Following our May update on the Government's announcement to amend the Climate Change Response Act 2002, the Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill (the "Bill") has now been introduced. Its first reading resolves a number of previously uncertain features about the Bill's potential scope.
The Government has expressed concern that tort liability for causing or contributing to greenhouse gas emissions is contradictory to the regime established under the Climate Change Response Act 2002 and is not an appropriate mechanism to respond to emissions. To address these concerns, the Bill introduces a statutory bar on tort liability for emissions-related climate change harm. No person (including the Crown) may be found liable in tort on that basis. The statutory bar provided in the Bill applies to existing proceedings that have not been finally determined by a court or tribunal before the commencement of the Bill.
The statutory bar extends beyond a defendant's direct emissions to also cover their indirect emissions. Indirect emissions are those that a defendant causes through their own choices, even though another person physically produces them. Take the Bill's example of a factory: emissions from its purchased non-renewable electricity are produced by the power company, but are treated as the factory's own indirect emissions because its purchasing decision created the demand for them. The same applies to emissions from goods the factory buys and uses. The bar therefore protects a defendant from tort liability for its full emissions footprint, covering both what it produces directly and what it causes indirectly through its purchasing decisions.
The definition of "emissions-related climate change effects" in the Bill is also expansive. It covers expected categories of climate-related harm including risks and threats to safety, habitability, property, and enjoyment, but also extends to a tikanga Māori conception of harm, which would likely have been a key argument in the Smith v Fonterra case.
If passed into law, the Bill would have two significant effects; it would provide greater certainty for businesses that face exposure to tortious liability for their emissions, but it would substantially curtail the ability of climate advocacy groups to bring claims at common law.
Where to from here?
Submissions to the select committee close on 13 July 2026, with the committee's report due back on 30 July. The Bill's path beyond this date is less certain. Opposition parties voted against it at first reading, and climate activist Mike Smith has also filed fresh High Court proceedings challenging the Government's proposed law change. With an election approaching, the political and legal landscape around the Bill is likely to remain unsettled. We will be following developments closely and will provide updates as they arise.
For questions or more information, please reach out to one of our team members.
Thank you to Stephen Jannink (solicitor) for his assistance in preparing this update.
