Yes. There's still no link to or quote of any legislation on that page. They claim to be licensed under a foreign jurisdiction's debt collection licensing regulation, but so do a whole lot of debt collection agencies, since NZ has no licensing regime they can use to attempt to prove legitimacy.
I was clearly citing an example.
No you weren't. You were saying they operate physically from Australia with ruthless disregard for New Zealand law, which is patently untrue given they physically operate in New Zealand, have done for years, and haven't been shut down by any government authority for ruthlessly disregarding New Zealand law.
That doesn't make sense.
Misrepresenting what someone wrote for the purpose of trying to prove it wrong is a strawman.
You said "just because they are Australian doesn't mean they have legal standing" which makes even less sense, since Right2Drive New Zealand Limited is not, in fact, Australian. They're clearly a company formed under the laws of New Zealand, and abide by New Zealand law. And they have legal standing because they exist in New Zealand and contract with New Zealand customers.
It's a major point, which is why (If you read the article linked by @shk292) the company in that instance tried to rope the hirer into court.
Quote from the article:
"The company says there is no question of Ashdown being charged legal fees or having to foot the hire bill if the court case fails: “Because the car hire documentation was in Ms Ashdown’s name she would have been named as the claimant if we were then forced to take the third party insurer to court."
It means even they think they don't have a leg to stand on so they will turn the hirer into a pawn in their game.
It's irrelevant, because courts in New Zealand and Australia do not in fact work like that. The general rule of insurance law in this part of the world is that prior to taking a subrogated claim against a tortfeasor (fancy word, but it's what's in the document), the insurer (or in this case, credit hire company) must offer an indemnity to costs incurred in respect of a failed claim. Hence, there is no way the UK situation described in the article would ever be relevant to New Zealand.