Climate Clinic Aotearoa v Minister of Energy

In 2021, Climate Clinic Aotearoa Inc (previously Students for Climate Solutions) brought a case against New Zealand’s Minister of Energy, challenging the lawfulness of decisions made under s 25 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991 (CMA) to grant petroleum exploration permits. Climate Clinic Aotearoa argued that the phrase “for the benefit of New Zealand” in the purpose section of the CMA required the Minister to take into account, as a mandatory relevant consideration, the climate change implications of the decisions. It argued further that the s 25 decision-maker had not engaged with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in a meaningful way, contrary to s 4 of the CMA. The High Court dismissed the appellant’s challenge. It interpreted the phrase “for the benefit of New Zealand” as Parliament’s indication that it wished prospecting, exploration and mining to take place because those activities are for the benefit of New Zealand. Therefore, climate change considerations (including those under s 5ZN of the Climate Change Response Act 2002) were irrelevant considerations to the s 25 decisions to grant the petroleum exploration permits. While the Judge accepted that Treaty considerations were relevant by virtue of s 4, he was satisfied that the decision maker had adequately considered them. The case was appealed to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed Climate Clinic Aotearoa’s appeal. The Court of Appeal was unanimous that climate change was not a mandatory relevant consideration; however, it was divided on whether it should be taken into account by the decision-maker as a permissible consideration. Mallon J considered that aspects of climate change (being those that are listed in s 5ZN of the Climate Change Response Act 2002) were permissible considerations. The Court of Appeal also agreed with the High Court that the decision maker adequately considered the principles of the Treaty. Climate Clinic Aotearoa appealed to the Supreme Court. On February 24, 2025, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal the Court of Appeal's decision. Without limiting the scope of the appeal, the Court has directed counsel to address whether the climate change considerations set out in section 5ZN of the Climate Change Response Act 2002 are mandatory, permissive, or irrelevant considerations when granting a petroleum exploration permit. On December 19, 2025, the Supreme Court released its judgment on the appeal. The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal on the facts. However, the Supreme Court made critical findings of law agreeing with the majority of Climate Clinic Aotearoa’s legal arguments. First, the Court found that s 24 rather than s 25 was the critical decision - being the section where the decision to offer blocks for tender, rather than s 25 being the decision to grant permits following a tendering process. This is because the s 24 decision to offer an area for tender is an in-principle decision that exploration may be permitted in the area. In terms of s 1A(1) of the CMA, the appellant argued that the words “for the benefit of New Zealand” indicate that the CMA’s purpose is to promote prospecting, exploration and mining only where those activities benefit New Zealand. The respondents submitted that the wording instead conveyed that the purpose of the CMA is to promote prospecting, exploration and mining because those activities benefit New Zealand. The Court agreed with the appellant. The Supreme Court held that climate change was a mandatory relevant consideration under s 24 decision given the context of climate change being a matter of pressing concern for New Zealand, the Crown’s binding international obligations in connection with reducing emissions, and the role of petroleum extraction and consumption in climate change. When applying this to the facts, the Supreme Court found that the decision-maker adequately considered climate change, having received detailed briefings that addressed it. Te Hunga Rōia Māori o Aotearoa | The New Zealand Māori Law Society Inc was given leave to intervene and to make submissions on the relevance of the Treaty to the appeal. The Court agreed with the appellant and Te Hunga Rōia Māori o Aotearoa that the Crown’s duty of active protection of Māori Treaty interests requires the Crown to actively engage with the nature of the interests affected by Crown action, and with the nature of that Crown action. However, due to the facts of the case and the way the appeal was pleaded, the Court was unable to decide the appeal on this point, whilst noting that it considered such an error unlikely.