Who has the ear of minister where climate change is concerned?

Saturday, 4 July 2026

Minister of multiple portfolios including climate change Simon Watts has emailed councils suggesting they were “gold-plating” climate initiatives at ratepayers’ expense.

James Nokise is a regular opinion contributor, a comedian, writer, and podcaster.

OPINION: We really don’t talk enough about Simon Watts.

The honourable member for North Shore has developed quite the collection of portfolios in his second term. Currently the Minister of Revenue, Minister for Auckland, Minister of Local Government and Minister for Climate Change, it is the latter two that have brought him to light this week.

Not every politician has the maverick mentality to email local councils and critique their spending on preparing for weather events due to climate change. Particularly in winter, particularly when they are the sitting Minister for Climate Change, and particularly when said minister spends part of his working week in Wellington, which appears to be having monthly violent storms. Perhaps he is quietly advocating for the title of Minister of Coincidences?

Still, it could be that his publicly-aired email was to cover his relative lack of comment on a new piece of legislation affecting lawsuits against companies, for their emissions, passing its first reading.

The legislation is partly in response to a lawsuit by climate activist Mike Smith against New Zealand’s largest emitters that has been cleared by the Supreme Court, with a plot worthy of a film adaptation, probably with Lucy Lawless in a supporting role.

The timing did not seem to be helped by the announcement of an El Niño weather event that will likely produce even stronger weather fronts for the rest of the year, and possibly well into 2027. Although Kiwis aren’t really up to date on what an El Niño is, so it’s probably not moving the needle in terms of the election.

Bad news for the Greens. Then again, another climate-related story may give the party some traction in terms of lobbyists and transparency.

Witness the revelation that the former chief policy advisor to the Prime Minister was receiving briefing notes directly from Fonterra and Z Energy. Who knew that international petroleum corporations were capable of such skulduggery?

They always come across in films as the compassionate good guys doing their best in a petrol-addicted world.

This happened back in 2024 so it could be a stretch to link this kind of top-level access to the subsequent shutting down of the Ministry of the Environment. If only there was a Ministry of Coincidences to investigate.

Minister for Pacific Peoples - and also Justice - Paul Goldsmith believes that the Emissions Trading Scheme already covers holding corporations responsible by having a set of climate requirements to be met.

However, this is not about meeting requirements, it is about consequences. That is to say that the unspoken threat from international corporations is that they will simply pass on any punishments they receive to local contacts.

Mike Smith (Ngāpuhi and Ngāti Kahu) is a climate activist who filed a case against seven high-emitting companies in 2019. Proposed legislation has been introduced in response.

So is it really about economics? What are fines in New Zealand dollars to companies earning in stronger currencies? The damage from a Kiwi slap on the wrist isn’t so much financial as reputational. It’s hard to look like a caring community-focused business when Hobbiton is calling you out. Word of mouth can cost far more in the market than a government fine.

Of course this all depends on what attitude a person has towards climate change; not whether it exists but whether it is still properly combatable. There is a growing attitude that this is not something that can be overcome as much as survived. It is that sense of inevitability that shareholders in companies with large emissions are counting on to keep their profits up.

That’s little comfort for Pacific nations, but there is also another factor in play here if we are looking at polluters that have little to no accountability to the communities their actions are affecting.

The United States military is one of the world’s largest polluters, as well as the most prevalent presence in the Pacific. Yet many countries where pollution from bases and vessels only adds to local environmental issues will be having 4th of July celebrations this weekend (and product discount sales) to honour the relationships they have with the USA.

That is not necessarily a point that most Kiwis take into account with the Pacific region. What is climate devastation of atolls and low-lying islands in the face of protecting United States interests (which apparently align with New Zealand interests) from the threat of… China? Russia does have a Pacific coastline but no one seems to think Vladimir Putin has his eyes on Kiribati.

The “we have to colonise this island or our competitors will colonise this island” attitude seems to show we haven’t come that far in 200 years.

All this is to say that in a world where bona fide large forces seem immovable, if not inevitable, stripping a person’s ability to use the law against corporate polluters, in the name of not spooking investors, says a lot about who is being listened to.