He also warned of the “possibility” that government business may be routinely flowing through personal email accounts, which he deemed “particularly concerning”.<\/p>\n
The note was prepared by Fonterra and Z Energy and hand-delivered to the then chief policy advisor in mid-2024, then emailed to his personal email address on June 25, 2024.<\/p>\n
The staffer was Matt Burgess, who was Christopher Luxon’s chief policy adviser at the time. Allen found that its suggested wording for a legislative change was ultimately reflected in proposed amendments to the Climate Change Response Act 2002.<\/p>\n
![\"Matt](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/matt-burgess-in-2019-CK5DXWTH2NEARBE6GUUHH2DIXQ.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
Matt Burgess in 2019. (Source: Breakfast)<\/p>\n
“These appear to have been documents of significance to informing the legislative process that followed,” he wrote.<\/p>\n
The briefing note argued the uncertainty created by iwi leader Mike Smith’s case against seven big polluters created “sovereign risk and significant uncertainty for the international investment community in New Zealand”, arguing intervention was “critical”.<\/p>\n
The Government announced in May it would amend climate laws to prevent companies from being sued over damage or harm caused by greenhouse gas emissions. <\/p>\n
The change would prevent findings of liability in tort, with Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith making it apply to both current and future cases. <\/p>\n
That move stopped the Smith v Fonterra case from going any further.<\/p>\n
Fonterra and Z Energy confirm in\u00a0court they met with the Prime Minister’s staff \u2013 something the PM says he has no record of.\u00a0 (Source: 1News)<\/p>\n
‘Surprising’ that staffer couldn’t remember briefing<\/p>\n
The former chief policy advisor told the Ombudsman the role was a high-workload, high-pressure environment involving very large volumes of information, received in written and oral form and in both hard and soft copy. <\/p>\n
He said his recollection was limited because the events occurred between one and two years earlier, and that he did not recall the meetings with Fonterra or Z Energy, the OIA request, or what he did with the hard-copy briefings – though he insisted he did not knowingly destroy any public record and had engaged with the request in good faith.<\/p>\n
“I did not find any evidence that contradicts this advice, and I appreciate that the chief policy advisor role has a high-workload,” Allen wrote.<\/p>\n
“I do find it surprising that the former chief policy advisor had no recollection of what was done with the information in the briefings, given they related to a prominent issue, were provided by high-profile companies.”<\/p>\n
Luxon\u2019s office says reviews are underway into how the document from Smith v Fonterra action was disseminated.\u00a0 (Source: 1News)<\/p>\n
The former chief policy advisor also told the Ombudsman he did not recall any training or guidance from the Department of Internal Affairs on how records must be managed. <\/p>\n
The department disputed this, saying it provides written guidance and OIA training to ministerial staff, including specific advice on handling emails and physical records.<\/p>\n
Burgess also advised the Ombudsman that it was “well documented” that Internal Affairs\u2019 IT systems were “inadequate to deal with many files”, and “this has contributed to the use of personal email for government business across government”. <\/p>\n
“He advised me that at times had to use his personal email to manage these limitations.”<\/p>\n
Personal email use under scrutiny<\/p>\n