'This does not meet the standards expected of staff in the Beehive'
The Department of Internal Affairs has launched an investigation into a former senior staffer in Prime Minister Christopher Luxon's office, who used a personal email account to receive documents from dairy giant Fonterra.
The disclosure adds a new dimension to a growing controversy over how the Prime Minister's office handled lobbying by major companies facing landmark climate litigation.
The investigation centres on Matt Burgess, a former chief policy adviser in the Beehive, who had previously received a hard-copy document from Fonterra lobbyists — a document that was not disclosed in response to an Official Information Act (OIA) request seeking correspondence with parties to the case.
Luxon's office had stated it had "no record" of the document or the meeting at which it was shared.
But on Tuesday, a spokesperson for Luxon confirmed in a statement reported by Stuff that Burgess had also received information from Fonterra through his personal email account.
"This does not meet the standards expected of staff in the Beehive and we are treating it with the seriousness it deserves, with a number of reviews underway," the spokesperson told the news outlet.
The spokesperson added that the Department of Internal Affairs would conduct a review of Burgess's IT account to determine whether any further documents or meetings related to the Smith v Fonterra case should have been disclosed.
Authorities will also work with Burgess to identify whether any other work-related documents reside on his private email that should be part of the public record, Stuff reported, citing the spokesperson.
The Ombudsman separately announced last week that it was investigating the Prime Minister's compliance with the OIA in relation to the missing document.
Lobbying to the government
The controversy stems from the litigation brought by iwi leader and climate activist Mike Smith against some of New Zealand's largest emitters, such as Genesis Energy, New Zealand Steel, Z Energy, BT Mining, Fonterra, and Dairy Holdings.
Smith's case, which was initiated in 2024, argued the companies had breached a duty of care to the public through their greenhouse gas emissions, Stuff reported.
Had the case succeeded, it could have established a significant legal precedent, potentially imposing enforceable obligations on major emitters to reduce their climate impact.
Instead, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith announced in May that the government would intervene, a decision that came after intensive lobbying from companies named in the suit.
Documents released to Smith in May showed Fonterra lobbyists had met with Luxon's chief policy adviser and provided a hard-copy document related to the case. That document was not disclosed in response to the OIA request.
Labour leader Chris Hipkins said the accumulating revelations pointed to deliberate concealment of corporate influence over government decision-making.
"The more new information comes to light, the more this looks like a deliberate ploy by the Prime Minister's office to hide the extent of industry lobbying and influence," Hipkins said as quoted by Stuff.
"Christopher Luxon's Government have agreed to change the law in a way that will clearly benefit large corporations like the petrol companies to the detriment of our environment. This stinks to high heaven. What else are the Prime Minister and his office hiding from the New Zealand public?"
The government's intervention came in the form of legislation, introducing amendments to the Climate Change Response Act 2002 to prevent findings of liability for tort for climate change damage or harm caused by greenhouse gas emissions in both current and future proceedings before the courts.
"Ongoing litigation in the High Court, where an applicant has brought civil claims against six major businesses for their greenhouse gas emissions, is creating uncertainty in business confidence and investment that the Government must address," Goldsmith said in May.
"The Government is acting now to provide legal clarity and certainty and to remove the possible development of a new regime that contradicts the framework Parliament has already enacted to respond to climate change."
