Statement of the Net Benefit of the Proposal, Including the Total Regulatory Costs (Administrative, Compliance and Economic Costs) and Benefits (Including Non-Quantifiable Benefits) of the Proposal, and Other Feasible Options
11. In the short to medium term, there is unlikely to be any significant reduction in the level of spam received. Combating spam requires harmonisation of global legislation and international cooperation; however, not all countries have anti-spam legislation or have multilateral agreements to cooperatively address the problem. Also anti-spam legislation in most countries has only been introduced in the past year or so and therefore has not yet been able to realise their full potential. Only aggressive enforcement of anti-spam legislation on a global basis will reduce spam levels in the longer term.
To Government
12. For the Government, enacting specific anti-spam legislation has the main benefits of:
- assisting to build confidence in the use of ICT for government purposes by minimising the negative effects of spam on ICT use - such purposes include the effective and efficient delivery of services to citizens online which reduces costs for government;
- ensuring New Zealand is being seen internationally as a responsible citizen by participating in multi-national efforts to deal with the global problem of spam.
13. The cost to Government is the cost of, providing written guides to the legislation, and administering and enforcing the legislation. Details of the cost to Government will be submitted to Cabinet in a separate paper, along with the enforcement options.
To Businesses
14. The main benefits to businesses are:
- in the longer term, a reduction in the level of spam received with consequent benefits for productivity and the costs of dealing with spam; and
- maintaining and furthering the integrity of and general confidence in electronic communication as a means of doing business with the consequent benefit of enabling businesses to operate more efficiently and reach a wider market base.
15. The costs to businesses are:
- The compliance costs associated with the legislation - see the attached Business Compliance Cost Statement;
- The costs associated with the lost opportunity caused by placing a restriction on the advertising practices of businesses (although such a restriction is in accordance with good e-marketing practice) by prohibiting businesses from sending e-marketing messages advertising their goods and services to prospective new clients who have not given their consent to such messages being sent.
16. For those businesses that already follow e-marketing best practice (these tend to be the banks, large corporations and direct marketers) the proposed legislation is likely to have very little, if any, impact.
To ISPs
17. The benefit for ISPs is, in the longer term, a reduction in the volume of spam being sent over their networks meaning a lesser burden on bandwidth and network infrastructure. ISPs will also benefit from their customers having greater confidence in email services if spam volumes are able to be reduced.
18. ISPs will face the cost in terms of the limits on e-marketing applying to businesses generally.
To Society
19. For individuals in society, not only will they ultimately benefit from having to waste less time dealing with unsolicited messages (once volumes are reduced in the long term), but they will also potentially receive less messages with objectionable material, scams or viruses. There is also the benefit that electronic communications as a viable form of communicating is able to be maintained and developed if spam volumes are able to be curbed.
20. On the other hand, in restricting the ability of businesses and others wishing to send commercial marketing or promotional messages, the freedom of individuals to send and receive information is restricted.
Back to Top