Pillar NZ is urging lawmakers to think carefully about key parts of the Telecommunications and Other Matters Amendment Bill, warning that the proposed changes could undermine privacy, damage public trust, and push major digital communications providers away from the New Zealand market.
The Bill, championed by Minister Paul Goldsmith, expands the extra-territorial reach of New Zealand's existing interception laws. While domestic providers are already required to support lawful interception when a valid warrant is issued, the new framework would compel overseas platforms including encrypted messaging services to comply as well.
Pillar NZ Executive Director Nathan Seiuli says the intent to address serious crime is understandable, but the approach risks unintended consequences for privacy and civil liberties.
"There is a legitimate need to target real criminal activity happening on platforms like Telegram and Signal," says Seiuli. "But expanding the reach of state interception powers without clearly written definitions, boundaries and strengthening accountability only creates a tool that future governments could misuse or reinterpret, and that should worry every New Zealander."
Seiuli notes that while the Bill does not grant new surveillance powers, it significantly expands the reach of existing ones under the Telecommunications Interception Capability and Security Act. This includes new enforcement tools, increased information sharing between agencies, and the ability to obligate overseas service providers in ways that may be seen as excessive.
"New Zealand is not a major market. If global platforms decide our requirements are too invasive, they may simply pull their services," says Seiuli. "If legislated haphazardly, we risk isolating ourselves and weakening the very digital infrastructure we rely on."
Pillar NZ is calling for amendments and clarifications that reinforce proportionality limits, protect encryption, restrict unnecessary information sharing, and ensure strong independent oversight of extra-territorial enforcement.
"Creating legislative powers is one thing. Exercising them with integrity, transparency, and genuine respect for individual liberty is another," says Seiuli. "When choosing between state benevolence and individual freedom, freedom must always be the path forward."