Winston Peters accuses broadcasting watchdog of ‘Soviet era stasi’ censorship

Wednesday, 15 October 2025

Foreign Minister Winston Peters has accused the broadcasting watchdog of “Soviet era stasi” censorship after it revealed it was looking to widen its remit to include online media networks, with potentially far-reaching implications.

The Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) currently only considers complaints about programmes on TV and radio, as well as with online and on-demand content that’s previously been broadcast.

“Why does the Broadcasting Standards Authority think they can make up their own rules in secret meetings to act like some Soviet era stasi,” Peters said in a social media post on Wednesday.

“The blatant overreach on display by the BSA now dictating they can censor and monitor anything transmitted on the internet is highly concerning. Can the BSA please tell us what the legal basis is for their recent outrageous action.”

But the BSA’s chief executive says some of the reactions to its plans have been “hysterical”, calling Peters’ comments in particular “a tad on the dramatic side”, and says the agency has no intention of censoring anyone.

Peters’ statement followed revelations that the BSA had, in a draft decision concluded it had jurisdiction to consider complaints about online broadcasts.

The draft decision may mean the BSA is willing to adjudicate on all video content broadcast in New Zealand, which could conceivably apply to social media networks.

The draft decision followed a complaint that was lodged against online media outlet The Platform, relating to comments made on July 22.

The complaint happened, according to the New Zealand Herald after Plunket referred to tikanga Māori as “mumbo jumbo” as he commented on a new kaupapa Māori proposal from Fire and Emergency New Zealand.

On July 31, the Herald reported that Richard Fanselow wrote to The Platform complaining. He wrote: “My complaint is about Mr Plunket so casually referring to all the customs and beliefs of Māori – tikanga – as mumbo jumbo – a term with a historic racist beginning.”

Sean Plunket, who founded and hosts the online show, responded to that complainant: “You plonker, we aren’t subject to the Broadcasting Standards Authority.”

But on his programme on Wednesday morning, Plunket revealed details of the BSA’s draft decision, in which it said it “considered The Platform was broadcasting when airing the relevant content”, and would therefore “consider the authority has jurisdiction and is therefore required to consider the complaint”.

It was thought to be the first time the BSA was considering a formal complaint about an online broadcaster, The Post reported. It has given Plunket until next month to submit on the decision.

“While this type of broadcasting may not have been contemplated when these provisions were drafted … legislation applies to circumstances as they arise,” the draft decision noted, according to The Post.

Plunket told The Post he didn’t think the BSA had such jurisdiction.

“If this were to stand, they would potentially be able to apply broadcasting standards and take and investigate complaints on anyone who put anything on the internet,” he said.

“I have told them, I’ve written to them, and I’ve said, ‘I do not recognise your authority. I will not take part in your bogus complaints procedure.’ I will hold the individual members of the BSA, and the BSA collectively, responsible for any damage financial or otherwise that I or my company suffer as a result of their actions.”

The Free Speech Union, a lobby group set up to champion “New Zealanders’ rights to freedom of speech, conscience, and intellectual inquiry”, called the BSA’s draft decision “a dangerous step”.

“If the BSA is allowed to extend its reach into podcasts and online media, it will be policing speech it was never designed to regulate,” chief executive Jillaine Heather said in a statement.

“This kind of mission-creep always starts with someone controversial. Today it’s Sean Plunket. Tomorrow it could be anyone who asks the wrong questions.”

Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour joined in the criticism, saying he expected an explanation from the BSA.

“When the Broadcasting Standards Authority was formed by Parliament in 1989, there was no internet,” he said.

“Parliament never asked them to police the internet, but they’re going after The Platform. They’ve decided it’s their job because a Broadcast is sound and pictures. Sounds like a brave move from them, I look forward to seeing their explanation.”

ACT MP Todd Stephenson, vowing to challenge the BSA’s decision, added: “This is a textbook example of a public agency trying to rewrite its own job description, expanding the bureaucracy, dismissing freedom of choice, and disregarding the boundaries of its democratic mandate.”

BSA chief executive Stacey Wood told Stuff some of the reactions to the draft decision were “hysterical”, and that the BSA was acting within the bounds of the Broadcasting Act in considering the complaint.

“We have no intention of acting outside the Act – our view is that online broadcasting that resembles a traditional TV or radio station falls within our existing jurisdiction,” she said.

“The definition of ‘broadcaster’ and ‘broadcasting’ in Section 2 of the Act isn’t limited to TV or radio – it talks about programmes transmitted to the public by any means of telecommunication. Laws often have to be applied to changing circumstances.

“Our position on this isn’t new. In 2019 we announced we were fully reviewing our jurisdiction to apply a modern interpretation of broadcasting. In 2020 we paused that review, partly due to announcements that our legislation would soon be updated. The best and clearest solution lies in legislative reform of media regulation, which we’ve called for for over 15 years.

“We don’t have – or seek – the power to censor media. Our interest is in ensuring the public have access to accurate, reliable media content, and a regulator they can turn to if they think standards are breached.”

Responding to Peters’ comments online, Wood echoed her statement, saying, “Maybe just a touch on the dramatic side? We haven’t (and can’t, and don’t want to) actually censor anyone. We have to apply the Act we have.”

What may worry some with a more liberal attitude towards free speech is research the BSA released in 2024 titled: Freedom of Expression and Harms to Diverse Communities

The PR accompanying the research noted: “This research explores the views and experiences of New Zealand’s Māori, Pacific Peoples, Asian and Muslim communities over the impacts of particular forms of expression, and how well the standards regime serves these communities.

“Only a minority of participants feel New Zealand has the right balance between freedom of expression and potential harm. A majority feels freedom of expression needs to be tempered by the need to respect the views of others.

“A large majority feel that exposure to offensive, discriminatory or controversial views is a problem, with around half saying they avoid public broadcasts based on the perceived amount of misinformation and inappropriate content.

“Social media is the most cited platform for seeing this content (and considered the most harmful) followed by free-to-air television and online news sites.”

It also wrote: “The BSA will use the findings to inform future decisions and to improve the way we serve diverse communities”.

Broadcasting Minister Paul Goldsmith told Stuff he could not, as minister, “comment on operational matters or individual cases”.

“However, my officials will be keeping me updated due to the potential impacts on media regulation,” they added.