BSA grabs power over online speech, no law change required

 
MEDIA RELEASE 

1 April 2026 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

BSA grabs power over online speech, no law change required 

The Broadcasting Standards Authority has claimed jurisdiction over The Platform, an online media outlet, under the Broadcasting Act 1989. No law was changed. No Bill was passed. The BSA simply reinterpreted a statute written before the internet existed and decided it now regulates online speech. 

The complaint arose after broadcaster Sean Plunket described tikanga Maori as “mumbo-jumbo” during a programme on 22 July 2025. A complainant called the comments racist and referred the matter to the BSA. The BSA has not yet ruled on whether the comments breached any standard, but has determined it has the power to do so. 

“You do not have to agree with Sean Plunket. You do not have to like The Platform,” said Jillaine Heather, CEO of the Free Speech Union. “But a four-person Wellington panel, armed with a statute older than the World Wide Web, should not be deciding what New Zealanders can say on the internet. Parliament has been declining to give the BSA this power for over 20 years. The BSA has now simply helped itself.” 

Have it both ways 

To claim jurisdiction, the BSA adopts the broadest possible interpretation. Internet streaming is just “telecommunication.” The technology doesn’t matter. Broadcasting is broadcasting, whether over the airwaves or over WiFi. 

But then comes the long list of reassurances. This decision does NOT apply to Netflix, YouTube, Apple TV, Disney+, individuals posting online, overseas streamers, or text-based content. 

“The BSA cannot have it both ways,” said Heather. “If the technology is irrelevant, it is irrelevant for YouTube too. If clicking play on The Platform is not on demand, what exactly is clicking play on Netflix? The gymnastics required to claim jurisdiction over some internet publishers but not others is, to borrow a phrase, mumbo jumbo.” 

Regulating first, writing rules later 

The BSA admits it has no broadcasting code for online content. None. No consultation, no industry engagement, no published guidance. It will judge The Platform against “good taste and decency”, a standard it has not defined for the online context. Online broadcasters are now subject to a regulator that cannot tell them what the rules are. 

On free expression, the BSA’s reasoning is circular: the Broadcasting Act restricts speech, therefore extending it to restrict more speech online is justified. By that logic, there is no expansion of the Act that could ever fail a Bill of Rights test. 

“The BSA has also helpfully explained that there is no audience to which it is appropriate to direct misleading and materially inaccurate information,” said Heather. “Translation: the BSA would like to be the body that decides what counts as true. That is not the job of a broadcasting standards regulator. It is not the job of any regulator.” 

Parliament said no 

The BSA acknowledges it has been asking Parliament to update the Broadcasting Act for two decades. Parliament has not done so. That is not an invitation for a regulator to rewrite its own mandate. 

The Free Speech Union warned the Minister of Justice, Paul Goldsmith, in January that the BSA was preparing to assert jurisdiction over online media. We call on the Government to clarify that the Broadcasting Act does not extend to online content, and to ensure any future regulation of online speech goes through Parliament with the Bill of Rights Act at its centre. 

“If New Zealand wants to regulate online speech, that is a decision for elected representatives,” said Heather. “Not an unelected panel reinterpreting a law from the year the Berlin Wall came down.” 

ENDS 

Notes to editor: 

1. The BSA decision (ID2025-063) is an interlocutory jurisdiction decision dated 31 March 2026, published 1 April 2026. 

FSU Media Contact: Jillaine Heather | [email protected] | 

www.fsu.nz