Big Business

Climate Change: National MP's bill to protect companies from people.

Think you've had enough
Stop talking, help us get ready
Think you’ve had enough
Big business, after the shakeup

Lyrics: David Bryne.

---

Yesterday, I saw the sort of headline that made me think, “Oh, come on, this can’t be real.” At this point, the government resembles an evil sheriff in a pantomime, tying the good folks to the railway lines and then laughing in cahoots with the villainous gang who has been marauding at their helpless plight.

It was a story that received surprisingly little coverage, with only a single paywalled article in the Post covering something that surely merited a wider telling.

Seeing the following headline about National MP Joseph Mooney’s private member’s bill, my response was: “When it comes to humanity vs corporations that are wrecking our habitat, National are firmly on the side of the latter. What an absolute stain of a human being.”

The MP for Southland has proposed a bill which would “abolish people’s right to take legal action against companies over the damage they cause to the climate.”

Mooney’s bill would “expressly abolish any cause of action in tort relating to climate change”. The Ministry of Justice defines torts as “common law actions where a person seeks compensation for harm caused by a wrongful act”.

If we add that up, Mr Mooney wants to ban legal action against companies by people seeking compensation for climate change harm that they helped cause.

Even for a government that bends over backwards to put the interests of corporations ahead of those of the people they’re elected to represent, this is an odious bill - assuming you’re interested in the future of humanity.

A bill quite handy to some of our biggest companies already facing such action. Like that from veteran activist Mike Smith, who is seeking declarations against seven companies over “public nuisance, negligence and a proposed new tort relating specifically to climate change and orders that they reduce their emissions.”

Goodness, we can’t have members of the public demanding that companies reduce their emissions through the courts—that’s outrageous. Where would it all end?

Smith v Fonterra is set to be heard in 2027. Fonterra, Genesis Energy, Dairy Holdings, New Zealand Steel, Z Energy, the New Zealand Refining Company, and BT Mining are the defendants. So young Joseph and his magical get-out-of-jail-free card for climate catastrophe corporations hasn’t a moment to lose.

Mooney’s bill doesn’t completely let companies off the hook. It just means that rather than an excited mob with waves lapping at their ankles demanding justice, it will be up to the sheriff to sort things out, so maybe lie down here on these nice train tracks and wait while they do.

The bill will “prevent litigation from being utilised to address issues more appropriately resolved through legislative, regulatory, and market-based frameworks”.

So isn’t that nice? Rather than taking action yourself, you can sit back, and our legislators, regulators, and markets will worry about climate change for you, ok?

What do you mean you can feel the tracks vibrating? Just relax; the companies and the government have got this. Honest.

Image: BeFunky.

Perhaps close your eyes; it might make this easier. There’s no need to worry; this bill is quite comprehensive and prohibits tort claims “arising from or related to climate change matters, including but not limited to alleged damages, injuries, or losses attributed to greenhouse gas emissions, global temperature changes, or environmental impacts associated therewith.” Whew.

In a moment, I will mention Chlöe Swarbrick’s thoughts on the bill as the Green Party spokesperson on climate change. If you are nervous, taking comfort from the belief that the government and the market will sort out climate change, and prefer to keep your eyes closed and/or your head in the sand, you might want to look away now.

“Who on earth asked for this law? The only possible answer is massive corporations making massive profit by setting our planet on fire,” said Chlöe, sounding like she was getting a bit tired of being the adult, and the smartest person, in the room.

Chlöe Swarbrick pictured during question time in the House. Photo: ROBERT KITCHIN / THE POST.

It’s a good point; who did ask for this?

I don’t remember hearing anyone campaign on it, so what prompted Mr Mooney to defend those causing climate change, protecting them from the people who will pay the cost in repairs, clean-up, and even lives?

Chlöe continued: “It’s clear who this Government is willing to fight for, and it sure as hell isn’t regular people who it’s expecting to pay the cost of climate change. Major polluters must be held accountable. It’s utterly insane that the Government would seek to protect those corporations ‒ taking away regular people’s legal rights ‒ from the damage they inflict on our shared climate and, inevitably, people’s lives.”

The Greens weren’t the only ones appalled by the bill. Lawyers for Climate Action NZ Inc. issued a statement: National MP’s Bill raises environmental and constitutional concerns.

It begins: “Lawyers for Climate Action is dismayed that the National Party supported Joseph Mooney to lodge the controversial Bill, and it calls on MPs not to support the Bill if ever drawn from the ballot.”

They point out that Mooney’s bill seeks to protect companies from liability for their actions despite them knowing the damage they were causing and transferring the costs to individuals and taxpayers.

The bill further disincentivises such companies from reducing emissions beyond the minimal restrictions imposed by a government that thinks climate change action is woke or too detrimental to commerce to contemplate.

The lawyer’s statement also raises concerns about the constitutional role of courts:

“If turned into law, the Bill would represent significant constitutional overreach by Parliament and would join other constitutionally egregious legislation promoted in recent history.

The common law and the courts have critical roles to play in ensuring that humanity and the rule of law survive the climate crisis. Parliament should not cut the court’s legitimate role off at the knees.”

And they were also concerned that the bill seeks to override the Supreme Court:

“This Bill is a blatant attempt to prevent Mike Smith’s proceeding against seven of New Zealand’s largest emitting companies from going to trial - raising significant access to justice issues. In doing so, it flies in the face of the Supreme Court’s ruling in February 2024 that Mr Smith’s case was arguable, and that he should ‘get his day in Court’.”

Needless to say, Greenpeace weren’t best pleased by the news either and issued a statement:

Greenpeace spokesperson Amanda Larsson said:

“It is alarming the lengths that Luxon’s Government will go to secure wealthy industry executives’ profits over the rights of regular people. This is just the latest chapter in Luxon’s War on Nature, which is tearing down environmental, climate and health protections at the behest of corporate lobbyists.

Climate change is an existential threat, and we’re in the fight for our lives. New Zealanders want a future for their kids, with clean land, air and water. But Luxon’s vision of New Zealand is an industrial wasteland churning out milk powder and minerals in exchange for poisoned drinking water, dead oceans and more extreme floods, cyclones and droughts.”

I don’t see much difference between this and other lobbying areas, which have a tradeoff between the public good and corporate profits.

Tobacco, Alcohol, Gambling, Guns, Fossil Fuels, and Agricultural emissions—all of these and no doubt more—see industries working hard to limit restrictions on their activities and their liability for the impacts of their products and actions.

Industry will always lobby governments to put their interests ahead of the public.

What is interesting is the motivation of an MP to pick up and run with those interests. I don’t know what is in this for Mr Mooney, but I’d really like to because as serious as those other things are—the ciggies, the firearms, the pokies—they pale in comparison to the impacts of climate change.

So why the hell would we give the people responsible a free pass?

It really makes you wonder. What do you think?

---

It’s great to see so many people reading and sharing my newsletters, but at the same time, subscriptions have been mighty quiet so far this year. If you enjoy my writing and find it informative, entertaining, or relatable, please consider supporting Nick’s Kōrero as a paid subscriber.

With the following discount, it’s approximately $2 per week, paid either monthly ($8) or annually ($80). As always, thank you so much to those who have already subscribed - you rock! Which is a gen-X way of saying it’s much appreciated. 🙂

Some classic Talking Heads to end. Have a good one, all you lovely people.