Law Professor Andrew Geddis Says Seymour’s Plan to Reshape RNZ Board Is Legally Questionable as More Appointments Loom

Regulation Minister David Seymour has signalled fresh changes to Radio New Zealand’s board and senior management, drawing legal pushback from constitutional law professor Andrew Geddis and a sharp rebuke from RNZ’s outgoing chair Jim Mather.

Speaking on The Platform last week, Seymour said the government would replace more RNZ board members in the coming months and predicted that chief executive Paul Thompson “won’t be answering the call at RNZ for much longer”. He told the programme “there’s a few more appointments to come” and linked them directly to changing the broadcaster’s editorial direction. The ACT leader, who serves as a shareholding minister for both RNZ and TVNZ alongside Finance Minister Nicola Willis, also criticised the recent appointment of John Campbell as host of Morning Report, arguing the hire “should have been out of the question” given columns Campbell had written about coalition leaders in 2023.

The intervention has prompted Otago University law professor Andrew Geddis to warn that the public airing of those views was “legally questionable” and risked breaching the spirit of the Radio New Zealand Act, which protects the broadcaster’s editorial independence from ministers. Geddis said “it’s very hard to see how the public can trust a public broadcaster when you have a politician saying, ‘I’m putting my people in charge of it, to get the people and the presenters telling you the news that I want them to tell’.” He added a sharper observation about the political moment, noting “there’s a rule in politics, that when politicians start attacking the media, they know they’re losing.”

Mather, who is stepping down from the RNZ board, issued a statement insisting that editorial independence at the public broadcaster was “fundamental and non negotiable”. He said decisions about hosts and stories “are made in accordance with journalistic merit” and that “political views, ministerial commentary, or external pressure play no role”. Mather warned that explicitly linking new board appointments to a desired editorial line “risks undermining confidence in RNZ’s independence”, a strikingly direct response from a chair to an incumbent minister.

Seymour denies he has crossed any legal line. In statements to media he insisted “I have not given RNZ or TVNZ any direction that would breach either Act” and acknowledged that “decisions around staffing, presenter line-ups, and editorial matters are for boards and management”. His critics argue the difficulty is precisely that boards are appointed by him, and that publicly naming a chief executive he expects to leave puts pressure on the very people he says are protected from ministerial interference.

Former New Zealand Herald editor Gavin Ellis put the concern bluntly. He told RNZ that “he is effectively telling Radio New Zealand who they should employ in an editorial role, and that is simply not for him to do”. Ellis said the comments fell short of the formal direction that broadcasting law explicitly forbids, but ran against its purpose, and he cautioned that the recent recovery in public trust in New Zealand journalism could easily be reversed by sustained political pressure on the country’s most-trusted newsroom.

Green Party co-leader Chloe Swarbrick described Seymour’s interventions as a “deeply dangerous precedent” and pointed to what she called a “problematic pattern of behaviour” stretching back months. Labour broadcasting spokesperson Reuben Davidson tied the dispute to the government’s separate decision to scrap the Broadcasting Standards Authority, arguing that removing an independent complaints regulator at the same time as reshaping the public broadcaster’s board narrows the avenues left for holding broadcasters of any stripe to account.

Media and Communications Minister Paul Goldsmith took a more measured tone, telling reporters that shareholding ministers properly set financial and audience expectations and approve board appointments, but do not direct day-to-day editorial calls. The distinction sits at the heart of the dispute, because Seymour’s public commentary about specific presenters and named senior managers blurs the line between governance and operations that Goldsmith has tried to draw.

The political context matters. AUT’s most recent Trust in News survey put general trust in New Zealand news at thirty-seven per cent, low by historical standards, with RNZ retaining its position as the country’s most trusted news brand. RNZ National’s live audience has fallen by more than a quarter since 2020, a slide ACT has used to argue the broadcaster is failing its mandate. Critics counter that linear radio audiences are falling everywhere and that RNZ’s online and podcast audiences continue to grow.

Election year now sits squarely on the horizon. National, ACT and New Zealand First each have public quarrels of varying intensity with RNZ and TVNZ, and how voters weigh those quarrels against the value they place on independent public-service journalism is shaping up as one of the quieter undercurrents of the 2026 campaign. New Zealanders who want to see how their values line up with each party’s broadcasting and media policies can use the Newswire voting tool to compare positions before they head to the polls.

What do you think? Has David Seymour gone too far in commenting on RNZ’s board, its presenters and its chief executive, or is he doing his job as a shareholding minister? Tell us in the comments below.