| 
New Zealand spam regulation
This page considers the New Zealand anti-spam regime,
centred on the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Act
2007.
It covers -
introduction
New Zealand's experience with spam and with spam regulation
offers a perspective on the Australian regime.
As of 2005 New Zealand had not enacted legislation to
regulate spam. In 2003 we noted that it was likely to
eventually emulate Australia's Spam Act 2003
(Cth), despite government comments that there are -
serious
problems in framing workable laws to stop the nuisance.
There is, for example, the question of how to define
what constitutes unsolicited commercial email.
The New Zealand government is active with international
groups such as the ITU and the OECD as well as looking
at what is happening with other countries. However,
the degree to which the government can be effective
in fighting spam is limited and industry self-regulation
is an essential element in any anti-spam strategy.
Reluctance
to take action is consistent with a similarly hands-off
stance on domain name system regulation (discussed in
more detail here), in contrast
to the Australian legislation that underpins the operation
of auDA, the Australian
DNS regulator.
In May 2004 the government reversed position, releasing
a discussion paper
with the comment that
the
Government has signalled that legislation may be an
appropriate measure for assisting in dealing with the
growing problem of spam. The discussion paper, released
on 17 May 2004, seeks to discuss and obtain feedback
on the various policy issues which are raised when considering
anti-spam legislation. ...
Following the consideration of submissions decisions
by the Government on legislation to address spam are
expected in August 2004 with a Bill proposed for introduction
into the House by December 2004.
The
Minister noted that
This
Government is committed to an anti-Spam law. Spam is
a huge waste of time and money, over two thirds of all
email is now Spam. This undermines the confidence, security
and efficiency of New Zealanders on line.
Officials have undertaken research into anti-spam regimes
in a number of jurisdictions to inform their work on
the discussion paper. A preference for a stand alone,
"opt-in" law is indicated in the discussion
document.
The
legislation got into the House a year behind schedule,
got its first reading
in December 2005, was refered to the Commerce Select Committee
- which reported at the end of August 2006 with suggested
amendments (PDF)
- and was passed as the Unsolicited Electronic Messages
Act 2007 (UEM), which came into effect in September
2007.
the legislation
The Act covers email, instant messaging, SMS and MMS of
a commercial nature. It does not cover faxes or voice
telemarketing.
It aims to -
- prohibit
unsolicited commercial electronic messages with a New
Zealand link (ie messages sent to, from or within New
Zealand)
- require
commercial electronic messages to include accurate information
about the person who authorised the sending of the message
and a functional unsubscribe facility to enable the
recipient to instruct the sender that no further messages
are to be sent to the recipient
- prohibit
address-harvesting software being used to create address
lists for sending unsolicited commercial electronic
messages
- "deter
people from using information and communication technologies
inappropriately".
As
with Australia it also seeks to encourage good direct
marketing practice by -
- requiring
electronic messages to contain a functioning unsubscribe
facility
- ensuring
electronic messages are sent only to customers who have
consented to receiving that communication
- restricting
use of address-harvesting software.
The
Unsolicited Electronic Messages Act 2007 gives
the Anti-Spam
Compliance Unit, an enforcement body within the Department
of Internal Affairs, power to tackle spammers located
in New Zealand.
The unit will investigate complaints and act against spammers
in New Zealand who are deliberately flouting the law.
It will also promote education and awareness of spam,
encourage voluntary compliance, liaise with industry,
monitor emerging technologies and work with international
agencies.
Penalties for breaching the UEM range from formal warnings
to infringement notices and court action with a maximum
fine for NZ$500,000 for an organisation and NZ$200,000
for an individual.
next page (prosecutions)
|
Ketupa
