Environmental Law Initiative

11/06/2026

Next week, we are heading to the High Court in Wellington.

From 15–18 June, the Environmental Law Initiative is challenging the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries and the Minister of Conservation over critical cuts to the fisheries observer programme and the undercharging of the fishing industry.

Aotearoa New Zealand's seafood export revenue exceeds $2 billion annually, yet the levies charged to the industry sit at less than 2% of that revenue. Despite this, the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries dropped the industry levy from $41.2m to $36.3m, while at the same time, inshore observer coverage was slashed from 1,953 days in down to just 277.

While onboard cameras are useful for verifying catch reporting, they cannot replace human observers on the water, especially when it comes to monitoring interactions with protected species like dolphins, seabirds, and turtles.

The seafood industry has responded to our proceedings by arguing that research into fishing impacts should only be funded if a species faces a population-level threat—claiming individual deaths, like a sea lion caught in a net, aren't "adverse effects."

We strongly reject this and will defend Aotearoa New Zealand’s protected species against this claim. Protection under the Wildlife Act and the Marine Mammals Protection Act should mean just that – protection.

We will be sending updates from the court. If you want to learn more about our case you can head to eli.org.nz.

09/06/2026

Vernon Rive, Associate Professor at Auckland Law School, was consulted by the Ministry of Justice ahead of Minister Paul Goldsmith's announcement that the Government intends to outlaw tort-based climate litigation. He has now released the advice he provided the government.

He told RNZ he suspects the main reason for the legislative move is to "remove the opportunity for corporate accountability" and likened stopping the case halfway through as being "constitutionally abhorrent".

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/597707/constitutionally-abhorrent-expert-reveals-advice-to-government-on-climate-law-change

A legal boffin who was consulted on the government's law change that would prevent companies from being sued over climate change explains his opposition.

05/06/2026

In the winter months, deep in the ocean a delicate romance occurs when the long-lived orange roughy assemble to spawn.

In recent decades, orange roughy stocks have collapsed.

Yesterday, Oceans and Fisheries Minister Shane Jones announced a partial closure of an area in the East and West Chatham Rise for a 6-week period in response.

The Environmental Law Initiative’s Director, Research and Legal, Dr Matt Hall says “Minister Shane Jones’ decision to close orange roughy spawning areas to fishing shows ELI’s litigation is driving improved management of the stock, but significant issues remain.”

Fisheries New Zealand (FNZ) acknowledges that fishing disturbs orange roughy spawning, but continues to allow it. ELI says this should trigger a first-principles review of whether the practice is appropriate for orange roughy and other spawning stocks.

"Fishing for orange roughy while they're trying to reproduce is inherently an unsustainable practice," says Dr Hall.

Read our full statement at the link:
https://www.eli.org.nz/updates/orange-rough-spawn

In the winter months, long-lived orange roughy assemble to spawn. In recent decades, orange roughy stocks have collapsed. Yesterday, Oceans and Fisheries Minister Shane Jones announced a partial closure of an area in the East and West Chatham Rise for a 6-week period in response.

28/05/2026

Will the proposed changes to the Climate Change Response Act breach NZ's obligations under international law? Oliver Hailes, writing for the Blog of the European Journal of International Law, suggests the answer is yes.

…”the Government’s plan, together with its overall programme of legislative and executive action, may be inconsistent with at least three international obligations: (i) the duty to exercise due diligence in preventing significant harm to the climate system, specifically by regulating corporate emitters and, arguably, maintaining access to justice; (ii) Mr Smith’s right to a fair and public hearing of his civil claims, which is the clearest of possible human rights violations; and (iii) the obligation under certain FTAs not to weaken or reduce the levels of protection afforded in environmental law in order to encourage investment. These conclusions should be taken seriously by Parliament and may help others to identify pathways to challenge or otherwise respond to the Government’s plan to deny justice to Mr Smith.”

https://www.ejiltalk.org/denial-of-environmental-justice-would-a-bar-on-climate-tort-litigation-be-inconsistent-with-new-zealands-international-obligations/

Like other countries that pride themselves on upholding the rule of law, New Zealand has seen many climate change cases decided by its courts. The most significant is the 2024 judgment of the Supre…

27/05/2026

The Ministry of Justice briefing to the Minister of Justice:

"We recommend that the reforms are applied prospectively in line with rule of law principles, the separation of powers, and the convention that legislation does not deprive litigants’ fruits of their victory. This would mean that Smith v Fonterra would continue.

"While we acknowledge the industry concerns that have been raised, businesses operate within a legal framework that imposes privileges, duties and obligations, which may be subject to legal challenge if breached."

The government was warned it would be premature to consider reform while a court case against emitters was under way.

26/05/2026

Given the constitutional importance of open government, and the significance of Smith v Fonterra as a major public-interest climate case, we asked the Ombudsman to recommend steps necessary to restore public confidence in the integrity of official information processes.

An inquiry is needed so that the public can understand the extent of any suppression of information and be assured that official decision-making has not been improperly influenced or concealed.

This is no ordinary lobbying. It is the Government stripping rights of a Māori leader to be heard by the High Court, after secret meetings with corporate defendants (Fonterra and Z Energy) involved in a live case.

As Mike Smith says in the article, “The defendants, and others in their industries, stand to gain hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars from this legislation, while the rest of New Zealand will lose far, far more. The fact that this has all been kept hidden goes to the heart of a functioning democracy.”

The Ombudsman has opened an investigation into how the Prime Minister’s Office handled information requests linked to a major climate litigation case.

24/05/2026

We are calling for an Ombudsman inquiry and a Solicitor-General review following revelations that the Prime Minister’s Office suppressed significant lobbying by Fonterra, Z Energy and others that contributed to the Government’s move to block Mike Smith’s climate case from being heard in the High Court.

The newly surfaced material raises serious questions about what other documents may have been left out of Official Information Act (OIA) responses and whether the public has been given the full picture. It is urging an independent inquiry, including Ombudsman oversight, to investigate the extent of information suppression by the Prime Minister’s Office.

“Industry lobbying hidden by the Prime Minister’s Office strikes at the heart of transparent government,” says Dr Matt Hall, ELI Director, Research and Legal.

“If powerful commercial interests were able to influence the blocking of a major public interest case behind closed doors, the public deserves to know how that happened, who knew, and what else has been withheld.

"The Solicitor General and Ombudsman need to take action, to restore confidence in the integrity of official decision-making.”

https://www.1news.co.nz/2026/05/24/a-co-ordinated-campaign-of-secret-lobbying-climate-activist/

Fonterra and Z Energy confirm in court they met with the Prime Minister's staff – something the PM says he has no record of.

19/05/2026

"The government should reconsider its intention to amend climate laws to prevent lawsuits, according to an open letter signed by more than 100 lawyers, climate scientists and legal academics.

"They say the move has "clearly struck a nerve", and the letter says the decision was contrary to New Zealand's climate objectives, blocks the development of common law in the country and risks undermining the rule of law.

Former British High Commissioner to New Zealand Laura Clarke - now chief executive of ClientEarth - is included in the 118 signatures, along with environmental groups, legal academics from around the world and the Union of Concerned Scientists."

Nice work Lawyers for Climate Action NZ Inc in making this letter happen!

An open letter signed by more than 100 lawyers, climate scientists and legal academics attacks the government's moves to amend climate laws to prevent companies from being sued over damage.

18/05/2026

Genomic analysis has now confirmed that the hoiho is not a single population, but three 'deeply distinct' subspecies. This reinforces why it is so important that the Government does everything it can to stop the mainland and Rakiura hoiho population (hoiho murihiku) from going extinct - as our High Court challenge in December last year also highlighted.

As the authors of the study say:
"Today, fewer than 115 hoiho breeding pairs remain on mainland New Zealand and Rakiura/Stewart Island.

Our research, supported by Genomics Aotearoa, shows these mainland birds are genetically isolated from subantarctic populations and have been evolving independently for thousands of years.

For decades, yellow-eyed penguins were broadly managed as two groups: mainland birds and subantarctic birds from the Auckland and Campbell Islands.

But by sequencing the genomes of 249 penguins from across their range, we discovered there are actually three distinct lineages with no migration between them. The mainland birds diverged from the southern populations between 5000 and 16,000 years ago, long before humans arrived in New Zealand.

In partnership with Ngāi Tahu, we propose recognising three subspecies:

hoiho murihiku: mainland and Rakiura hoiho
hoiho motu maha: Auckland Islands hoiho
hoiho motu ihupuku: Campbell Island hoiho

Recognising these three subspecies changes how we think about their conservation."

Read the full piece here:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/595028/the-race-to-save-these-cherished-penguins-just-became-more-urgent

Genomic analysis has revealed the hoiho is not a single population, but three deeply distinct subspecies - one of which could vanish within decades.

12/05/2026

We are deeply concerned with the Government’s announcement today that it plans to change the Climate Change Response Act to prevent courts from hearing claims about climate harm.

It will weaken the ability for people to hold powerful actors to account through the courts, removing the fundamental right for people to have their day in court.

“At its core, this is about democracy and the rule of law,” says ELI’s Senior Legal Advisor Eliza Prestidge Oldfield.

“When you take away people’s ability to go to court, you take away a fundamental check on power. That should concern every New Zealander.”

ELI says the move is particularly troubling because it intervenes directly in an active and significant legal case.

The law change appears aimed at shutting down the landmark case by Mike Smith versus New Zealand’s largest corporate emitters, including Fonterra, Genesis Energy, Dairy Holdings, NZ Steel, Z Energy, and BT Mining, before it can proceed.

Mr Smith had endured multiple attempts by the companies to have his right to be heard squashed or made too expensive, including in the High Court, Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

In February 2024, the Supreme Court determined that the case was brought in the public interest and should proceed.

“Instead of letting the judiciary do its job and test the law, the Government is rewriting the rules to avoid scrutiny, on behalf of some of New Zealand’s wealthiest corporations,” says Prestidge Oldfield.

The organisation says courts play an essential role in ensuring laws are working as intended.

“Courts have an important role in climate accountability and in testing whether current laws are adequate. Removing this avenue for scrutiny is a huge step backwards for New Zealand.”

ELI also criticised the Government’s justification that climate change should be dealt with through national policy rather than the courts.

A case earlier this year by ELI and Lawyers for Climate Action highlighted serious deficiencies in the Government’s climate policies, assumptions, and decision making.

“It’s a bit rich for the Government to say climate is best dealt with as a national policy issue when they’re busy scrapping climate action.”

Photo credit: Kawakawa Bay by Shaun Lee