A bill preventing courts from finding certain types of liability for greenhouse gas emissions has passed its final reading.
The government says this is in response to the Smith vs Fonterra and others case, which they say is causing uncertainty in business confidence and investment.
The Science Media Centre asked experts to comment. Feel free to use these comments in your reporting. Previous comments on the bill are available here.
Professor Barry Barton, Faculty of Law, University of Waikato, comments:
“Tort law does something quite different from legislation like the Climate Change Response Act and policy instruments like the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS); it enables individuals to obtain protection from harm, or compensation from harm, while the Act and ETS try to manage emissions and provide for adaptation.
“In other fields like air pollution, tort law and legislation operate side by side; if your factory stinks out your neighbours, you are liable to them even if you’ve got air discharge permits under the RMA.
“It’s absurd to think that any New Zealand court would give tort remedies that would thwart Parliament’s intention in legislation or create a parallel system of regulation; no New Zealand court would ever do such a thing.
“For years to come, New Zealand’s record for investment stability and rule of law will be affected by this direct interference in proceedings before the courts.”
Conflict of interest statement: “I have no conflicts of interest with duty to advise in making this comment.”