20419 (2026). Hon Dr Deborah Russell to the Prime Minister

20419 (2026). Hon Dr Deborah Russell to the Prime Minister: Has any representative of Fonterra or Z Energy discussed the Smith v Fonterra case with his office, if so, on what date?

Rt Hon Christopher Luxon: I am advised that there have been a number of interactions between staff in my office and representatives of Fonterra and/or Z Energy regarding the Smith v Fonterra case. - Meeting - as has been reported publicly, there were meetings between Fonterra and/or Z Energy and a former staff member regarding the Smith v Fonterra case. My staff and I first became aware of these meetings through media queries to my office on 22 May 2026. o As has been reported publicly, this meeting, and any hard-copy information provided in it, was not released in an Official Information Act response to Dr Hall in May 2025. o My office has no record of receiving the 2024 briefing note nor do we have any record of any meetings the former staff member may have had. I am advised there is no record of the briefing note been passed on to any other minister, ministerial office, staff member or officials. o Further to this, we have been advised that the information provided in hard copy in this meeting was also sent from a Fonterra staff member to a former Beehive staff member’s private email account. This does not meet the standards expected of staff in the Beehive and we are treating it with the seriousness it deserves o The Department of Internal Affairs is conducting a review of the former staff member’s IT account to ensure there are no further documents or meetings relating to the Smith v Fonterra case that should be released, and will work with the individual to identify whether there are any other work-related documents on their private email that should be on the public record. Separately, the Ombudsman has initiated its own review into how this OIA release was handled. o Using private email to share official information undermines transparency and public trust. It remains appropriate for interested parties to talk to Ministers and their staff on policy matters, but it is imperative that information is appropriately recorded and transparent. That did not happen here. o The former staff member was jointly employed by Ministerial Services and Parliamentary Services. They have not worked in the Prime Minister’s Office since October last year, and have not worked at Parliament since January. Their departure was unrelated to this matter. There have also been a number of other interactions: - Phone call – Haley Mortimer and Cameron Burrows in 2025. Ms Mortimer indicated Z-Energy’s interest in the Smith vs Fonterra litigation. My Chief of Staff indicated he was aware of the issue but wasn’t aware of what was happening. - Meeting – Wayne Eagleson and Cameron Burrows – 29/09/2025. As part of a broader discussion Mr Eagleson indicated he was doing work on the Smith vs Fonterra case. He indicated Z-Energy was struggling to get responses from Ministers on the issue. My Chief of Staff indicated that he was aware of the issue but wasn’t aware of what was happening. Wayne indicated he would likely ask Haley Mortimer to reach out to my Chief of Staff to see if they could meet with the appropriate Ministers to discuss the issue. - Email - 16/10/2025 from Haley Mortimer to Cameron Burrows. Member from my office and officials from DPMC have had meetings with the defendants to discuss a range of issues since 27 November 2023. - A staff member received a phone call from Fonterra on 22 May 2026 relating to a media query about the Smith v Fonterra proceedings. My office had also received media queries about the proceedings. Staff members in my office are involved in discussions with other ministerial offices about policy proposals. Decisions on the content of Cabinet papers and legislative amendments are the responsibility of the portfolio Cabinet Minister and ultimately the Cabinet. Within the Government’s first 100 days, the Attorney-General had briefed Cabinet on the Smith v Fonterra case based on advice from Crown Law, expressing her view that legislating a statutory bar on climate change tort proceedings to be the most straightforward response. To the best of my knowledge I have had no discussions regarding the Smith v Fonterra case with Fonterra or Z Energy.