Government Signals End of Broadcasting Standards Authority After Coalition Pushback

The Broadcasting Standards Authority looks set to be abolished, with Media and Communications Minister Paul Goldsmith declaring this week that scrapping it is “probably the tidiest solution” as all three coalition parties have now aligned behind the push to disestablish the 37-year-old regulator.

The BSA was created under the Broadcasting Act 1989 as an independent Crown entity with powers to handle complaints about radio and television content. It can order broadcasters to make on-air statements or corrections and levy fines of up to $5,000. But its relevance in a digital media age has been thrown sharply into question after it claimed jurisdiction over Sean Plunket’s internet-based news service, The Platform.

The controversy centres on a complaint made to the BSA about Plunket’s comments describing karakia and tikanga Māori as “mumbo jumbo.” The BSA ruled it has jurisdiction because The Platform’s programme “meets the Act’s definition of broadcasting” — a finding Plunket disputed and pledged to fight. “It is a hill I’m prepared to die on,” he told his supporters.

The ruling sparked immediate condemnation from New Zealand First leader Winston Peters, who called it “bordering on fascist” and displaying “breathtaking audacity.” Peters went further, calling on the government to act decisively. “Frankly, they should go. They should be abolished. They’re out of time,” he said, and indicated NZ First would back ACT’s private member’s bill to wind the authority up.

ACT leader David Seymour was equally sharp, characterising the BSA as “a creature of 1989 — before the internet existed” and arguing it was “clearly overstepping its mandate” in today’s digital environment. ACT MP Laura McClure filed the member’s bill, calling the BSA “a legacy institution that has outlived its usefulness.”

Minister Goldsmith, speaking publicly at a meeting this week and confirming his position to Newstalk ZB, said abolition was his preferred option. “It’s become arbitrary as to who’s covered and who’s not covered,” he said, “and so I think probably the tidiest solution is to revert to a Media Council-style arrangement.” He emphasised no final decisions had been made, with three options still on the table — keeping the BSA as it is, narrowing its scope, or abolishing it — but the direction is clear.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon was drawn into the debate when Plunket claimed Luxon had previously assured him, “Don’t worry mate, we’ve got your back on this.” Luxon denied the conversation, saying his government had “not interfered in this process at all.”

The Media Council, which Goldsmith cited as a potential model for what would follow a BSA abolition, is a voluntary, non-governmental body covering newspapers and online news outlets. Unlike the BSA, it has no enforcement powers and cannot impose fines. Critics argue that replacing a statutory regulator with a voluntary one would strip New Zealanders of meaningful avenues for complaint, particularly around content that is harmful, discriminatory, or misleading.

Former New Zealand Herald editor Gavin Ellis has called for something more comprehensive than a simple transfer to the Media Council model. He described the current regulatory framework as “a clutter of separate regulatory bodies” and argued that only a Royal Commission could deliver the thorough overhaul the sector genuinely needs. His view reflects broader concern among media observers that a rushed or piecemeal reform could leave significant gaps.

The Free Speech Union has broadly welcomed the government’s direction but warned that the details will matter enormously. Its preferred option goes further than the ACT bill, proposing that the BSA, the Media Council, and the Harmful Digital Communications Act framework all be folded into a single new body — a Media and Communications Authority — with clear and consistent jurisdiction across all platforms.

At the core of the debate is a structural problem that has been building for years. The BSA was built for a broadcasting environment in which a small number of licensed providers produced content and audiences consumed it passively. That environment is gone. Podcasters, streaming platforms, YouTube channels, and subscription-based news services now reach audiences as large as any traditional broadcaster, yet occupy an uncertain position in law. The Platform’s case has made that uncertainty undeniable.

No legislation has been signalled yet, and Goldsmith’s comments fall short of a firm policy commitment. But with the ACT member’s bill already in the pipeline and both Peters and Seymour demanding abolition, the pressure on the government to act before the November 2026 election is considerable. Whether any replacement framework can genuinely serve the public interest — or whether it simply hands media operators a freer run — remains the question New Zealanders will want answered.

What do you think about the push to scrap the Broadcasting Standards Authority? Should New Zealand maintain a formal regulator with enforcement powers, or is a voluntary model good enough? Share your thoughts in the comments below.