Source: Radio New Zealand
Resources Minister Shane Jones. RNZ / Samuel Rillstone
Fossil fuel companies were given privileged, insider access to confidential drafts of legislation during a two-year campaign to weaken oil and gas regulation and overturn the offshore exploration ban, RNZ has found.
Internal documents show how the sector repeatedly lobbied Resources Minister Shane Jones to dilute New Zealand’s clean-up rules for ageing oil fields – rules brought in to protect taxpayers after the 2019 Tui Oil Field collapse left the state burdened with a $300m bill.
Some of the oil executives meeting with Jones had been closely involved in the Tui disaster, but were invited to confidential briefings anyway.
“That shows an extraordinary sense of self entitlement from the oil and gas industry,” said Greenpeace executive director Russel Norman. “That these same companies and same individuals are back in the room demanding that a loophole in the law be reopened so that the taxpayer has to pick up the bill once again for their mess – it’s really striking.”
Jones says the consultation was a normal – and integral – part of the legislative progress, and officials wanted to make sure the law would work. The lobbyists said the same.
Jones engaged closely with industry – including OMV, Todd Energy and Methanex – meeting them frequently, sharing in-house updates on his amendment bill, and signalling progress before the public or even Cabinet had seen the proposals.
Officials also ran closed-door workshops with industry ahead of ministerial decisions, circulated draft policy “in confidence”, and incorporated several company requests directly into the working text. In one briefing, officials noted OMV “intend to convey their thanks for the changes”, even though the legislation was not yet public and had not been signed off by Cabinet.
A political ‘over-reaction’
The briefing papers, released to RNZ under the Official Information Act, show the lobbying began as soon as the coalition government was formed in late 2023.
Jones, a New Zealand First MP and self-described champion of industry, entered office vowing to repeal the 2018 offshore exploration ban, but soon signalled he wanted a bill that went further.
Industry, led by Energy Resources Aotearoa (ERA), sought a comprehensive package of regulatory and financial support to boost investor confidence.
Its central argument was that Labour-era reforms – including the 2018 offshore exploration ban and the 2021 decommissioning regime – were a political “over-reaction” that spooked investors and “dramatically increased New Zealand’s reputation for sovereign risk”.
In meetings, letters and emails throughout 2024 and 2025, the sector framed the Labour-era, climate-focussed rules as a threat to national stability. It urged the government not only to lift the ban, but also to make laws protecting them against future policy shifts, to promote the sector, and to provide tax breaks incentivising drilling.
“If we are to stave off energy shortages we believe the changes made to the Crown Minerals Act since 2018 should be repealed, and urgently,” ERA wrote in a January 2024 letter to Jones.
Officials, meanwhile, warned ministers of the climate impact. Reopening exploration and boosting gas supply is expected to increase emissions by around 14.2 million tonnes of CO₂-equivalent, putting significant pressure on the next two emissions budgets.
The strongest lobbying focused on “decommissioning liability” – the hundreds of millions of dollars required to dismantle offshore structures and plug ageing wells. After the Tui collapse, the former government introduced strict rules requiring companies to fully fund this work, hold financial security, and – crucially – made former permit holders automatically liable if an operator collapsed. Directors could face criminal penalties in extreme cases.
The industry wanted those protections weakened across the board, labelling the regime a “gross overreach”.
“The dramatic regulatory over-reaction in the wake of the financial collapse of the Tui operator was an attempt to eliminate risk, without consideration of the costs borne by permit holders,” an ERA letter said.
ERA argued that trailing liability was “unnecessary”; that requiring companies to plan for full removal of infrastructure was too expensive; and that criminal liability for directors would scare off “quality candidates”.
‘Some companies may push back’
Despite the sustained pressure, officials warned Jones that parts of the industry’s decommissioning wishlist were “inconsistent with international practice”, noting the UK and Australia have broader trailing liability rules than what Jones was proposing. During a select committee process considering Jones’ replacement bill, submitters noted there was a loophole, which meant industry could avoid trailing liability altogether.
In an amendment paper to the Crown Minerals Bill, released in November 2024, officials moved to close that loophole and also tighten the law – extending liability to controlling shareholders as well as prior permit holders.
“Some companies may push back on the proposal – especially given the change comes at a late stage in the Bill’s development,” officials wrote in a warning to Jones.
They were right: Industry hated the changes, and launched a revolt. The ERA called it “piercing the corporate veil” and said liability should never be automatic.
The documents reveal officials’ response to the backlash was swift. They developed an alternative model – one that replaced automatic liability with ministerial discretion – and confidentially discussed it with Todd and OMV, who indicated the approach was an “improvement.”
By then, the companies had already had been granted significant insider access during the formation of the bill. In March 2024, for example, the ERA was given confidential pre-consultation on the options being considered to amend the decommissioning regime.
But this time, officials went further. Officials shared the draft Amendment Paper with the companies, including OMV, for feedback on the “workability” of the complex discretionary liability provisions.
OMV’s feedback resulted in officials clarifying the drafting to confirm the guarantee was limited to “unmet costs” or a “proportion of those unmet costs”, reducing the scope of potential liability OMV would face. OMV then thanked the officials, and Jones.
Officials promised to keep engaging industry as they finalised the policy and prepared the Cabinet paper.
The end result
On 31 July 2025, a 25-page Supplementary Order Paper, released 5pm the night before Parliamentary debate, revealed the final state of the proposed law. Industry didn’t get everything it wanted: Criminal liability for directors remains for the most “egregious” failures; and calls for government underwriting of exploration were not fully met.
But both the key tenets were there: the bill overturned the ban and replaced automatic trailing liability with ministerial discretion. Under the amended Crown Minerals Act, the resources and finance ministers can now decide case-by-case whether former operators must pay at all.
Ministers are also empowered to require, vary or waive outgoing financial guarantees, and Cabinet agreed to restore a promotional purpose to the Act and adopt a more flexible approach to financial securities.
Iwi and environmental groups were not consulted on the final draft.
Greenpeace’s Russel Norman said it made sense that the oil and gas lobby would be focused on decommissioning rules given the state of the country’s aging wells.
“The main next game for New Zealand oil and gas is going to be the cost of decommissioning those fields, which is going to be very high, hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars,” he said. “What they’re wanting to do is either get out of that liability or reduce it as much as possible.”
ERA chief executive John Carnegie rejected that, saying the industry’s input on decommissioning had focused on “making sure the regime is clear, robust, and workable”, and making sure it was done safely, protected the environment, and with certainty.
Carnegie acknowledged it had been “extremely focused” in its efforts to see improvements made to the new law. He said there had been lasting damage caused by the 2018 exploration ban.
Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick. RNZ / Mark Papalii
Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick says the level of access granted to the oil and gas companies during the legislative rewrite was “insane.”
“The question the minister could have asked was ‘how do we get the best solutions for New Zealanders and our environment?’ but instead he just asked one of the most unscrupulous industries on the planet to help draft our laws.”
Labour’s energy spokesperson Megan Woods – who introduced the 2021 law changes around commissioning as a minister – says Jones was putting the interest of oil and gas companies before the interests of the taxpayer.
“Shane Jones caved. As a minister he did not stand up for New Zealanders,” Woods said. “He is showing legislation to a very narrow group of people who have a clear vested interest, rather than consulting widely.”
But in a statement to RNZ, Shane Jones says the consultation was a normal – and integral – part of the legislative progress, and officials wanted to make sure the law would work.
“Feedback from industry on the draft Amendment Paper focused on the highly technical details, as opposed to the policy itself,” the statement said. “The final result is legislation which protects the Crown, while enabling industry investment in much-needed gas and oil exploration.”
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand