Some are working pretty hard currently to buy into the Mike Smith storyline that the big end of town has the Government's ear over climate change. 

Mike Smith is the activist, the agitator, the chainsaw man, the "smack the America's Cup" bloke. 

So, you know, a life of angst and upset. 

His latest outing was in court, looking to sue individual companies over their pollution around climate change. He was looking for an activist court to agree with the idea that a company can be held to specific and individual account for something that happens all over the world by, if you think about it, all of us. 

The Government stepped in a week or so back and put an end to it. 

Their argument is Parliament is your ultimate court and these sorts of laws are for it, not individual judges who may sway with the wind. They didn’t put it that way, I did. 

But there is no doubt in my mind, in a number of areas, various courts these days are open to a bit of judicial dabbling. In my humble opinion it is brought about by an increasing arrogance that they make the rules. 

It's true to say a court can have a say or hold sway. But it's equally true to say the ultimate court is the Parliament of the land and we do not want that undermined. 

Now, Mike claims people like Fonterra have been writing to the Prime Minister's office and advocating for the Government to step in on court action like his. 

And given they did he now suggests this is collusion, this is scally-waggery, this is big money, big influence malarkey that borders on scandal. 

Or could it be a corporate saying what you would expect a corporate to say and a government, not surprisingly, doing what they would do anyway. 

In other words, Fonterra didn’t need to say anything because Paul Goldsmith would have done what he did without any correspondence. 

Why? 

Because they think the same way I do. I didn’t write to anyone and didn't have a meeting with anyone and yet I would have thought, nay expected, the Government to nip the Smith fishing expedition in the bud. 

Why? Because it's obvious and it's common sense. 

See not everything is a conspiracy. Sometimes, remarkably, especially when it's obvious, people tend to have the same view. Letters or no letters, meetings or no meetings. 

Nothing to see here.