Broadcasting minister told BSA to plan for 2027 - weeks before scrapping it

Thursday, 18 June 2026

Correspondence obtained by The Post sheds new light on the Government's decision-making before it moved to disestablish the Broadcasting Standards Authority. Stewart Sowman-Lund reports.

The broadcasting minister set out his expectations to the Broadcasting Standards Authority in March, making no mention of the possibility the agency could be headed for the scrapheap.

He received a response just days before the authority’s proposed axing was made public, with the regulator urging reform and acknowledging the current legislative framework was out of date.

Paul Goldsmith’s March 3 letter, sent just two months before the Government confirmed the agency would be disestablished, was released to The Post as part of a tranche of documents obtained under the Official Information Act (OIA).

In his letter, Goldsmith acknowledged the “challenges” faced by the BSA in an “out-dated regulatory environment”, and said it remained his goal to modernise media regulation during his time in office.

Read more:

• Gerry Brownlee ‘buying a fight’ over Stuff photo row, says former parliamentarian

• ‘You will not censor me’: Sean Plunket hits back after BSA looks to widen remit

• The Platform’s Sean Plunket claims ‘common sense’ victory as Government looks to scrap BSA

Goldsmith told the BSA’s chairperson that he expected the BSA to continue to operate “efficiently and effectively” in 2026 and 2027, and to seek operational improvements “wherever possible”.

He also asked it to support the Ministry for Culture and Heritage to undertake policy work on strategy, legislative and regulatory reform.

There is no mention in the letter that the BSA could be scrapped entirely, despite it being just a couple of months before the Government announced that decision on May 6.

The BSA was given just a couple of hours’ notice of the Government’s decision the authority was to be abolished, the authority’s boss Stacey Wood confirmed to The Post.

It also wasn’t consulted on its possible demise, though public comments by the Government made that outcome less surprising.

Goldsmith, in a statement, confirmed to The Post that the decision to disestablish the BSA was “made in May, and announced shortly thereafter”.

The BSA’s chairperson, Susie Staley, responded to the letter of expectation on April 30, a week before the authority’s abolition was announced, saying it still had a “valuable role” to play while work on possible reforms progressed.

“The need for regulatory reform remains our most significant and pressing challenge, and our greatest opportunity. Without reform, we risk becoming unable to deliver meaningful outcomes that protect New Zealanders from harm or contribute to a sustainable media sector,” wrote Staley.

“We have an opportunity to make the regulatory landscape in the media sector modern, effective, and fit-for-purpose. The threats of mis- and disinformation, decreasing competition in the local news economy, and perceptions of media influence and bias, have created an environment where the risk of harm from broadcasting (and media more generally) is heightened.”

She added: “However, we are not equipped with the legislative tools to effectively combat these risks in areas outside our current remit.”

The decision to axe the regulatory body came after scrutiny over its decision to consider a complaint for the first time about an online media outlet, namely The Platform, the right-wing website founded by provocative broadcaster Sean Plunket.

On April 1, the BSA determined it could consider the complaint, having previously released a draft decision in which it concluded it had jurisdiction “on the basis the transmission of the programme met the Broadcasting Act’s definition of ‘broadcasting’”.

Documents confirm Goldsmith met with the BSA in November last year to discuss the authority’s consideration of The Platform complaint.

The BSA acknowledged the “public attention” on the matter, saying it highlighted inconsistencies with the existing legislation.

“A modern and effective Act is an opportunity to create a fairer system that reflects where people are getting their news and other content,” said Staley in her April letter to Goldsmith.

“It is an opportunity to move from a complainant-driven model to pursue new risk-mitigation strategies in the education and engagement space, promote media literacy and critical analysis, and do more to support public trust in the media, beyond the broadcasting sphere.”

While media reform proposals have been sitting on the table since early last year, The Platform complaint appears to have hastened the Government’s moves to intervene.

In April, just weeks after sending his letter of expectation to the authority, Goldsmith told reporters there were three options on the table ‒ abolition, evolution or maintaining the status quo.

Legal advice provided to Goldsmith from the firm Franks Ogilvie, and obtained by The Post under the OIA, focuses on variations of these options. Franks Ogilvie provided advice to Goldsmith on behalf of the Free Speech Union, another group pushing for changes to media regulation, and was also engaged by The Platform to advise on the jurisdiction issue.

“The most straightforward reform would remove the standards and complaints regime from the Broadcasting Act. It would treat both traditional and online media in the same way,” the minister was told in November.

“This need not mean the creation of a ‘wild west’ in the media market – there are a number of voluntary options that could support standards in what is left of legacy broadcast media.”

If the minister did not believe in this “full de-regulation” approach, the legal advice suggested that the BSA should only be able to apply its standards over traditional radio and television broadcasters.

“That would freeze the regime and relieve the BSA of any pressure to extend its reach to spheres in which it is certain to look, and to be, ineffective.”

In January this year, analysis from ministry officials was presented to Goldsmith focusing on “option B” from the legal advice. The precise details of this option were not included in documents obtained by The Post, but ministry officials described it as an “opt-in regulatory model with the choice of a complaints resolution service for media entities”.

The advice noted that “Option B would not materially change or incentivise membership of the Media Council or other self regulatory bodies.

“There would be few incentives for new members to pay to join the Media Council or set up their own regulatory bodies if regulation was in effect ‘optional’. We imagine those currently outside the scope of the BSA or Media Council would remain so.”

The BSA’s chief executive Stacey Wood told The Post she shared these concerns.

“There’s been a fair bit of speculation about the Media Council stepping up to take on broadcasting ‒ I don’t doubt they’d have the expertise to do it, but do they want to?

“Even if they are fine with taking on the news side of things, there’s a lot of content sitting outside journalism and current affairs that is still up in the air,” said Wood.

“Hopefully if their scope is broadened as the Government is suggesting, they are adequately resourced to do the job.“

Goldsmith said the public would decide if it was willing to accept unregulated outlets.

“If certain outlets decide not to be regulated, I imagine their audiences will expect them to explain that decision,” he told The Post.

“Alternatively, they can just turn it off and listen to somebody else. Any entity, if they find that they're offending people and nobody listens to them, will soon be out of business.”