Last month, Lawyers for Climate Action New Zealand Inc (LCANZI) and the Environmental Law Initiative announced that they had filed an application for judicial review against the Minister of Climate Change (Minister), alleging that New Zealand's emissions reduction plans fail to fulfil the legislative requirements of the Climate Change Response Act 2002 (CCR Act). The claim challenges both the process by which the Minister has formulated the policy direction in the emissions reduction plans and some aspects of the substance of the emissions reduction plans.
These proceedings follow a strand of similar judicial review challenges LCANZI has brought against the Minister as a way of testing the Government's climate change-related decisions (see our previous updates on 31 July 2023 and 3 April 2025), in accordance with similar trends overseas. In addition, the claim echoes to some degree cases brought in other jurisdictions, such as the successful challenge to the United Kingdom's Net Zero Strategy outlined in our earlier update.
However, this case is novel in that it challenges for the first time the Government's reliance on the use of forestry removals to achieve New Zealand's "net zero" climate target rather than through a primary focus on reducing gross emissions at source. Accordingly, the outcome of this case could have broader implications on strategies to achieve New Zealand's emissions reduction targets, and may also influence the international direction of travel.
This latest case reinforces that Ministers and other public decision-makers should continue to expect scrutiny where they are exercising powers relating to climate change, whether or not any judicial review challenge ultimately succeeds. In particular, we would expect the "net" approach to emissions reduction adopted by the Government to be a continued area of focus in the second part of the decade, as New Zealand grapples with how it can balance the urgent need to cut emissions with the economic impacts of doing so on a gross basis.
In addition, we would expect governments both in New Zealand and internationally to continue to face challenges to the processes by which they have arrived at particular climate policies, as distinct from the substance of the policies themselves. This reflects the fact that, typically, governments will have a level of discretion over substantive policy choices, but processes for reaching them are often mandated by primary legislation, with the result that they are generally more straightforward to challenge by way of judicial review.
Below, we set out further details of the claims raised in the present case.
The claims in the present case
The claimants are challenging the legality of the emission reduction plans (ERPs) required to be prepared by the Government in order to meet New Zealand's emissions budget under the CCR Act and its associated international targets. Two ERPs have been prepared to date, one in 2022 by the prior Labour Government which relates to the emission budget periods 2021-2025 (ERP1), and one by the current Government for the period 2026-2030 (ERP2). The ERPs set out policies and strategies to meet current and future emissions budget periods. The claimants argue that both ERPs fail to meet New Zealand's emissions budgets and, consequently, New Zealand has failed to achieve its commitments to reduce its emissions, such as the 2050 net-zero target.
In relation to ERP1, LCANZI challenges the current Government's decision to "discontinue" 41 of its actions and projects, claiming that the Government did not have the statutory discretion to discontinue climate policies in accordance with the purpose of the CCR Act to "develop and implement clear and stable climate change policies", and the requirement to exercise powers and discretions consistently with this purpose.1 In particular:
- the Government breached the statutory requirement for ERPs to remain current2 by failing to update ERP1 between November 2023 and December 2024, despite the new Government discontinuing various policies and actions during this time;
- the Government's amendments to ERP1 required meaningful public consultation, which includes providing sufficient information for the public to fully understand the changes and to provide informed responses in a timely manner.3 The Government did not meet these consultation requirements, rather treating consultation as an "ex post facto tick-box exercise";4 and
- the amended ERP1 fails to include information about the status of the actions in the original ERP1 that have not been discontinued, which is inconsistent with the scheme and purpose of the CCR Act and the requirements of good public administration.
In relation to ERP2, LCANZI claims that the plan itself is unlawful, arguing that:
- the CCR Act imposes a legal duty on the Minister to ensure that emissions budgets are met, and to prepare and publish ERPs "setting out the policies and strategies for meeting the relevant emissions budget";5
- as there is no margin for error in the budget, no credible path for meeting future budgets, no consideration towards the quantified impacts of different risks (including the risk of gas shortages leading to higher coal use), and ERP2 relies heavily on a reactionary approach to risk management, the Government has not sufficiently ensured that the next emissions budget will be met. Additionally, as ERP2 projects that New Zealand won't meet its third (2031-2035) emissions budget target, it has unlawfully failed to set a credible path for meeting future budgets;6
- the Government's "net" approach to the climate response (which relies to a significant extent on forestry removals) is a fundamental error of fact because offsetting (as advised by the Commission) is no substitute for reducing emissions at the source, and the Government failed to consider whether this approach is consistent with New Zealand's obligations under the Paris Agreement; and
- the Government's emissions reduction projections relied on an "emissions baseline" model which was attributed to existing policies, with less than 5 percent of the projected emissions reductions coming from policies included in ERP2. This breached the CCR Act as reductions were based on modelling assumptions rather than on “policies and strategies” for meeting the emissions budget;7 and
- as such, there was inadequate information provided for consultation on the assumptions and policies in the baseline, meaning the public were unable to provide informed responses.