Chief of axed Broadcasting Standards Authority says New Zealand still needs a media referee

Wednesday, 10 June 2026

Media and Communications Minister Paul Goldsmith said the decision was down to a need to level the regulatory playing field between traditional broadcasters and digital platforms.

Stacey Wood is the chief executive of the Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA).

OPINION: As new UK research shows fake news is three times more likely to spread in areas without trusted local media outlets, important questions remain over the future shape of media safeguards in New Zealand, writes Broadcasting Standards Authority chief executive Stacey Wood.

Cabinet’s decision to abolish the Broadcasting Standards Authority was either a surprise, or not, depending on your viewpoint and your familiarity with years of calls – not least from the BSA itself – to reform a Broadcasting Act that predates the internet.

The public response has been a case study in some of the problems with today’s information ecosystem.

As the dust has settled, there has been some thoughtful, nuanced debate about potential consequences – from media insiders, commentators and experts, and from communities who already experience harm from media, and fear more if legal protections are removed.

Misunderstandings about the law and our recent decision on online broadcasting are fair. It’s a complex topic most people don’t engage with every day.

Misrepresentation of the BSA’s actions and regulatory powers is more concerning. Portrayals of us as authoritarian enemies of free speech – out to take over the internet, police your social media, and take down broadcasters we don’t like – are at total odds with reality.

We fact checked some of the most inaccurate and widely circulated assertions here.

Anyone familiar with BSA decisions knows freedom of expression is the starting point for every one of them – we’ve intervened only when potential harm meets the high threshold to outweigh this right.

In a keynote speech I attended earlier this year, former Australian prime minister Malcolm Turnbull said two things that resonated with me. The first, quoting “founder of conservatism” Edmund Burke, was that “manners are more important than laws”.

Laws set minimum standards and are enforced by the state on the people. Manners are agreed between a society’s members, motivated by respect, and tell us how we treat each other with dignity. Yes, we have an Act that empowers the BSA, but the authority upholds few decisions and imposes even fewer orders. In the past three years, which saw hundreds of thousands of hours of broadcasts across the motu, it upheld complaints in 20 out of 311 decisions.

The Broadcasting Standards Authority made 311 rulings over the last three years, with only 20 complaints upheld.

None of those decisions led to broadcasters being “taken off the air” or going out of business. Instead, the strength of our system over 37 years has come through working with broadcasters and the public to agree what is acceptable behaviour in media. Breaches are few and the need to complain much reduced. Today’s low uphold rates are a sign, not of the system’s failure, but of its success.

When we have upheld complaints, it is to hold broadcasters to account for serious failings – like the promotion of a supposed (and false) “cancer cure”, a call for gay people to be executed, or a presenter phoning someone and not telling them they’re on the radio. In one case, a New Zealand couple’s argument about the paternity of their six-year-old daughter was broadcast, culminating in the live reveal of a DNA test result in front of the child and a studio audience. In many cases, there were no legal remedies outside the standards system – which, unlike court action, costs nothing for complainants to use.

None of this should be read as a case for retaining the BSA as we know it. For the best part of a generation, the authority has called for change – in full knowledge a future regulator would not look like today’s BSA.

Coming back to Turnbull, the second thing he said was that “democracies don’t fail when we disagree, but when people don’t believe the truth matters”.

In an age of AI and disinformation, we still believe the truth matters. Our main concern is to ensure people can still access accurate, trustworthy information, and a regulator they can turn to if they feel standards aren’t met.

The question has always been what will replace the 1989-vintage standards regime. We don’t think “nothing” is the right answer.

We’ve had input, when asked, on various proposals by successive governments. And we’ll assist officials as they work through the transition to new arrangements (while, as Media and Communications Minister Paul Goldsmith signalled, continuing our day-to-day role in the meantime).

Work towards changes will no doubt include developing answers to questions people will have, including:

How will media who opt out of self-regulation be accountable for accuracy, the most complained-about standard, amid a rising tide of AI and misinformation?
The Media Council might be comfortable expanding its remit to TV and radio, but will it also start taking complaints about content that’s not news or current affairs?
How about the BSA’s role in resolving complaints about election programmes by political parties and candidates?
If a new radio station starts up – let’s call it EXTREMISM 247 – with a breakfast show called The Racist Hour, shall we just tell people to turn it off?

Disestablishing the BSA is only half of a solution. Audiences and the community will need an outcome that not only continues to protect freedom of expression but also reflects the societal values, standards, an right to trustworthy information they’ve come to expect.