If it looks like corruption, sounds like corruption and smells like corruption...

New Zealand voters are being presented with a real scandal. 

It isn't that a Labour Party in house, media training event was leaked and the Minister of Finance was jokingly and insensitively described as a "duck-faced horse"; It isn't that Chlöe Swarbrick was kicked out of the House for suggesting that government MPs should "grow a spine" and should vote for a bill sanctioning Israel for war crimes; and it certainly isn't with regards to what Chris Hipkins' ex-wife shared about her ex-husband...this is much, much bigger than that! 

This scandal implicates the Prime Minister's Office in a deliberate coverup involving Fonterra (New Zealand's largest corporate), Z Energy (the country's largest fuel Company) and the coalition government cabinet. It involves the Supreme and High Courts of New Zealand, the Ombudsman, environmental lawyers and Mike Smith (the climate change spokesperson for the National Iwi Chairs).

Considering those connected to this scandal, its ongoing implications and how our country deals with climate change in the future (the most catastrophic and existential threat facing humanity)- it couldn't get much bigger. What has been exposed shouldn't be explained away as a misplaced document and a staff training issue, as the Prime Minister has attempted to do. 

I have attempted to write a background and a summary of events below: 

• Around the world there has been a growing frustration with government inaction and corporate impunity regarding the rapidly worsening impacts of climate change. Climate litigation is becoming common with successful cases in the European Court, Dutch Supreme Court, a US court and Courts in India to name a few. 
• New Zealand's coalition government has pulled back on much of the climate action established by the previous government:
• Weakened methane targets in agriculture (the largest contributor to NZs emissions)
• Scrapped the clean car discount and slashed the emission charges for imported vehicles
• Extended the Carbon Neutral Government Programme deadline
• Weakened the Emissions Trading Scheme
• Removed requirements for the Climate Change Commission to provide advice on policy direction
• Rejected the Climate Change Commission's recommendations to adopt net-negative targets
• In February 2024 Mike Smith, a climate activist and climate spokesman for the national Iwi Chairs Forum won the right in the Supreme Court to sue several major NZ companies over their contributions to climate change in the High Court. The case Smith v Fonterra Co-operative Griup Ltd was seen as a landmark case in NZ tort law (the legal framework that addresses wrongs committed by one person or entity against another resulting in harm, injury or loss)
• In mid-2024 lobbyists from Fonterra (26 June) and Z Energy ( 24 July) presented identical, printed briefings to the Prime Ministers' Office detailing their concerns as defendants and the specific change they wanted in the legislation.
• In March 2025 the Environmental Law Initiative sought information regarding any meetings or conversations about the case and any possible legislative response - and the 2024 interactions with Fonterra and Z Energy were not mentioned.
• An OIA request from the Lawyers For Climate Action NZ requested the same information and again the documents and interactions were not revealed, although heavily redacted emails and txt messages were provided. 
• On the 12 May 2026 The Minister of Justice, Paul Goldsmith, announced proposed legislative changes that would remove tort-based climate related civil claims, including Smith's live claim. The legislative change and supporting rational have been revealed as practically identical to what was provided by Fonterra and Z Energy over two years before. 
• 13 May, Smith's legal team expressed concern regarding the fact that the defendants discovery did not include relevant lobbying. 
• 15-18 May both Fonterra and Z Energy disclosed meetings with the Prime Minister's Office and the briefing notes they had supplied. They asserted confidentiality over the contents of the notes
• 21 May High Court Justice Andrew ruled that confidentiality claims over the briefing notes were not sustained. Against the strong objections of the defendants the court ordered their immediate public release. The press release from the Environmental Law Initiative provides more detail on this. 
• Subsequent questions in the house have requested clarification from the Prime Minister regarding his Office's lack of transparency. The Prime Minister's claims that his office cannot find the documents in question and that he and his staff have no recollection of receiving them nor the meetings with two of New Zealand's largest corporates.
• 26 May the Ombudsman launches an inquiry into the prime minister's office over its handling of information requests. 
• 26 May Chlöe Swarbrick got the speaker to accept an urgent debate in Parliament and demanded an immediate independent inquiry into secret corporate lobbying and transparency failures in the Prime Minister's office. The resulting debate  can be heard 59min in. 

The Government claims:

• The changes to the legislation provides certainty to businesses and investors and by allowing individuals to sue businesses regarding the health and wellbeing impacts of their climate emissions on them and their communities it created unnecessary uncertainty. 
• A strong, resilient economy is largely dependent on ensuring business interests are properly supported. 
• The Government alone should determine climate related law and if the court decisions, based on existing law were counter to its policy positions, then it erodes Parliament as the supreme, sovereign law-making authority. 
• It was just a coincidence that the 'lost' documents were similar to what the cabinet decided was necessary two years later.
• The staff member possibly responsible for accepting both briefing papers no longer works in the office and there is no record or collective memory that any meetings with Fonterra and Z Energy took place. 
  

Legal experts and the opposition parties claim:

• Corporate interests should not be able to lobby secretly and then determine legislation that has impacts on the whole country. This provides corporates the ability to have power and influence beyond ordinary New Zealanders, and their communities. It lacks transparency and overrides good democratic process. 
• It is highly concerning for a government to directly interfere with a live court case, on behalf of corporate interests, by passing retrospective legislation to stop a case from preceding. 
• The climate legislation amendment has dangerous implications on tort law when it bars courts from finding private companies liable in civil claims for climate change damages. It constitutes executive overreach, breaches the rule of law, and removes a key protection for citizens.
• It is not credible or tenable that there would be absolutely no record or memory in the Prime Minister's office of meetings with two of the largest multinational companies operating in NZ. 
• It is highly unusual and suspicious for important briefing papers to be only provided in hardcopy and not be able to be traced through an online search.
• Considering climate change is the largest existential threat facing us all, we can't just rely on the government of the day to lead appropriate action, especially when trust has been eroded and there is evidence of corruption. It is important to be able to fall back on common law if a government fails in its duty of care.

The need for a full, independent inquiry as well as the Ombudsman investigation is patently clear, especially if we want our governments to operate democratically and transparently and put the rights and wellbeing of ordinary New Zealanders ahead of corporate interests.

The usual jaunty, confident and arrogant responses from the government during Question Time are absent when responding to questions related to this scandal. It is visibly a 'possum in the headlights' moment for them.

If the High Court had not forced forced Fonterra and Z Energy to publicly disclose their meetings and briefings, the evidence of how this government operates would not exist. Before this we could only assume that there seemed to be a correlation between the donors and outside associates of the coalition parties and their policies. We are left wondering what else has occurred in secret that we should know about.

The subsidies for tobacco companies and mining companies were at odds with public sentiment and corporate interests seem to be constantly favoured over the cost of living struggles experienced by most households. Growing inequality in New Zealand isn't an accident, or a naturally occurring process that can't be controlled, it is progressed through political decisions. 

This scandal should be considered a defining influence on the 2026 election. Voters should make very considered decisions based on who they think would have the interests of our people and planet foremost in their mind if they were sitting on the government benches. Which parties would follow transparent, democratic process?