September 16, 2025 • 9 mins
Graham Butcher looks at what a Bill that has been put forward by local MP Joseph Mooney could mean regarding civil lawsuits regarding Greenhouse gases.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:08):
Welcome back to the muster.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
Of course, being Wednesday, you've got Wednesday Night Country this
evening from seven pm. Thanks to Regional for it. Sheryl
Anderson's our host three hours of country music. While you're
out there in the carving shed or the lambing shed
feeding the lambs, there's something for you to coddon into
the seed and Graham Butcher Farm consultant joins me in studio.
Speaker 1 (00:27):
Good afternoon, What have you done to the weather.
Speaker 3 (00:29):
It wasn't my fault. It was good this morning when
I left home and gored. But that's cracked up wet again.
But it's sort of warm.
Speaker 1 (00:36):
Well, that's a good thing about it. It's a warmest rain.
It's just rain of another dimension. But what's it looking like?
Elt On Farm? When you have been out and.
Speaker 3 (00:44):
About quite wet covers a relatively low it's some I
think demand as exceeding supply or growth, and of course
that won't fix itself until growth actually exceeds demand, so
it could be a week or two.
Speaker 1 (00:54):
Yet farmers seem to be getting through lambing o.
Speaker 3 (00:57):
Cave seemed to be they would like a bit more now,
user just getting into full lactation now and they need
to feed to do it, to support it.
Speaker 2 (01:07):
Right today we're talking about Smith versus Fonterra. Now, there
was an email come out from Bryce McKenzie of Groundswell
talking about it. Well, he basically talks about Joseph Mooney here,
who's put a bill into the member's ballot to prohibit
civil lawsuits about greenhouse gas emissions and climate change consequences.
Speaker 1 (01:25):
Now, one thing when you get an email from.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
Ground Swell, try not to talk about it in a
Bryce McKenzie voice. He just devolked to it. And this
is interesting Smith versus Fonterra. You were saying, this's been
going on for five years.
Speaker 3 (01:36):
Now, Yes, started in twenty twenty. It's really important because
it's all about the right of people to sue someone
else or a company or some sort of entity for
damages because they're breaching their obligations for climate change. So
Joe Bloggs could sue his neighbor farmer for a million bucks.
(01:57):
Now you can't do that at the moment. So Joseph
Moon his bill is to prevent that. But things have
happened over the five years, and I've got a we
So I got that email this morning and it's flown
under the radar this one. So I wasn't aware of it.
So I jumped on the computer and got a bit
more detail about it. And it's quite worrying really, this one.
(02:20):
So it all started in twenty twenty when Smith who
is the climate change spoke person for the EWE Forum
Council or EWEE Chairs Forum. So it's an e WEE
driven thing. They are sewing Fonterra BT Mining, Dairy Holding,
New Zealand, steel z Energy, Channel Infrastructure and Genesis Energy
(02:42):
for breach of duty to cease contributing to climate change. Right,
and they're doing it on three accounts one public nuisance,
two negligence and three breach of duty to cease contributing
to climate change. So back in twenty twenty there was
a High Court ruling and everything was thrown out, was denied.
(03:03):
So the EWE Cheers Forum went to the Appeal Court
and it failed. They went to the Supreme Court and
it has recently succeeded. The Supreme Court have made a ruling.
I'll just read it here. This is the conclusion of
the Supreme Court for the reasons above, and the reasons
above is quite a few hundred pages. The appeal is
(03:23):
allowed and the appellans claim is reinstated. Mister Smith is
represented on a pro bono basis and does not seek costs.
Whatever the outcome he sought. That costs lie where they
fall in this court, as they have done so in
other courts. That's good because the proceeding is brought against
(03:44):
a public interest basis and has further implications beyond the
case at hand. We agree, the appeal is allowed, the
appellent his claim has reinstated, and there is no order
to cost. So it's back in the High Court. The
right for civil litigations for climate change consequences, now that's huge.
(04:08):
Now you can imagine what could happen if the succeeds.
So Joseph Muni has done a really good thing here,
and I believe you've got him on the program tomorrow,
so really good to get his point of view on this.
He's put a in the biscuit tin, if you like
a bill prohibiting civil litigation for climate change consequences. I
don't know how many bills are in the biscuit, Tin,
(04:30):
or how long they take to get drawn out, but
I suspect it could be quite a long time. So
maybe Joseph knows how many bills there are in the
biscuit box. If anybody knows, he probably should.
Speaker 1 (04:41):
I think he's trying to buy pass the biscuit tin
with this way.
Speaker 3 (04:43):
Well you can. There's mechanisms in Parliament where you can.
You've got to get sixty one members of Parliament supporting
the bill and it's drawn out of the biscuit tin
and immediately looked at. That becomes a bit of a problem.
There's one hundred and twenty three members of Parliament. The
sixty one have got to come from non executive members.
(05:06):
If you're in cabinet, you can't be you can't support
this one that takes fifteen out. So if we take
fifteen out of the coalition governments, we've got fifty three
mp so it needs all of those. It also needs
someone or eight others from either Labor, Greens or to
Party Maory. Now the Greens won't support it in no
way at all. To Party Mariy won't, so we need
(05:27):
eight Labor members to support it to give us sixty
one members pull it out of the biscuit box. Now,
I don't think that's going to happen, So I'm not
sure but there may be grounds the if Cabinet pick
up the bill, they can actually action it.
Speaker 2 (05:44):
Well, it's interesting here in the email as well. Joseph's
bill would explicitly overturn the Supreme Court decision and prevent
that uncertainty by taking this new idea of climate change
damages off the table for the courts to meddle with.
Speaker 3 (05:57):
Absolutely, and that's exactly the way it should be. It's
a bit ridiculous if they consider it. It's a figures here.
Let's say you took a million dollar claim against your
dairy farming neighbor for breach of duty as far as
climate change obligations go, million dollars sounds like a big claim.
(06:17):
New Zealand's contribution to greenhouse cash emissions worldwide over the
whole sector of the whole economy is zero point one
seven percent. Agriculture is a bit less than fifty percent.
We'll say fifty percent for ease of arithmetic, So agricultures
contributing point zero eight five percent. So how do you
look at this? I mean, it's a worldwide problem. Gas
(06:39):
emissions anywhere in the world affect our climate here. So
the court may say, Okay, you've got a million dollars
will allow you point zero eight five percent of that
comes to eight hundred and fifty dollars.
Speaker 2 (06:51):
There's so much to just unentail though, regaining this whole
climate change. Think the Paris Agreement, which has been under
the grease under the spotlight recently, Graham, where.
Speaker 1 (07:00):
You're supposed to start.
Speaker 2 (07:01):
I mean, this could be rich, going on for years,
almost decades.
Speaker 3 (07:04):
It could be. But if the High Court actually set
a precedent and say civil cases are allowed, I think
all hell break loose. The courts will be clogged up.
Speaker 2 (07:14):
And we're not a litigating society. I mean you look
at the Simpsons of Linel Hearts and the likes from
back in the day and you chuckle about it. But
in America it's all about you know, have you got
a litigation case you need me to act upon.
Speaker 1 (07:26):
I'm your man, the open and transparent. We don't want
to become that exactly. No American laws.
Speaker 3 (07:33):
Yeah, there's a lot of litigation in America, and some
of them are quite ridiculous as well. So I think
Joseph Bill's unlikely to be get us sixty one MPs
to bring it out of a biscuit box. So it's
probably up to Cabinet to pull it out and say, look,
we need to look at this, and need to look
at it quickly because it's back in the High Court.
Speaker 2 (07:51):
And the rest thing is always grand. Now you can
listen to this. Now, I'll just stay there laugh out
loud with ag prow because life on the land can
be a laughing matter. Waiting brought to us by sheer
well data working to help the livestock farmer. I'm just
playing Allan McCleary's sting because that's what you do before,
laugh out loud right. A rancher was minding his own
(08:14):
business when an FBI agent came up to him and said,
we've got a tip you may be growing illegal drugs
on the premises.
Speaker 1 (08:19):
Do you mind if I look around?
Speaker 2 (08:20):
The rancher replies, that's fine, you shouldn't go over there.
The whole points to the field. The agent snaps, I'm
an agent, I'll go wherever I want.
Speaker 1 (08:27):
We're first.
Speaker 2 (08:27):
He pulls out his badge and shoves it in the
rancher's face.
Speaker 1 (08:30):
The rancher shrugs this.
Speaker 2 (08:32):
Off and continues off his daily chores. Fifteen minutes later,
he hears a loud scream from the field. He pointed
out too early, and suddenly he sees it. FBI agent
spreading towards him with a mess of ball hot on
his heels. The rancher rushes to the fence and yells,
your badge, show him your.
Speaker 1 (08:48):
Bed truly good.
Speaker 2 (08:52):
Oh I got a chuckle from Graham Butcher. Thanks Graham.
As always, we'll leave it there for the afternoon. I'mandy mule.
This spind the muster on HAKAUI. Thanks a Peter Genenix.
Enjoy the afternoon, See you tomorrow.
Welcome back to the muster.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
Of course, being Wednesday, you've got Wednesday Night Country this
evening from seven pm. Thanks to Regional for it. Sheryl
Anderson's our host three hours of country music. While you're
out there in the carving shed or the lambing shed
feeding the lambs, there's something for you to coddon into
the seed and Graham Butcher Farm consultant joins me in studio.
Speaker 1 (00:27):
Good afternoon, What have you done to the weather.
Speaker 3 (00:29):
It wasn't my fault. It was good this morning when
I left home and gored. But that's cracked up wet again.
But it's sort of warm.
Speaker 1 (00:36):
Well, that's a good thing about it. It's a warmest rain.
It's just rain of another dimension. But what's it looking like?
Elt On Farm? When you have been out and.
Speaker 3 (00:44):
About quite wet covers a relatively low it's some I
think demand as exceeding supply or growth, and of course
that won't fix itself until growth actually exceeds demand, so
it could be a week or two.
Speaker 1 (00:54):
Yet farmers seem to be getting through lambing o.
Speaker 3 (00:57):
Cave seemed to be they would like a bit more now,
user just getting into full lactation now and they need
to feed to do it, to support it.
Speaker 2 (01:07):
Right today we're talking about Smith versus Fonterra. Now, there
was an email come out from Bryce McKenzie of Groundswell
talking about it. Well, he basically talks about Joseph Mooney here,
who's put a bill into the member's ballot to prohibit
civil lawsuits about greenhouse gas emissions and climate change consequences.
Speaker 1 (01:25):
Now, one thing when you get an email from.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
Ground Swell, try not to talk about it in a
Bryce McKenzie voice. He just devolked to it. And this
is interesting Smith versus Fonterra. You were saying, this's been
going on for five years.
Speaker 3 (01:36):
Now, Yes, started in twenty twenty. It's really important because
it's all about the right of people to sue someone
else or a company or some sort of entity for
damages because they're breaching their obligations for climate change. So
Joe Bloggs could sue his neighbor farmer for a million bucks.
(01:57):
Now you can't do that at the moment. So Joseph
Moon his bill is to prevent that. But things have
happened over the five years, and I've got a we
So I got that email this morning and it's flown
under the radar this one. So I wasn't aware of it.
So I jumped on the computer and got a bit
more detail about it. And it's quite worrying really, this one.
(02:20):
So it all started in twenty twenty when Smith who
is the climate change spoke person for the EWE Forum
Council or EWEE Chairs Forum. So it's an e WEE
driven thing. They are sewing Fonterra BT Mining, Dairy Holding,
New Zealand, steel z Energy, Channel Infrastructure and Genesis Energy
(02:42):
for breach of duty to cease contributing to climate change. Right,
and they're doing it on three accounts one public nuisance,
two negligence and three breach of duty to cease contributing
to climate change. So back in twenty twenty there was
a High Court ruling and everything was thrown out, was denied.
(03:03):
So the EWE Cheers Forum went to the Appeal Court
and it failed. They went to the Supreme Court and
it has recently succeeded. The Supreme Court have made a ruling.
I'll just read it here. This is the conclusion of
the Supreme Court for the reasons above, and the reasons
above is quite a few hundred pages. The appeal is
(03:23):
allowed and the appellans claim is reinstated. Mister Smith is
represented on a pro bono basis and does not seek costs.
Whatever the outcome he sought. That costs lie where they
fall in this court, as they have done so in
other courts. That's good because the proceeding is brought against
(03:44):
a public interest basis and has further implications beyond the
case at hand. We agree, the appeal is allowed, the
appellent his claim has reinstated, and there is no order
to cost. So it's back in the High Court. The
right for civil litigations for climate change consequences, now that's huge.
(04:08):
Now you can imagine what could happen if the succeeds.
So Joseph Muni has done a really good thing here,
and I believe you've got him on the program tomorrow,
so really good to get his point of view on this.
He's put a in the biscuit tin, if you like
a bill prohibiting civil litigation for climate change consequences. I
don't know how many bills are in the biscuit, Tin,
(04:30):
or how long they take to get drawn out, but
I suspect it could be quite a long time. So
maybe Joseph knows how many bills there are in the
biscuit box. If anybody knows, he probably should.
Speaker 1 (04:41):
I think he's trying to buy pass the biscuit tin
with this way.
Speaker 3 (04:43):
Well you can. There's mechanisms in Parliament where you can.
You've got to get sixty one members of Parliament supporting
the bill and it's drawn out of the biscuit tin
and immediately looked at. That becomes a bit of a problem.
There's one hundred and twenty three members of Parliament. The
sixty one have got to come from non executive members.
(05:06):
If you're in cabinet, you can't be you can't support
this one that takes fifteen out. So if we take
fifteen out of the coalition governments, we've got fifty three
mp so it needs all of those. It also needs
someone or eight others from either Labor, Greens or to
Party Maory. Now the Greens won't support it in no
way at all. To Party Mariy won't, so we need
(05:27):
eight Labor members to support it to give us sixty
one members pull it out of the biscuit box. Now,
I don't think that's going to happen, So I'm not
sure but there may be grounds the if Cabinet pick
up the bill, they can actually action it.
Speaker 2 (05:44):
Well, it's interesting here in the email as well. Joseph's
bill would explicitly overturn the Supreme Court decision and prevent
that uncertainty by taking this new idea of climate change
damages off the table for the courts to meddle with.
Speaker 3 (05:57):
Absolutely, and that's exactly the way it should be. It's
a bit ridiculous if they consider it. It's a figures here.
Let's say you took a million dollar claim against your
dairy farming neighbor for breach of duty as far as
climate change obligations go, million dollars sounds like a big claim.
(06:17):
New Zealand's contribution to greenhouse cash emissions worldwide over the
whole sector of the whole economy is zero point one
seven percent. Agriculture is a bit less than fifty percent.
We'll say fifty percent for ease of arithmetic, So agricultures
contributing point zero eight five percent. So how do you
look at this? I mean, it's a worldwide problem. Gas
(06:39):
emissions anywhere in the world affect our climate here. So
the court may say, Okay, you've got a million dollars
will allow you point zero eight five percent of that
comes to eight hundred and fifty dollars.
Speaker 2 (06:51):
There's so much to just unentail though, regaining this whole
climate change. Think the Paris Agreement, which has been under
the grease under the spotlight recently, Graham, where.
Speaker 1 (07:00):
You're supposed to start.
Speaker 2 (07:01):
I mean, this could be rich, going on for years,
almost decades.
Speaker 3 (07:04):
It could be. But if the High Court actually set
a precedent and say civil cases are allowed, I think
all hell break loose. The courts will be clogged up.
Speaker 2 (07:14):
And we're not a litigating society. I mean you look
at the Simpsons of Linel Hearts and the likes from
back in the day and you chuckle about it. But
in America it's all about you know, have you got
a litigation case you need me to act upon.
Speaker 1 (07:26):
I'm your man, the open and transparent. We don't want
to become that exactly. No American laws.
Speaker 3 (07:33):
Yeah, there's a lot of litigation in America, and some
of them are quite ridiculous as well. So I think
Joseph Bill's unlikely to be get us sixty one MPs
to bring it out of a biscuit box. So it's
probably up to Cabinet to pull it out and say, look,
we need to look at this, and need to look
at it quickly because it's back in the High Court.
Speaker 2 (07:51):
And the rest thing is always grand. Now you can
listen to this. Now, I'll just stay there laugh out
loud with ag prow because life on the land can
be a laughing matter. Waiting brought to us by sheer
well data working to help the livestock farmer. I'm just
playing Allan McCleary's sting because that's what you do before,
laugh out loud right. A rancher was minding his own
(08:14):
business when an FBI agent came up to him and said,
we've got a tip you may be growing illegal drugs
on the premises.
Speaker 1 (08:19):
Do you mind if I look around?
Speaker 2 (08:20):
The rancher replies, that's fine, you shouldn't go over there.
The whole points to the field. The agent snaps, I'm
an agent, I'll go wherever I want.
Speaker 1 (08:27):
We're first.
Speaker 2 (08:27):
He pulls out his badge and shoves it in the
rancher's face.
Speaker 1 (08:30):
The rancher shrugs this.
Speaker 2 (08:32):
Off and continues off his daily chores. Fifteen minutes later,
he hears a loud scream from the field. He pointed
out too early, and suddenly he sees it. FBI agent
spreading towards him with a mess of ball hot on
his heels. The rancher rushes to the fence and yells,
your badge, show him your.
Speaker 1 (08:48):
Bed truly good.
Speaker 2 (08:52):
Oh I got a chuckle from Graham Butcher. Thanks Graham.
As always, we'll leave it there for the afternoon. I'mandy mule.
This spind the muster on HAKAUI. Thanks a Peter Genenix.
Enjoy the afternoon, See you tomorrow.
Popular Podcasts
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.