The Government has been accused of weakening environmental protections to encourage trade or investment and failing to effectively implement the Paris Agreement in the first formal climate complaint of its kind under an EU trade deal.
Both ENDS, an environmental justice organisation based in the Netherlands, lodged the complaint with the European Commission on Tuesday.
The challenge comes as New Zealand First campaigns to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, while ACT says it would seek different terms for New Zealand and leave if those could not be secured.
The complaint identifies legislation blocking Mike Smith’s climate case against some of New Zealand’s largest emitters as the tipping point in a wider pattern of climate policy reversals.
Ngā Toki Whakarururanga said the complaint reflected a broader problem with how New Zealand honoured its agreements, including Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
The Māori-led collective examines trade agreements through a Te Tiriti lens. Its assessment of the EU deal found Māori lacked meaningful influence over its negotiation, governance and review.
Ngā Toki kaihautū Aroha Mead said the collective had sought genuine and effective Māori influence at every stage of trade policy development, but this had so far proved “beyond the Crown’s will or capacity”.
“As a result, Māori rights and interests, particularly in relation to Te Taiao, have become collateral damage as the Government continues to disregard our efforts,” she said.
Mead said New Zealand was required to honour every commitment in its free trade agreements, including the climate provisions of the EU deal.
“Yet our first-hand experience shows that its approach to treaty obligations is mixed, sometimes bordering on negligent, as reflected in its treatment of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.”
Te Tiriti an obstacle to ‘corporate takeover’
Mike Smith went further, saying he did not see the connection simply as a pattern of failing to honour agreements. For him, the common thread was the removal of protections that stand in the way of corporate interests.
“Te Tiriti o Waitangi is an obstacle for widespread corporate takeover of Aotearoa, and that’s why they want the Treaty out of the way,” he said.
Smith pointed to Government moves to remove references to Te Tiriti from legislation and policy, as well as calls for full and final settlements with iwi.
“While Te Tiriti o Waitangi still exists, it’s a protection against the abuse of our taonga and our people,” he said.
“We’re standing in the way of them continuing those cycles of abuse. And so that’s the connection.”
‘They killed the case before it was heard’
Smith said he supported the complaint because the legislation ending his case was part of a wider retreat from climate action.
He pointed to the removal of the Clean Car Discount, the decision to keep agriculture out of the Emissions Trading Scheme and, most significantly, the law stopping Smith v Fonterra from proceeding to trial.
“They killed the case even before it was heard,” he said.
Before the law was introduced, Fonterra and Z Energy, both defendants in Smith’s case, had lobbied the Government to restrict climate lawsuits. A briefing delivered to the Prime Minister’s Office on behalf of the defendants proposed legislation that would stop Smith’s case from continuing.
He described the decision as “a stupid move”, arguing that if corporations were shielded from accountability for climate harm, responsibility would fall to the Government.
Smith is also awaiting judgment in a separate Supreme Court case over whether the Crown is doing enough to protect whānau from catastrophic climate harm.
Government rejects complaint
Trade Minister Todd McClay told RNZ New Zealand remained compliant with the agreement and accused organisations supporting the complaint of joining foreign actors in an attack that could harm exporters.
He said it was for Parliament and the Government—not overseas organisations or lobby groups—to decide how New Zealand met its climate obligations.
Mead said those commitments ceased to be voluntary once New Zealand agreed to make them binding.
“They want the benefits of the trade agreements, but aren’t prepared to live up to the obligations in return,” Smith said.
Smith said if the Government is confident it’s meeting its obligations, it should welcome scrutiny.
Environmental Law Initiative, which supports the complaint, has also pursued accountability domestically by taking the Government to the High Court over its emissions reduction plans alongside Lawyers for Climate Action NZ.
ELI said the EU complaint targeted the Government’s conduct—not exporters or individual sectors.
Responding to claims that environmental groups were acting ideologically, senior legal researcher Eliza Prestidge-Oldfield said protecting Aotearoa’s natural environment reflected “values most New Zealanders believe in and want to see all governments upholding, regardless of their political leanings”.
McClay also named the Green Party among those behind the complaint, although it was not involved in lodging or supporting it. Its earlier letter asking the European Commission to examine New Zealand’s climate policies was separate.
The Greens say Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters has not sought official advice about what withdrawal could mean.
“Meeting our Paris commitments is written into our free trade agreements with the European Union and the United Kingdom,” Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick said.
“Farmers and exporters rely on that market access, and they deserve a Foreign Minister who checks what withdrawal would put at risk before he promises it.”
The European Commission will now assess the complaint, but no finding has been made against New Zealand.
Both ENDS is seeking compliance rather than penalties. Any potential trade consequences could arise only after consultations and a lengthy dispute process.
“They want to blame everybody else but themselves, but there’s no one to blame but their decisions,” Smith said.
