MinterEllisonRuddWatts

Send us your feedback
In this episode of Level Playing Field, Sports Law Partner Richard Wells and Senior Associate Sarah Redding move from the theory behind New Zealand's major events framework to the practical realities of how it operates on the ground. Building on the first episode in this two-part series, they explore how the Major Events Management Act 2007 (MEMA) protects sponsors, event organisers and government investment through ambush marketing restrictions, clean zones and enforcement mechanisms. Richard and Sarah also discuss how the major events regime has evolved since the 2011 Rugby World Cup and the balance that has emerged between commercial protection and legitimate business activity.
[01:04] Sarah explains how MEMA creates a protective commercial and physical “bubble” around major events. She outlines the two key pillars of the regime: restrictions on unauthorised associations with events and the use of clean zones and transport routes to protect official sponsors and event partners.
[03:34] Richard and Sarah discuss how MEMA extends beyond traditional intellectual property protections. They examine the use of protected event words, logos and emblems, and reflect on how the legislation provided powerful protections during the 2011 Rugby World Cup.
[06:04] The discussion turns to clean zones and clean transport routes. Richard explains how these controls operate in practice, why they are important for sponsors and broadcasters, and the logistical challenges involved in creating commercially exclusive event environments.
[09:49] Looking at how the regime has evolved over time, Sarah reflects on how major events have moved away from the broader protections seen during Rugby World Cup 2011 towards a more targeted and balanced approach focused on venues and core event branding.
[11:58] Richard and Sarah explore enforcement. They discuss the significant powers available under MEMA, including warnings, seizure powers and penalties, and how advances in technology have enabled a more proportionate approach to compliance and enforcement.
[15:11] Sarah outlines the Act’s escalation process, from informal warnings through to civil remedies and criminal penalties. She also discusses the protections afforded to enforcement officers who exercise their powers reasonably and in good faith.
[17:39] The pair examine some of the practical challenges that arise when applying the legislation, including the tension between broad protections and exceptions for media reporting, personal opinions and legitimate business activities.
[19:36] Richard and Sarah discuss the complexities of clean zone boundaries, visibility issues, private land exceptions and billboard advertising, highlighting some of the challenges event organisers and businesses face during major events.
[21:04] Bringing the series to a close, Richard reflects on how MEMA sits alongside New Zealand’s wider intellectual property framework. He explains how the regime has matured over time and how a more balanced approach can benefit event organisers, sponsors, sports and the wider community.

Information in this episode is correct as at the date of recording, 7 September 2026. 

Please contact Richard Wells, Sarah Redding or our Sports Law team if you need legal advice or guidance on any of the topics discussed in this episode. And don't forget to rate, review or follow MinterEllisonRuddWatts wherever you get your podcasts. You can also email us directly at website.enquiries@minterellison.co.nz and sign up to receive Sports law updates via your inbox here.
For show notes and additional resources visit minterellison.co.nz/podcasts

Send us your feedback
In this episode of Election 2026, Partner and Head of our IP team Christopher Young is joined by Daniel Fielding, Special Counsel, and Michael O'Brien, Solicitor, from our Public Law team to explore New Zealand's election advertising regime. They discuss the broad definition of election advertising, the intellectual property and advertising law issues that can arise during campaigns, and the key Electoral Act rules that political parties, candidates and third parties need to understand.
[00:10] Chris introduces the episode and its focus on election year advertising and the rules surrounding it. What is means, who can do it, and where people can get themselves into trouble.
[01:10] Daniel and Michael explain the surprisingly broad definition of election advertising and discuss why an advertisement can be captured by electoral law even when influencing voter behaviour was not its intended purpose. They also explore the policy reasons behind regulating political advertising, including its impact on democratic participation and public decision-making.
[05:21] Chris discusses the intellectual property issues that can arise during election campaigns, including trademarks, branding, copyright infringement and the use of music in campaign advertising. The conversation covers artist objections, moral rights, endorsement risks, and the lessons political parties can learn from previous disputes in New Zealand and overseas.
[14:28] They discuss the different complaint pathways available for election advertising, including the roles of the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA). Daniel and Michael explain how complaints are assessed, discuss recent examples involving political parties, and consider how AI-generated campaign content may create new challenges in future elections.
[20:57] Daniel outlines some of the most important Electoral Act requirements affecting election advertising, including promoter statements, third-party promoters, campaign spending thresholds and election hoardings. They also discuss how local council bylaws interact with election signage and the compliance issues that can arise during the campaign period.
[28:12] They examine the rules governing election broadcasts outside the formal election period, the offence of publishing false statements immediately before election day, and the restrictions that apply to political advertising once voting is underway. The episode finishes with a discussion on social media, election day campaigning, and why some of New Zealand's electoral rules continue to generate debate.

Information in this podcast is correct as at the date of recording, 10 August 2026.
 
Please contact Christopher Young, Daniel Fielding, our Public law team, or our Intellectual property team, if you need legal advice and guidance on any of the topics discussed in this episode.
Don’t forget to rate, review or follow MinterEllisonRuddWatts wherever you get your podcasts.
You can also email us directly at website.enquiries@minterellison.co.nz and sign up to receive election updates via your inbox here. 

Additional resources
We're proud to again support Policy.nz – a free, independent, non-partisan platform that helps voters compare parties and policies in one place. The site has the latest election information, making it easier to cut through the noise and understand where parties stand on the issues that matter most.
For show notes and additional resources visit minterellison.co.nz/podcasts

Send us your feedback
In this episode, Financial Services Partner Jeremy Muir and Senior Associate Ken Ng discuss the Financial Markets Authority's (FMA) fintech regulatory sandbox pilot. Drawing on their insights advising several pilot participants, they explore the programme's key outcomes, lessons learned, and what comes next for fintech regulation in New Zealand.
[01:53] Jeremy and Ken discuss the purpose of the FMA’s regulatory sandbox pilot and why it was established, providing fintechs with a controlled environment to test innovative products and bespoke business models under regulatory oversight. Ken explains how the initiative sought to balance innovation with consumer protection, while enabling fintechs and the FMA to work collaboratively through regulatory uncertainty.
[04:17] They consider the diversity of the sandbox pilot’s six participating businesses (Homeshare, Emerge, Tandym, ECDD Holdings, Invest in Farming Co-op (IIF) and IndigiShare) and explain how each was seeking to bring a novel offering to market that sat at the edge of existing regulatory frameworks.
[10:50] Jeremy explains how regulatory uncertainty can slow innovation, increase costs and, in some cases, prevent promising ideas from reaching the market. He discusses how the sandbox pilot provided a structured way for innovators and regulators to better understand emerging business models and identify where existing regulatory settings may need to evolve.
[11:43] Ken and Jeremy consider some of the key lessons from the pilot, including how a one-size-fits-all licensing approach can create barriers to entry for startups and emerging fintechs. He also discusses how the programme gave the FMA valuable insight into the practical challenges faced by innovative businesses, while participants benefited from tangible outcomes such as exemptions, bespoke licences, and specific regulatory designations.
[14:18] Jeremy and Ken look ahead to the future of fintech regulation, with a particular focus on the FMA’s proposed on-ramp licensing regime. Ken explains how a graduated licensing framework could lower barriers to entry for startups, while Jeremy highlights other developments on the horizon, including payments modernisation, the use of AI in financial advice, and ongoing digital asset reform.

Information in this episode is accurate as at the date of recording, 11 September 2026.

Please contact Jeremy Muir, Ken Ng or our Financial Services team if you need legal advice and guidance on any of the topics discussed in the episode.
And don’t forget to rate, review or follow MinterEllisonRuddWatts wherever you get your podcasts. You can also email us directly at techsuite@minterellison.co.nz and sign up to receive technology updates via your inbox here.

Additional resources
FMA Report: Supporting innovation in New Zealand’s financial markets, May 2026
For show notes and additional resources visit minterellison.co.nz/podcasts

Send us your feedback
In this episode of our Election 2026 Senior Associate Mark Calderwood is joined by Special Counsel, Daniel Fielding to unpack the mechanics of New Zealand's electoral system and what happens after ballots are cast. They discuss who can vote, recent changes to enrolment rules, advance and special voting, and how provisional election night results become official results. Mark and Daniel also explore the checks, safeguards and scrutiny built into the counting process, the impact special votes can have on the final outcome, and the legal mechanisms available to challenge election results, including recounts and election petitions, demonstrating how these processes help maintain confidence in New Zealand's electoral system.
[00:09] Mark Calderwood and Daniel Fielding introduce the episode's focus on the practical mechanics of New Zealand elections, covering how votes are cast, counted and, if necessary, challenged after polling day.
[01:05] Daniel explains the basic eligibility requirements for voting, including citizenship and residency criteria, while outlining the limited circumstances in which otherwise eligible individuals may be unable to vote.
[02:03] The discussion turns to voting from overseas, with Daniel outlining the requirements for New Zealand citizens and permanent residents living abroad who wish to participate in the election.
[02:18] Mark examines recent changes to enrolment rules, including the introduction of a cut-off date before polling day. He discusses the rationale behind the reform and the debate surrounding its potential impact on voter participation.
[05:11] Next Mark and Dan explore the growth of advance voting and the increasing flexibility it offers voters. They also discuss employers' obligations to provide reasonable time for eligible employees to cast their votes when necessary.
[06:33] Daniel reflects on how extended advance voting periods have changed the significance of polling day itself. Mark and Daniel revisit some of the restrictions that apply on polling day, including limits on campaigning and voter influence near polling places.
[08:07] Mark highlights the growing popularity of advance voting, while Daniel explains special votes and the circumstances in which they are required, including for voters who have moved electorates, are overseas or cannot vote under ordinary arrangements.
[09:34] The discussion shifts to election night results. Mark outlines how provisional results are released, why advance votes feature prominently in early counts, and why final results often remain relatively consistent despite further verification processes.
[11:57] Daniel explains the role of scrutineers and the multiple layers of checking that occur after polling closes, moving to discuss how the Electoral Commission cross-checks votes against electoral rolls to help protect the integrity of the election process.
[13:46] Mark examines how official counts and special votes can influence final outcomes, particularly in closely contested electorates. Using recent examples, they demonstrate how small shifts can affect individual seats and the overall composition of Parliament.
[16:07] Daniel explains how official election results are declared, including the publication of legal notices, the allocation of list seats, and the constitutional significance of the writ as the document that formally records elected representatives.
[18:52] The conversation concludes with a detailed look at recounts and election petitions. Daniel outlines the different types of recounts available, while Mark discusses notable historical challenges to election results, illustrating how these mechanisms safeguard confidence in New Zealand's democratic institutions.

Information in this podcast is correct as at the date of recording, 9 June 2026.
 
Please contact Daniel Fielding, Mark Calderwood or our Public law team, if you need legal advice and guidance on any of the topics discussed in this episode.
Don’t forget to rate, review or follow MinterEllisonRuddWatts wherever you get your podcasts.
You can also email us directly at website.enquiries@minterellison.co.nz and sign up wot receive election updates via your inbox here. 
For show notes and additional resources visit minterellison.co.nz/podcasts

Send us your feedback
In this episode, Partner Tom Maasland and Special Counsel Sonya Forbes from our Technology team discuss how to set technology transformation projects up for success from the outset. Drawing on lessons from major New Zealand public sector technology transformation projects, they explore the practical, commercial and legal steps organisations can take to improve outcomes and reduce the risk of cost overruns, delays and disputes.
[01:12] Sonya discusses the recent Immigration New Zealand's Biometric Capability Update (BCU) project and how it illustrates the challenges of large-scale technology transformations. Sonya and Tom then discuss incentive misalignment, where organisations rush to start projects to save time and money, often creating the conditions for greater delays, costs and failures further down the track.
[03:19] Tom and Sonya examine lessons from major New Zealand public sector technology transformation projects, including the Ministry of Education’s NovaPay payroll system, the Department of Corrections' rostering system for prisons, Immigration New Zealand’s BCU project and the Inland Revenue Department's successful business transformation. Through these examples they explain how the project outcomes are often ultimately shaped by decisions made well before implementation begins. 
[05:28] Sonya discusses the importance of leverage and timing when negotiating with suppliers. She explains why competitive tension in the procurement processes, market testing and preserving negotiating leverage are critical, and cautions against rushing contracts to meet arbitrary deadlines or leaving key issues to be resolved later.
[08:01] Tom and Sonya explore the importance of aligning business requirements with the chosen technology solution through key three pillars; consultation, discovery and validation. In terms of consultation, Sonya highlights how poorly defined requirements, limited stakeholder engagement and inadequate resourcing can lead to costly customisation and change requests.
[12:05] Sonya explains the role of discovery exercises, supplier due diligence and validation gates in ensuring a solution is fit for purpose. She outlines why organisations should assess product suitability early, identify gaps, retain contractual off-ramps and undertake rigorous testing and supplier due diligence before moving into implementation or production.
[18:12] Lastly, they consider some key legal mechanisms that should be built into technology contracts, including warranties for supplier representations. Using the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections v Fujitsu New Zealand Limited [2023] NZHC case as an example, they reinforce the value of upfront planning and due diligence in avoiding costly disputes and project failures, whether in the public or private sector.

Information in this episode is accurate as at the date of recording, 19 August 2026.

Please contact Tom Maasland, Sonya Forbes or our Technology team if you need legal advice and guidance on any of the topics discussed in the episode.
And don’t forget to rate, review or follow MinterEllisonRuddWatts wherever you get your podcasts. You can also email us directly at techsuite@minterellison.co.nz and sign up to receive technology updates via your inbox here.

Additional resources 
Tech Suite | Managing troubled tech projects
Review of the Biometrics Projects (Biometric capability update, BCCU and IPE projects) – April 2026
Transforming Inland Revenue Report – June 2022
Report of the Ministerial Inquiry into the Novopay – June 2013
Department of Corrections case – Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections v Fujitsu New Zealand Limited & Anor [2023] NZHC 3598
For show notes and additional resources visit minterellison.co.nz/podcasts