MinterEllisonRuddWatts

Send us your feedback
In this episode, privacy law specialists Richard Wells and Suzy McMillan discuss practical steps organisations can take to ensure their privacy policies remain fit for purpose in the face of growing AI use.
[01:21] Richard asks how the Privacy Act 2020 framework, and in particular Information Privacy Principle (IPP) 3, applies when organisations use AI. Suzy explains that the key starting point is determining whether AI is actually being used to process personal information, as this will trigger privacy obligations pursuant to the Act.
[03:06] Richard and Suzy discuss whether different types of AI require different levels of disclosure, noting that low-risk productivity tools generally impose a lesser disclosure burden than AI used for decision-making, eligibility assessments, or credit scoring purposes.
[04:42] Suzy and Richard talk through the practical information organisations should include in their privacy policies, including acknowledging the use of AI and explaining its purpose in plain language, clarifying who processes the personal data, and being transparent about whether data may be used to train or improve AI models.
[06:37] They then consider the AI guidance from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC) and the important role Privacy Impact Assessments (PIAs) play in ensuring privacy policies accurately reflect how AI tools process personal information.
[08:49] Suzy talks through the privacy implications of AI model training and secondary use of personal information, highlighting the importance of reviewing vendor contracts to ensure any AI providers' data practices align with an organisations privacy policy.
[11:42] Richard and Suzy close out the episode by considering what good AI disclosure should look like in practice and the key steps organisations should undertake to bring their privacy policy up to standard, including conducting thorough PIAs, reviewing vendor terms, ensuring compliance against IPP 3, and training staff on the appropriate use of AI tools.

Information in this episode is accurate as at the date of recording, 3 July 2026.

Please contact Richard Wells, Suzy McMillan 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 
Privacy Act 2020
Biometrics Processing Privacy Code 2025
Tech Suite | How to comply with IPP12: Cross border disclosures of personal information
AI-and-the-Information-Privacy-Principles (September 2023) | Office of the Privacy Commissioner.pdf
Does the Office of the Privacy Commissioner approve or endorse Artificial Intelligence providers? (November 2025) | Office of the Privacy Commissioner
For show notes and additional resources visit minterellison.co.nz/podcasts

Send us your feedback
In this episode of Level Playing Field, Sports law Partner Richard Wells, and Senior Associate Sarah Redding, discuss sponsorship agreements in New Zealand sport. They explore the key elements of sponsorship arrangements, common areas of legal risk, and practical considerations for both rights holders and sponsors when negotiating, managing and enforcing sponsorship relationships. Their discussion highlights the importance of clear drafting, aligned expectations and strong relationship management in maximising the value of sponsorship partnerships.
[00:05] Richard and Sarah introduce sponsorship agreements and outline their role in governing the commercial relationship between sports organisations and sponsors. They discuss the importance of clearly defining sponsorship rights and balancing certainty with flexibility when delivering sponsorship benefits.
[04:33] Sarah begins by talking about exclusivity, sponsorship categories and commercial value and explain why carefully defining exclusivity rights, sponsorship fees, payment structures and contract terms is critical to avoiding disputes and protecting revenue opportunities.
[07:20] They discuss the common causes of sponsorship disputes, particularly vague drafting and informal arrangements that develop over long-term relationships. This highlights the risks that arise when commercial understandings are not fully reflected in written agreements.
[10:43] Richard and Sarah explore athlete obligations, intellectual property rights and branding considerations, and discuss the importance of aligning sponsorship commitments with athlete agreements, as well as ensuring IP licences, approval processes and exclusivity provisions are clearly documented.
[13:28] Richard and Sarah share practical guidance on dispute resolution in sponsorship relationships. They discuss the benefits of escalation procedures, preserving commercial relationships where possible, and ensuring governing law and dispute resolution provisions are carefully considered, particularly where overseas sponsors are involved.
[15:58] The discussion concludes on renewal rights, confidentiality obligations and relationship management. Richard and Sarah emphasise the value of detailed agreements, active contract management and ensuring both parties clearly understand the rights and obligations they are committing to throughout the sponsorship term.

Information in this episode is correct as at the date of recording, July 1 2026.

Please contact Richard Wells, Sarah Redding or our Sports law team if you need any legal advice and 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, MinterEllisonRuddWatts Senior Associate Mark Calderwood is joined by Partner and Public law lead Briony Davies and Special Counsel Daniel Fielding. They explore how government decision‑making is shaped during an election year, focusing on the pre‑election period of restraint and the post‑election Caretaker Convention. The discussion highlights why these conventions matter for those engaging with government, and outlines the practical implications for policy development, legislative activity, and public sector decision‑making.
[00:05] Mark introduces the episode and its focus on election‑year constraints on government decision‑making. Briony outlines the practical importance of the topic, noting strong client interest in how these conventions affect engagement with government across sectors.
[02:10] Daniel explains the key structural changes during an election year, including reduced Cabinet decision‑making capacity before the election and the operation of the Caretaker Convention afterwards. He emphasises the need for early planning to progress matters ahead of these constraints.
[04:11] Briony discusses the pre‑election “period of restraint”, clarifying that while governments retain full authority, they typically limit significant decisions. Practical examples illustrate how this convention operates, particularly in relation to appointments.
[06:12] Daniel outlines the Caretaker Convention following an election, including its two forms depending on whether the outcome is clear. He explains the expectation that outgoing governments avoid major decisions and, where necessary, act on the advice of the incoming administration.
[08:21] They discuss situations where election outcomes are uncertain. Daniel describes the need to defer or manage significant decisions cautiously, while Briony explains how the convention influences public sector conduct and requires careful judgment across agencies.
[10:09] Briony outlines how ministers approach decision‑making during the caretaker period, often seeking guidance or exercising caution. Daniel adds that Official Information Act processes continue as usual, subject to limited exceptions where consultation may be required.
[13:42] Briony explains how parliamentary processes change in an election year, including reduced sitting time, constrained legislative opportunities, and shorter consultation windows. She notes the resulting pressure on the legislative programme.
[15:01] Daniel provides practical guidance for engaging with the legislative process during this period, emphasising the importance of early preparation, monitoring of bills, and developing clear policy positions to respond within tighter timeframes.
[16:54] The hosts discuss with practical strategies for influencing outcomes late in the parliamentary cycle, including seeking cross‑party support and focusing on regulatory or secondary legislative changes where possible, given limited capacity for new policy development.

 Information in this podcast is correct as at the date of recording, 9 June 2026.

Please contact Briony Davies, 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
For show notes and additional resources visit minterellison.co.nz/podcasts
For show notes and additional resources visit minterellison.co.nz/podcasts

Send us your feedback
In our first episode of Level Playing Field, Sports law Partner Richard Wells and Senior Associate Sarah Redding discuss the issues shaping sports law in New Zealand.
[00:05] Richard and Sarah open the episode by explaining Name, Image and Likeness (NIL) rights in New Zealand sport. They outline why NIL is becoming increasingly important for athletes, governing bodies and commercial partners, particularly as new forms of content continue to reshape how athletes are seen, and monetised, beyond the field of play.
[02:12] Sarah begins by explaining the starting point of the legal position in New Zealand. Unlike some overseas jurisdictions, there is no standalone legal right protecting a person’s name, image or likeness. Instead, NIL rights are entirely contractual in nature. While limited remedies may be available under existing laws, such as the Fair Trading Act or passing off, these do not provide a positive right to control or commercialise identity. As a result, the structure and wording of contracts remain central to how NIL is managed across the sports sector.
[04:42] Richard and Sarah discuss how traditionally, NIL has been divided into two well-understood categories. First, team-branded NIL, which is typically assigned to governing bodies through collective agreements and used alongside team intellectual property for sponsorship, merchandising and broadcast purposes. Secondly, personal NIL, which athletes retain and can commercialise independently through endorsement deals and other opportunities unrelated to their team role. This division has historically provided a clear and workable framework for both athletes and sports organisations.
[08:02] They consider, the rise of behind-the-scenes and athlete-led content is beginning to challenge that framework. Documentary-style series, player access content and fan engagement events often feature athletes in non-branded settings, presenting them as individuals rather than uniformed representatives of a team. While this content is clearly sport-related and often produced by governing bodies, it does not sit neatly within traditional concepts of either team-branded or personal NIL. The result is a growing area of uncertainty around ownership, control and the sharing of commercial value.
[14:39] Richard and Sarah discuss practical implication is that existing contractual arrangements may no longer be fit for purpose. Richard and Sarah suggest that governing bodies and player associations should proactively review and update their agreements to reflect this evolving landscape. In particular, there may be value in introducing a clearer, three-category framework—distinguishing between team-branded use, personal use, and a new hybrid category of sport-related but unbranded content. Greater clarity around consent, control and revenue sharing will be key, alongside careful due diligence by commercial partners to ensure rights are properly secured before content is produced or released.
 
Information in this episode is accurate as at the date of recording, 11 June 2026.
 
Please contact Richard Wells, Sarah Redding or our Sports 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 website.enquiries@minterellison.co.nz and sign up to receive technology updates via your inbox here. 
For show notes and additional resources visit minterellison.co.nz/podcasts

Send us your feedback
In this episode, Technology Partner Tom Maasland and Litigation Senior Associate Oliver Sutton revisit the evolving intersection of artificial intelligence and legal privilege, highlighting some recent court decisions and the impact they may have in this area of law.
[00:58] Tom and Oliver open the episode with a brief recap of their earlier Tech Suite episode on AI and legal privilege, noting that emerging case law is now offering clearer judicial guidance on how legal privilege applies in the context of the use of artificial intelligence tools.
[03:00] Oliver discusses and compares two recent U.S. decisions; United States v. Heppner, 25 Cr. 503 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2026), and Warner v. Gilbarco, 820 F. Supp. 3d 629 (E.D. Mich. 2026), each of which considered the impact of the use of AI tools on legal privilege. The cases reached different outcomes, highlighting how fact-specific these determinations are likely to be.
[08:38] They then consider a UK Upper Tribunal decision, UK and R (on the application of Munir) v SSHD [2026] UKUT 81 (IAC), in which it was suggested that the use of open-source AI tools is likely to breach client confidentiality and result in a waiver of legal privilege, while noting that closed source enterprise AI systems may present a lower risk.
[10:03] Tom and Oliver discuss the implications of these decisions in a New Zealand context and in the absence of more direct guidance from New Zealand courts.
[10:51] Oliver then talks through four practical takeaways from these cases for practitioners and clients navigating AI use in a legal setting.

Information in this episode is accurate as at the date of recording, 5 June 2026.

Please contact Tom Maasland, Oliver Sutton or our Litigation 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 | Legal privilege meets artificial intelligence
United States v. Heppner, 25 Cr. 503 (S.D.N.Y. Feb 10, 2026)
Warner v. Gilbarco, 820 F.Supp.3d 629 (E.D. Mich. 2026)
UK and R (on the application of Munir) v SSHD [2026] UKUT 81 (IAC)
For show notes and additional resources visit minterellison.co.nz/podcasts