The Law Association of New Zealand’s Technology and Law Committee has made a submission on the Telecommunications and Other Matters Amendment Bill, which proposes significant changes to how New Zealand’s telecommunications laws apply to overseas service providers.
The Committee supports the Bill’s core objective. In particular, it agrees that legislative clarification was needed following the Court of Appeal decision in Commerce Commission v Kordia Group Ltd, which exposed uncertainty around whether New Zealand telecommunications law could apply to offshore providers supplying services to people in New Zealand. The Committee considers it appropriate that overseas providers operating in the New Zealand market are subject to comparable regulatory obligations to domestic operators.
However, the submission raises a number of concerns about how the Bill gives effect to that objective. The Committee’s Preview Changes central theme is that, while the Bill closes one jurisdictional gap, it risks introducing new uncertainty through broad extra-territorial reach, complex enforcement mechanisms and wide administrative discretion.
A key concern relates to the Bill’s service-recipient-based test, which applies obligations to providers offering services “to persons in New Zealand.” The Committee notes that the Bill provides limited guidance on how conflicts with overseas legal requirements should be managed, how practicability will be assessed in cross-border contexts, or what level of operational change may be expected of offshore providers. Without clearer statutory guidance, this approach risks dispute rather than compliance.
The Committee is particularly concerned about the proposed enforcement regime in new Part 7A of the Radiocommunications Act 1989. This regime allows regulators to restrict or revoke radio and spectrum licences as an indirect enforcement tool against non-compliant overseas providers. In some cases, enforcement action could be taken against licences held by third parties, such as New Zealand-based infrastructure providers, potentially exposing them to consequences for conduct beyond their control. The Committee considers this approach risks disproportionate outcomes and commercial distortion if not more tightly constrained.
The submission also highlights risks arising from broad administrative discretion, limited procedural safeguards and the ability for historic non-compliance to influence future licensing decisions. In the Committee’s view, these features undermine regulatory certainty in a capital-intensive sector where predictability is critical.
Finally, the Committee identifies gaps and inconsistencies in the enforcement framework, including the exclusion of general user licences and the risk that essential service providers may be “too essential to sanction,” limiting effective consumer protection.
Overall, the Committee urges refinement of the Bill to improve clarity, proportionality, procedural fairness and long-term workability, while maintaining its underlying policy intent.
Read the full submission on our website.
