The BSA’s decision that it has jurisdiction to consider a complaint about an online broadcaster has stimulated discussion.
Here we fact check some statements made as part of this debate.
Accepting complaints about online broadcasters is overreach
The Broadcasting Act 1989 defines the BSA’s ‘reach’. It describes ‘broadcasts’ as audiovisual content that is transmitted to the public by any ‘form of telecommunication’. There are some exceptions written into the Act, but our position is that online broadcasters that host regularly scheduled programming for audiences to tune into, in the way we’ve always consumed TV and radio, are broadcasters and subject to standards.
This is censorship
We don’t have – and don’t seek – the power to censor media. Suggestions we could proactively target and remove content of any kind are wrong. We can act only in response to formal complaints. 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.
The BSA is shutting down free speech
That’s the opposite of what we’re doing. Freedom of expression is central to our work and the starting point for every BSA decision. We intervene only when potential harm meets the high threshold to outweigh this right. Over the past three years, in which there were many hours of broadcasts across New Zealand, we’ve upheld complaints just 20 times in 311 decisions. When we do find that the right to freedom of expression is outweighed by potential harm, we give clear reasons. We regularly test and adjust our approach against shifting societal values and norms by way of targeted reviews, research, and surveys.
The Bill of Rights Act recognises there are times when two or more rights conflict with each other. Sometimes, people use their own freedom of expression to shut down others’, by intimidation, harassment, or drowning out their message with false information. The Act recognises that in some cases, reasonable restrictions on what you can say in public actually protect freedom of speech for everyone – not just the loudest voices in the room.
We’ve made no ruling yet on whether The Platform’s content has breached standards.
The Authority is playing an obsolete role as ‘moral guardian’
Recent BSA research on public trust in news media showed New Zealanders still expect media to have standards. While, historically, complaints to the BSA were heavy with ‘moral’ offence about coarse language, sex and violence, they’re now overwhelmingly about accuracy and balance in news and current affairs. Accuracy was raised in 67% of the 94 complaints ruled on by the BSA in 2024/25 (just four decisions found accuracy breaches). Three-quarters of the year’s complaints related to news and current affairs. This shift shows audiences are seeking reliable information and paying close attention to the quality of news – and see an important role for the BSA in maintaining standards.
This decision opens the way for the BSA to take over the Internet
Incorrect. This decision has determined that the BSA can consider complaints about programmes streamed by an online broadcaster. The Authority has not found the BSA has jurisdiction over on-demand content delivered by the likes of Netflix, AppleTV, Prime Video, Disney+, YouTube or other overseas entities streaming content for New Zealand audiences; nor over personal online content posted or livestreamed by individuals.
Further research and consultation are needed to address the implications for any equivalent broadcasters and review our policies, procedures and codes. Our initial research suggests this will involve a limited number of entities.
The BSA is coming for your social media account
Wrong. We do not believe the definition of ‘broadcast’ in the Act generally covers individuals posting on their social media accounts.
The BSA is targeting The Platform because it doesn’t like its politics
We have dealt with this complaint under our existing policy about online broadcasters which we published in 2020, before this broadcaster existed. We can only start a complaints process if we receive a formal complaint from the public. We accepted a complaint about this broadcaster under our published policy – the first complaint referral we have received about an online broadcaster.
The BSA is imposing a ‘woke’ view of what’s ok/not ok to broadcast
We apply the standards in the Broadcasting Standards Codebook, which is developed with broadcasters and regularly reviewed in consultation with a wide range of stakeholders. Ongoing research, eg on offensive language, helps us ensure standards evolve with public expectations. We regularly survey the public to ensure our decisions meet expectations.
The BSA’s board is stacked with political appointments by the last Labour government
The BSA is an independent Crown entity. It operates independently of the Government and any political party. Members are appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Minister for Media and Communications. Three of our four current board members were appointed (Karyn Fenton-Ellis MNZM), or reappointed (John Gillespie and Chair Susie Staley MNZM), under the current National-led coalition government.
The Authority’s decision was predetermined and made in secret
The decision was neither predetermined nor secret. In October 2025, the BSA sent The Platform and the complainant a draft decision with a provisional view that it has jurisdiction to consider the complaint, and the reasons why. This reflected our existing policy about online broadcasters which has been publicly available since 2020 . The provisional decision was marked as ‘Draft’ and ‘Not for publication’, as per established process, inviting submissions before a final decision was made and published.
Before reaching its final decision, the Authority carefully considered submissions on jurisdiction from the broadcaster and the complainant, as well as Reality Check Radio (whose request we granted to make submissions as an intervener), along with a detailed legal opinion from media law experts at Lowndes Jordan which we’ve made publicly available.
The Authority is yet to consider the substance of the complaint it received about the broadcast.
The BSA is trying to rewrite law without the will of parliament
We’ve long said the Broadcasting Act is no longer fit-for-purpose and legislative reform is the best and cleanest solution. That’s still our position. Successive governments have proposed reforms that would extend regulation to certain online content. The current government’s Media Reform proposals envision regulation covering all “professional media” regardless of platform. We welcomed these and look forward to seeing them progressed.
In the meantime, we will continue to apply the Act in its existing form, consistent with the purpose it was created for.
It’s a major burden for a small broadcaster to meet standards requirements
Many small broadcasters have long operated within the standards system, including local rural broadcasters, iwi and ethnic outlets, student radio and access media stations. Many make use of free BSA training and resources on standards and the complaints process. Most don’t pay levies. These apply only if an outlet earns more than $500,000 a year from broadcasting in New Zealand. Of such revenue, 0.051% is payable – that’s $255 a year on revenue of $500,000. The BSA’s 2020 policy about online broadcasters said the Authority would not ‘seek to extend the levy or publicity notice requirements to providers of online content at this time’.
The BSA can fine broadcasters $100,000 for standards breaches and/or shut them down
This is wrong. A breach of standards can lead to a costs award of up to $5,000, and this maximum amount is rarely awarded. The BSA has no powers to shut a broadcaster down.