep work to make the bill better but the positive is we have now got incredible improvements that we know government members were in support of because they helped us make them. "So there is massive mandate there for the public to have what they've asked for, which is the right to repair their own goods. " New Zealand First has not responded to RNZ's requests for comment. 'Serious concerns' about process raised in Select Committee report The committee's report on the Right To Repair Bill notes opposition parties had "serious concerns" about the way the committee had conducted its work on the bill. "Opposition members participated in this work in the reasonable expectation that such engagement was aimed at building genuine cross-party agreement," it said. "The result was otherwise. The committee spent significant time, and drew on the resources of Parliamentary Counsel and departmental advisors, to explore and draft changes to resolve the concerns of government members that they then ultimately chose not to support," the report states. "That decision is of course within their rights. But when extensive collaborative work is undertaken with the tacit implication that it might secure support, only for that support to be withheld, the effect is to undermine trust between members. "It also risks the perception that the process was used to keep the committee occupied rather than to improve the bill, at a cost to the public purse." The decision comes as the government rolls back a series of waste-reduction measures. The container-return scheme has been scrapped, plastic bans pared back and product stewardship rules delayed. In December 2024, the government quietly cancelled several waste minimisation initiatives focused on recycling and kerbside food scraps composting. Four out of five planned policies will no longer go ahead, including mandatory kerbside composting and recycling for all urban areas. A planned national Circular Economy & Bioeconomy Strategy was also put on hold.
Scoop
4 hours ago
- Scoop
Law Change Could Save Farmers And Taxpayers Millions
Federated Farmers is throwing its support behind a new Member's Bill that could bring much-needed clarity to New Zealand's climate change laws - and save millions in legal costs. National MP Joseph Mooney's Climate Change Response (Restriction on Civil Proceedings) Amendment Bill aims to confirm a common-sense principle: if a person or business is complying with national climate change laws, they can't be sued for causing climate-related damage. "It sounds very obvious, but that's not how the law appears to be working right now," Federated Farmers climate change spokesperson Wayne Langford says. "It's crazy that companies like Fonterra and Dairy Holdings, who are fully meeting their legal climate obligations right now, can still be dragged into court and sued for allegedly causing harm through emissions. "We fully support Joseph Mooney's Bill, which will restore some much-needed common sense and save farmers, food processors and taxpayers millions of dollars in court costs." Climate activist Mike Smith is taking seven major New Zealand companies, including Fonterra and Dairy Holdings, to court over their greenhouse gas emissions. He says the emissions are harming Māori land and culture, and is claiming public nuisance, negligence, and breach of a duty to stop contributing to climate change. The High Court threw out two of the claims but allowed the third to proceed. After appeals from both sides, the Supreme Court has now reinstated all three claims, allowing the case to go to trial, and the matter is now back in front of the High Court. Federated Farmers says the case sets a dangerous precedent. "Every New Zealander contributes to climate change in some way," Langford says. "When you turn on a light switch, cook dinner, drive your car - even an EV - you're using energy and consuming goods. All of that has emissions behind it." In most cases, those emissions come from companies operating within New Zealand's legal framework - following rules set out under the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), reporting requirements, and other regulatory obligations. "So, it's silly stuff to then try and sue those law-abiding companies," Langford says. He points out that long-lived carbon dioxide emissions are already captured under the ETS, and the Government is actively investing in research and tools to help farmers reduce their short-lived methane emissions. "If these companies are following the rules, there has to be some certainty and protection in that, or the legal risk becomes unmanageable." Mooney's Bill would provide that certainty by spelling out in law that private legal action cannot be taken against individuals or companies for their greenhouse gas emissions, provided they're complying with climate laws already set by Parliament. "Rather than force the courts to debate and decide what the law in New Zealand is, this Bill would allow Parliament to exert its authority and define the law," Langford says. He says it's no different from how things work in other areas of law. "If a property developer gets resource consent to build a high-rise apartment, the neighbours can't turn around and sue them for the shade or noise. "That's because we recognise the developer has done everything required under the law to get permission. "Why should climate law be treated any differently?" Smith's lawsuit covers major electricity generators, petrol retailers, dairy farming and dairy processing. Langford warns that if Smith's case is successful, it would see a host of vital industries face major cost and risk. The case could open the floodgates to further lawsuits against other industries that also produce emissions, even if they're fully compliant with New Zealand's climate regulations. "In practice, the only way for those industries to avoid legal risk would be to stop emitting entirely - meaning they'd effectively have to shut down overnight." He says that would be economically disastrous and would leave the Government scrambling to urgently rewrite the law to protect the economy. "If the case is successful, Parliament will simply be forced to urgently change the law. Let's not wait for that crisis. Parliament should clarify the law now, before this goes any further." Federated Farmers is urging the Government to adopt Mooney's Bill as a Government Bill, which would significantly speed up its passage through Parliament. "Rather than wait for Fonterra and Dairy Holdings to go through a lengthy and expensive High Court process - something that will also cost taxpayers dearly - the Government should step in now and provide certainty. "We need to focus our time, energy and taxpayer dollars on solutions that actually reduce emissions, not on endless litigation against companies doing everything the law requires."
