BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary 

[This summary does not form part of the decision.] 

Following its interlocutory decision finding it has jurisdiction under the Broadcasting Act 1989 to consider a complaint about The Platform’s Live Talkback,¹ the Broadcasting Standards Authority has determined two complaints about online broadcasts by The Platform on 22 July 2025 and 15 October 2025 – both of which have been upheld.

22 July 2025 broadcast: Upheld – s 4(1)(a) good taste and decency

15 October 2025 broadcast: Upheld – s 4(1)(b) law and order; s 4(1)(c) privacy 

No Order 

Introduction and executive summary

[1]  This is the first decision made by this Authority in relation to a complaint about an online broadcaster and, in light of the Government’s announced intention to abolish the Authority, it may be the last. It demonstrates the public protection objectives of the broadcasting standards system, but also shows the limits and obsolescence of the current regulatory model, and the risks to the public when standards are breached or ignored. 

[2]  The decision relates to two complaints by the same person, about two related broadcasts on 22 July and 15 October 2025 by The Platform Media New Zealand Limited (The Platform). 

[3]  The first complaint related to what the complainant described as ‘unacceptable racist comments’ by The Platform’s founder and morning talk show host, online broadcaster Sean Plunket, while discussing Fire and Emergency New Zealand’s (FENZ) proposal about its Kaupapa Māori strategy. The Authority’s acceptance and consideration of that complaint was discussed during the 15 October 2025 broadcast. This is the subject of the second complaint, which focused on comments made by Plunket about the complainant: comments which ridiculed him, shared his private information with listeners, and led to the complainant experiencing abuse, harassment and threats.

[4]  Public commentary about these complaints has reduced their substance down to a comment by Plunket comparing tikanga Māori to mumbo jumbo. From the beginning, this has been an oversimplification. The ‘mumbo jumbo’ comment was made amid sustained vitriol, ridicule and anti-Māori sentiment that denigrated Māori, including the use of te reo Māori and consideration of tikanga by public sector organisations. 

[5]  Freedom of expression is a vitally important human right and the starting point of every decision we issue. The Authority wishes to make it clear that this was never just about calling tikanga ‘mumbo jumbo’. 

[6]  The second complaint has been upheld as a serious breach of the privacy standard. The Authority also finds it was a breach of the broadcaster’s responsibility to uphold standards that maintain law and order. Plunket disclosed the complainant’s full name at least 10 times in the context of a series of disparaging comments and untruths about him. Later the same day, the Authority’s correspondence was posted by The Platform online, including the complainant’s name and email address. This was despite explicit notice that the information was not for publication, which should have been a signal that it contained private information. As a direct result of the broadcaster’s actions, the complainant said he received a threatening email almost immediately and subsequently received many more abusive messages. The complainant is still the target of mocking and abusive comments online even on matters unrelated to The Platform.

[7]  Freedom of expression has always come with limits. Media entities, particularly those who reach a large audience, have the power to influence public opinion and behaviour. The complainant was singled out by name for ridicule and belittlement, and The Platform could reasonably be expected to foresee the threats and abuse that followed.

[8]  However, given the novel circumstances of these complaints, being the first time our jurisdiction has been applied to an online broadcaster, the length of time since the complaints were received (whilst jurisdiction issues were worked through) and the evolving and uncertain regulatory landscape, we will not make any orders in relation to the standards breaches.

[9]  A summary of the broadcasts and the reasoning for our decision are set out below. A more detailed description and transcripts of relevant parts of the broadcasts are included separately in Appendix 1 due to their length.

The broadcasts

22 July 2025

[10]  During the 22 July 2025 online broadcast of Plunket Unchained on The Platform’s Live Talkback (7am–10am), host Sean Plunket discussed ‘Fire and Emergency Services’ new Kaupapa Māori proposal’. Opening the show, Plunket said: 

We’ve got a great show for you this morning. I’m going to uncover the latest piece of woke Māorification in our government and it is a doozy from the fire service […].

[11]  After the opening news bulletin, Plunket explained someone had sent the FENZ report to him anonymously and he read out the page highlighted by that person, with interjecting comments from Plunket as follows:

Plunket:          Right, let’s have a look at a story […] it’s a report from the Fire and Emergency Services in New Zealand […] they run our fire stations and our rescue services. They’re very important people. And their chief executive was a guy called [name]. And he’s got some proposals for realignment of Fire and Emergency’s functions. And most of it seems like a pretty meaningful push to make the outfit more efficient, deliver more bang for your taxpayer’s buck. And of course, the fire service is run by insurance levies and the like, very important – save people’s lives, save people’s properties. You wouldn’t have thought, would you– and don’t forget I read this in the context of having a government for a year and a half and a Prime Minister who said only recently he’s going to get rid of Māorification in the public service. 

But here is what the boss of the Fire and Emergency New Zealand […] had to say […].

[Reading]        ‘I’m proposing to realign the functions of the Kaupapa Māori and Cultural Communities Branch so that this important mahi–’

Plunket:          Which I think is the Māori name for work. 

[Reading]         ‘…is more closely connected with other capability-building efforts across the organisation. The proposal involves moving our Pou Takawaenga Māori | Māori Liaison Officers into a renamed Operational Response Branch, aligning their work more closely with our broader operational and engagement efforts. […] Similarly, our Pou Whirinaki Cultural Capability Team would transition to the People branch where they can work alongside teams focused on leadership, development, and organisational culture.’ 

Plunket:          Why do Fire and Emergency need to be cultural? What has that got to do with fighting fires? That’s me asking that. Now this is the real interesting paragraph. 

[Reading]        ‘These proposed changes would help embed Kaupapa Māori throughout all areas of our work by integrating our internal cultural capability initiatives–’

Plunket:          Word salad. 

[Reading]         ‘…with our wider efforts to build a safe, positive and inclusive workplace. We can create stronger, more consistent outcomes.’ 

Plunket:          Does that mean you’ll put out more fires? 

[Reading]        ‘It will also allow us to better align our engagement with Māori communities and our operational work leading to a greater reach and impact.’ 

Plunket:          Does that mean you’ll put out more fires more efficiently, or not? 

[Reading]        ‘Rather than keeping this work within one branch, this approach encourages the whole organisation to take shared responsibility for delivering on Rautaki Māori.’ 

Plunket:          Whatever that is. 

[Reading]         ‘I’m also proposing the creation of a Pou Ārahi Kaupapa Māori and Cultural Communities role to provide strategic and operational and cultural leadership, ensuring that te ao Māori perspectives, values and tikanga–’ 

Plunket:          Tikanga, which is just mumbo jumbo stuff. 

[Reading]         ‘…are ingrained in how we function.’ 

Plunket:          Will that help you put out more fires more efficiently, I wonder? 

[Reading]        ‘The role would help ensure our services, policies and programmes are culturally appropriate.’ 

Plunket:          I never realised a fire engine had to be culturally appropriate and effective for the many different cultures across Aotearoa New Zealand – well, it’s called New Zealand, not Aotearoa New Zealand. This doesn’t look to help any other culture but the Māori culture, does it, [FENZ Chief Executive]? 

                        […]

[Reading]         ‘…the Pou Ārahi can work across multiple teams and layers to remove barriers to embed te ao Māori and cultural perspectives into our work to keep us accountable to our commitment to Māori as tangata whenua.’ 

Plunket:          Well, I’m tangata whenua too, mate. And what commitment is this? Is that written down in your act? 

[Reading]        ‘They can maintain independence to focus on their specialist advisory mandate without being tied to day-to-day operational managers of this organisation. Having this role report directly…’

Plunket:          Oh blah blah blah blah. 

[Reading]        ‘I want to be really clear, this is not about taking Kaupapa Māori out of the organisation.’ 

Plunket:          Clearly. 

[Reading]        ‘These proposed changes would help us ensure the work of Kaupapa Māori becomes a part of everything we do by encouraging all parts of the organisation to take ownership rather than it being siloed in one area.’ 

Plunket:          So, there we go. Māorification of the fire service. What is that even doing in there, I wonder? […] So, what are your thoughts? Is this a sort of Māorification that you want, or you voted for? 

[12]  Plunket later recapped (approximately 21 minutes into the show):

All right, I’ve laid out for you the super woke proposals to embed tikanga Māori in the Fire and Emergency New Zealand culture. For what reason, God only knows. And even he would– I don’t know, he’d have to drop a karakia to figure it out, I think. What happened to stopping Māorification? […] I thought this was all stopping. I was wrong.

[13]  Plunket had exchanges with numerous callers and read out numerous listener texts on the FENZ issue throughout the three-hour broadcast (in between discussing other topics), all of which appeared to align with Plunket’s criticism of the FENZ proposal and ‘Māorification’ of emergency and other public services. There were at least 17 references to ‘Māorification’ (or variations) and FENZ’s Kaupapa Māori proposal was variously described as ‘ludicrous’, ‘ridiculous’, ‘nonsense’, ‘nuts’, ‘stupidity’, ‘utter crap’, ‘Māorification rubbish’ and ‘woke’ by Plunket and his listeners.

15 October 2025

[14]  On 14 October 2025, the Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) emailed to The Platform a draft interlocutory decision finding the Authority had jurisdiction to consider WK’s complaint about the above broadcast. The Authority’s correspondence stated, ‘Please note that each page [of the decision] is marked “Not for Publication” and the draft is confidential to you and the complainant, for you to provide feedback on the jurisdiction issues it addresses.’ The complainant was anonymised in the Authority’s draft decision, referred to as ‘WK’, but not anonymised in the correspondence (since he had already complained directly to The Platform using his full name). 

[15]  Opening his show the following day, 15 October 2025, Plunket said:

And what a show we have for you today. I’m going to start – if you want to – I’m gonna ask your opinion on this by explaining to you the greatest existential threat to this organisation, to The Platform and the free speech it exercises, we have ever experienced. And I want your views on how we proceed to the attack that is coming against us.

[16]  Following the opening news bulletin and listener calls and texts encouraging him to share the Authority’s correspondence, Plunket discussed the Authority’s communication in detail and read out the Authority’s email correspondence, the draft decision and WK’s complaint to the Authority. In doing so, Plunket disclosed the complainant’s full name at least 10 times. His comments about the complainant included the following:

Plunket:        I also wish to share with you the person, the left-wing activist, who sparked this complaint. […] I’ll read you the [Authority’s] letter. 

[Reading]      ‘Kia ora, [complainant’s full name]–’ 

Plunket:        [Complainant’s full name], who I understand runs a charity connected with the global woke outfit [name of lobby group] who are woke activists and actually got a petition going to have me thrown off the Broadcasting Standards Authority years ago. Well– 

[Reading]      ‘[Complainant’s full name] has referred a complaint about you, your 22nd of July broadcast, to the Authority. […] Please note that each page is marked “not for publication”–’ 

Plunket:       So f-ing what? 

[Reading]      ‘…and the draft is confidential to you and the complainant–’ 

Plunket:       Well, I have made no assurances prior to receiving this that I would abide by that confidentiality. I’m presuming there is not a suppression order on this, so if you send something to a journalist you can expect it’s going to be published […].

[…] 

I’ll read the complaint to you, and it’s from [complainant’s full name] and I can remember this guy complaining at the time. He’s written to [the BSA]. 

[Reading]      ‘Hello Broadcasting Standards Authority. Below is a request for comment from The Platform about what I consider–’

Plunket:        It wasn’t a complaint, it was a request for comment from The Platform. 

[Reading]      ‘…about what I consider to be unacceptable racist comments made by Mr Plunket online.’

Plunket:        Not broadcasting, online.

[Reading]      ‘I was doing so following your process of contacting the media outlet first. Hopefully the description of what I complained about is clear enough, the word used was actually that tikanga is mumbo jumbo.’ 

Plunket:       Yes, I did say that and I still believe it. Tikanga is mumbo jumbo, [complainant’s full name]. Tikanga is mumbo jumbo. Stick that up your jumper.  

[Reading]      ‘And the response from The Platform was pretty clear too. Are they correct that they are not covered by your standards? Is there any kind of remedy for this obviously racist talk? [Complainant’s full name].’ 

Plunket:        Thanks, [complainant’s first name]. And when [complainant’s first name] wrote to me, he said, ‘I think that’s unacceptable, this is a complaint under the Broadcasting Standards Authority,’ and I just said,  ‘you plonker, we aren’t subject to the Broadcasting Standards Authority.’ And [complainant’s first name] runs off to the Broadcasting Standards Authority. 

Now, I don’t think his complaint’s got any merit. The only thing that I did wrong was said something that [complainant’s first name], who’s a wokester, disagreed with. But that’s what freedom of speech is. That’s what public debate is. So, did, when [complainant’s full name] ran off to the BSA, did they come to me and say look we’ve got an issue with this, let’s talk about it? No, they didn’t.

[17]  Plunket read out the Authority’s draft decision. He later named the complainant again while further discussing the topic of the BSA: 

But as I said, if the BSA is allowed to, on its own whim – woke whim – put us under its control, it is the end of The Platform. It is impracticable to continue with the woke lobbyists and the Green Party supporters lining up and making stupid complaints. 

Oh, by the way, [complainant’s full name], I think tikanga is mumbo jumbo. You wanna lay another complaint, sweetheart? Tikanga, in my opinion, is mumbo jumbo, [complainant’s full name]. 

[Complainant’s first name] runs a charity aligned with [name of lobby group] which is a Green Party-affiliated action lobby network who run campaigns against people they don’t like, including running a campaign and a petition against me when I was on the Broadcasting Standards Authority, which made it impossible for me to continue.

[18]  There was further lengthy discussion by Plunket throughout the programme that was strongly critical of the BSA, including listener texts in support of Plunket and The Platform, at least two of which named the complainant again. 

[19]  Later on 15 October 2025, The Platform published the Authority’s full correspondence on The Platform’s website and Facebook page. Both included the complaint in its entirety, which clearly displayed the complainant’s full name and email address. Comments reacting to the Facebook post strongly disagreed with the complaint and called the complainant, for example, ‘a blubbering idiot’, ‘a loser’ and a ‘whinger’.

The complaints and the broadcaster’s response

First complaint – 22 July 2025 broadcast

[20]  On 31 July 2025, WK emailed The Platform with the subject line, ‘Broadcasting Standards Authority Complaint’, saying:

a)  ‘[…] a definition of a racist is someone who spends a disproportionate amount of time focusing on just one racial group, mainly to emphasise negative characteristics.’ This is ‘pretty much a definition of The Platform and its male [hosts]’.

b)  ‘My complaint is about [Plunket] so casually referring to all the customs and beliefs of Māori – tikanga – as mumbo jumbo – a term with a historic racist beginning. Casually as if such a description is of no consequence – it’s what most people think. It is what [Plunket] may think – coming as it did in the middle of his sarcastic, scornful references to a Māori issue, complete with his totally childish exaggerated and drawn-out pronunciations of Māori words.’

c)  The complainant submitted arguments (including some reasoning developed with generative artificial intelligence) that Plunket’s description of tikanga was inappropriate and harmful because it: 

i.  is disrespectful, dismissive and offensive; ‘it demeans the deeply held beliefs and practices of the Māori people’

ii.  demonstrates ignorance and a lack of understanding of the complexity, richness and significance of tikanga Māori

iii.  undermines cultural identity

iv.  promotes division and misunderstanding: ‘Comments like these can sow division, perpetuate negative stereotypes, and hinder efforts towards reconciliation and cultural harmony’

v.  demonstrates professional irresponsibility: ‘As a radio presenter, there’s a responsibility to communicate respectfully and accurately, especially when discussing cultural matters. Such a comment falls far short of professional standards and can damage public trust.’

[21]  The Platform’s response to WK was, ‘You Plonker we aren’t subject to the Broadcasting Standards Authority.’ WK then referred the matter to the Authority, describing the content being complained about as ‘unacceptable racist comments’.

Second complaint – 15 October 2025 broadcast

[22]  WK complained to The Platform on 20 October 2025 that the 15 October broadcast breached section 4 of the Broadcasting Act, requiring broadcasters to maintain standards consistent with the privacy of the individual (s 4(1)(c)) and the maintenance of law and order (s 4(1)(b)).

Privacy submissions

[23]  ‘Mr Plunket obtained my name from the copy of my complaint marked confidential. He very clearly named me on air. The result has been very predictable threats and abuse.’ ‘My complaint, including my name is also published on The Platform Facebook page.’ 

[24]  Plunket ‘delivered a scornful, totally false description of who I am’, starting first by ‘very prominently’ stating the complainant’s name and that Plunket believes the complainant ‘runs a charity associated with the global woke organisation [lobby group name] who are woke activists,’ before repeating the complainant’s name. ‘I have absolutely no idea who this organisation is and run no charities.’ The complainant said the public interest in his name is non-existent, making the disclosure completely unwarranted.

[25]  ‘[…] I had absolutely no doubt (and I am sure neither did Mr Plunket), that given the words, the tone, the false portrayal of me, about what would follow. It did – much abuse and threats like this one [below] from a person who had somehow obtained my email address – [and] in another message said he knows where I live:

“Given how your cohort have doxxed and violated the rights of MP Winston Peters in the last few days, we live in dangerous times. Many are taking their lead from the displayed conduct of the left and feel inspired to abandon the tolerance that citizens of this country were historically respected for. 

Purely speculative, but you should be cautious.”’

[26]  ‘This “comment” came immediately after Mr. Plunket’s broadcast [on 15 October 2025]. Consequently, I would like to complain about every part of it that is a reference to me.’ 

[27]  The complainant later said the above email was ‘followed by abusive messages’, including many comments responding to posts on The Platform’s Facebook page following further broadcasts about the BSA matter and WK’s complaint. The complainant quoted a few (eg, ‘What a sad little man. His feelings were hurt so he rushed around like a headless rooster to find an authoritarian dictator organisation to save his hurt feelings. What a sad sad man. Get a life for goodness sake!’) and provided screenshots of many other comments targeted at him. Noting Plunket’s ‘coverage’ has spread throughout social media resulting in countless other dismissive references to him, and Plunket has also since interviewed many commentators about the complaint, the complainant said, ‘I have seen nothing that comes anywhere near anyone standing up for me.’

[28]  The complainant noted that at a later date, ‘Plunket attempted to give some kind of message to his followers to ease off their attacks/abuse directed at me. But he couldn’t even get that right as he chose to describe me as “someone with issues”.’ 

Law and order submissions

[29]  The complainant said, of the broadcast and the response it provoked, ‘All this is pretty frightening,’ and made the following points in support of their complaint under this ground:

a)  ‘The actions of the broadcaster constitute a clear and severe breach of multiple standards and laws in New Zealand’.

b)  ‘The broadcaster’s actions are grossly inappropriate and professionally/legally negligent for several reasons’ including doxxing, breach of confidentiality, and breach of the Privacy Act 2020.

c)  ‘The action of revealing [the complainant’s] name, coupled with abuse, on a public platform (radio and social media) to a hostile following, with the full knowledge of what would follow, is arguably a deliberate incitement to online harassment.’

d)  The broadcaster’s actions breach key communication principles of the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 (HDCA), specifically those that prohibit a digital communication from:

i.  disclosing sensitive personal facts about a person

ii.  being threatening, intimidating, or menacing

iii.  inciting or encouraging anyone to send a message to an individual for the purpose of causing harm.

Other aspects of the complaint

[30]  We consider the above allegations under ss 4(1)(b) and (c) represent the crux of the complaint and the most pressing issues, and we have focused our decision accordingly. Some other issues and standards were also raised, which we address briefly from paragraph [105].

The broadcaster’s response

[31]  The Platform did not respond in writing to the complaint, and WK referred the complaint to this Authority on 26 November 2025, on the basis he had not received any response from the broadcaster.²

[32]  Following the release of our interlocutory decision on jurisdiction,³ the Authority invited comments from The Platform on the substantive issues raised in both complaints. No submissions were received from The Platform.

Applicable broadcasting standards

[33]  As explained in our interlocutory decision,⁴ while there is not currently a code of broadcasting standards specifically addressing the online broadcasting context, this is not a barrier to considering the complaints under the Act. 

[34]  Section 4 of the Act not only requires broadcasters to maintain standards consistent with any applicable code of broadcasting practice but also to maintain standards consistent with ‘the observance of good taste and decency’,⁵ ‘the maintenance of law and order’,⁶ and ‘the privacy of the individual’.⁷

[35]  The first complaint, concerning ‘unacceptable racist comments’, is readily seen as an ‘allegation that the broadcaster has failed to comply with’ the s 4(1)(a) good taste and decency obligation. This is aligned in principle with the offensive and disturbing content standard of the current Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand – formerly the ‘good taste and decency’ standard.

[36]  The ss 4(1)(b) and 4(1)(c) obligations to maintain standards consistent with ‘the maintenance of law and order’ and ‘the privacy of the individual’ are closely aligned with the promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour (formerly ‘law and order’) and privacy standards of the current Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, respectively.

[37]  The Code standards are designed to be principles-based, precedent-based (reflective of the Authority’s approach over time) and flexible enough to apply to various broadcasting situations. They have been developed in consultation with broadcasters, academics, interested stakeholders and the public, as well as the Office of the Privacy Commissioner (in the case of the privacy standard). Through such consultation, independent reviews and litmus testing with members of the public of our decisions under these standards, we have confidence that the standards and the Authority’s application of them appropriately reflect community attitudes, commonly accepted societal standards, relevant areas of law and overseas approaches to similar issues. 

[38]  So, while we are in this case applying ss 4(1)(a)–(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, we consider it reasonable and appropriate to draw from the corresponding standards and guidelines in the Code, which rely on the same underlying objectives and principles, as well as the Authority’s application of those in similar broadcasting situations.

Good taste and decency

[39]  The purpose of the current Code’s offensive and disturbing content standard is to protect audiences from viewing or listening to broadcasts that are likely to cause widespread disproportionate offence or distress or undermine widely shared community standards.⁸ The standard states:⁹

• Broadcast content should not seriously violate community standards of taste and decency or disproportionately offend or disturb the audience, taking into account: 
  • the context of the programme and the wider context of the broadcast, and
  • the information given by the broadcaster to enable the audience to exercise choice and control over their own, and children’s, viewing or listening.

[40]  In terms of comparable traditional broadcasting situations, we have drawn from past decisions concerning good taste and decency on talkback radio, which we consider to be the most similar in nature to The Platform’s live talkback online.

Law and order

[41]  Early iterations of the ‘law and order’ standard, based on s 4(1)(b), mirror the wording of the Act.¹⁰ Later versions also echo the Act but increasingly recognise the importance of the context of the programme and the wider context of the broadcast (including the level of public interest), in assessing a programme’s likely practical effect or whether there was a real likelihood of the audience acting on any encouragement to engage in illegal activity.¹¹

[42]  The standard in its current form – now called the ‘promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour standard’ – states:¹²

Broadcast content should not be likely to promote illegal or serious antisocial behaviour taking into account the context and the audience’s ability to exercise choice and control.

[43]  The purpose of any standard based on s 4(1)(b), irrespective of the standard’s title, has remained broadly the same even though the way it has been expressed has evolved over time. It concerns broadcasts that actively undermine, or promote disobedience of, the law or legal processes – not broadcasts that simply discuss or depict laws or law-breaking. 

[44]  ‘Serious antisocial activity’ is contrary to the laws or customs of society to such a degree that a significant number of people would find it unacceptable. It involves actions which are likely to have consequences for people in the real world. It is broader than illegal activity and can include other antisocial behaviour – for example, bullying real people in broadcasts.¹³

Privacy

[45]  The privacy standard (standard 7) of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand mirrors exactly the wording in s 4(1)(c) of the Act:

Broadcasters should maintain standards consistent with the privacy of the individual.

[46]  The Authority’s approach to assessing ‘standards consistent with the privacy of the individual’ is broadly consistent with other applications of privacy law in New Zealand. The purpose of the standard is to respect, where reasonable, people’s wishes not to have themselves or their affairs broadcast to the public.¹⁴ It seeks to protect their dignity, autonomy, mental wellbeing and reputation, and their ability to develop relationships, opinions and creativity away from the glare of publicity. However, it also allows broadcasters to gather, record and broadcast material where this is in the public interest.¹⁵

Our analysis and decision

[47]  We have listened to The Platform broadcasts and read the correspondence listed in Appendix 2.

Freedom of expression

[48]  The right to freedom of expression, including the broadcaster’s right to impart ideas and information and the public’s right to receive that information, is our starting point for every complaint. Our role is to weigh the value and public interest in the broadcast against the actual or potential harm that may be caused by that broadcast, either to individuals or to society generally. We may only intervene and uphold a complaint where the level of harm means that placing a limit on the right to freedom of expression is reasonable and justified.¹⁶

[49]  There is value and public interest in scrutinising, and offering critical commentary on, the actions and policies of government and public sector agencies. In the first broadcast, this related to emergency services provided by FENZ, which are important to all New Zealanders. In the second, Plunket challenged the Authority’s provisional decision to accept jurisdiction over an online broadcast by The Platform. It is evident, from the ongoing coverage of and debate about this topic, that it has attracted considerable public interest and generated a wide range of views.

[50]  It is also well recognised that talkback is a robust, opinionated environment, where hosts are afforded some latitude to make provocative or controversial comments in the interests of generating debate about issues of public interest.¹⁷ The freedom to express opinions, and the richness of debate it enables, is an important component of a democratic society. Past decisions of the Authority have found the expression of opinions, even if controversial or ‘unpopular’, is protected by the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression.¹⁸ Plunket Unchained is clearly positioned as Plunket’s opinions, and we accept audience expectations that Plunket (and his listeners) will offer strong views are well established – including views that others may strongly disagree with. 

[51]  However, the principles of freedom of expression do not give broadcasters or hosts a free pass to offend accepted norms of taste and decency,¹⁹ or more broadly to avoid any level of social responsibility. 

[52]  The harm alleged in the broadcast on 22 July 2025 is attributed to ‘unacceptable racist comments’ and, in particular, ‘so casually referring to all the customs and beliefs of Māori – tikanga – as mumbo jumbo – a term with a historic racist beginning’, ‘in the middle of [the host’s] sarcastic, scornful references to a Māori issue, complete with his totally childish exaggerated and drawn-out pronunciations of Māori words’. 

[53]  The Authority considered the ‘mumbo jumbo’ comment in itself was unlikely to threaten standards of taste and decency. However, when considered in the context of the broadcast as a whole and the broadcast’s overall impact, it contributed to the strong anti-Māori sentiment of Plunket’s initial discussion, which encouraged sustained offensive, dismissive and denigrating comments regarding Māori, Māori culture and beliefs, and ‘Māorification’ throughout the broadcast. In the Authority’s view, the public interest in scrutinising FENZ and its policies was insufficient to outweigh the harms identified in the complaint, given the scornful, one-sided nature of the discussion. 

[54]  The Authority also found the harm caused to the complainant by the 15 October 2025 broadcast outweighed the right to freedom of expression and the public interest. It would have been entirely possible to discuss the complaint, and Plunket’s views about it, without naming or disparaging the complainant (and then providing his contact details). We therefore uphold the second complaint as a breach of standards relating to the maintenance of law and order, and privacy.

[55]  Our reasons in both cases are explained below.

Good taste and decency – 22 July 2025 broadcast 

[56]  To assess the potential harm caused by an alleged breach of standards relating to ‘the observance of good taste and decency’ we must consider:²⁰

• Attitudes differ widely and continue to evolve in New Zealand’s diverse society. The feelings of the particularly sensitive cannot dictate what can be broadcast – there is no ‘right to not be offended’. However, broadcasts must not seriously violate community norms.
• Context is crucial. The context may justify the inclusion of challenging material or minimise its harmfulness. Challenging material that advances the public’s understanding of important issues is more likely to be acceptable. Each case will depend on its particular facts and context.
• Audience expectations are also important. Some programmes or broadcasters – eg niche radio stations or channels – have established target audiences, for whom they legitimately select and schedule content. Talkback has become a separate category due to its robust and sometimes challenging nature, and this is relevant to assessing the context of a complaint.
• A person’s ability to choose what they view and listen to (and to prevent children and young people from viewing or hearing inappropriate material) is a significant factor in determining what is acceptable.

The context

[57]  Relevant contextual factors in this case include:

a)  Plunket Unchained was broadcast online between 7am and 10am as part of The Platform’s Live Talkback – ‘Listen Live to The Platform’s straight talking, free thinking hosts every weekday’; ’Join the Resistance’.²¹

b)  The Platform on its website describes itself as, ‘Open. Tolerant. Free. The Platform. Your opinion matters,’ and further as:²²

New Zealand’s very own independent digital media site. […] The Platform is the original independent media space where you can receive and impart views and opinions the mainstream media simply cannot handle. Free of government bribery and lobbyist influence The Platform is funded by a mix of advertising and most importantly subscriber support allowing it to operate with true editorial independence. We don’t turn off our comments section or cancel people we don’t agree with and as [a] result are one of the fastest growing new media outfits in the country.

c)  Plunket has a reputation following a long broadcasting career, particularly on talkback radio, for offering strong, often controversial opinions for the purpose of generating discussion and debate (although this does not give a broadcaster free rein, and conduct and comments are considered on a case-by-case basis).²³

d)  Anyone can tune in to listen live via The Platform’s website or app, while a paid subscription enables access to past full shows and other content.²⁴

e)  The subject matter giving rise to the discussion of tikanga was FENZ’s new ‘Kaupapa Māori proposal’, a copy of which Plunket said had been sent to him anonymously. 

f)  Some elements of the discussion arguably carried public interest, for example: 

i.  questioning the resource required to carry out such a proposal and suggesting it would be better allocated elsewhere – eg one caller noted, ‘The worst part is that there’s unsafe fire stations they can’t afford to replace, 25-plus-year-old fire trucks that break down on the way to calls, operation personnel that struggle to get uniform[s]…’

ii.  scrutinising related political policies and the Government’s position on it (including putting it to David Seymour for comment during his interview), and whether people had voted for or would want such a policy within FENZ

iii.  questioning why the FENZ Chief Executive would not front and discuss the proposal publicly (having declined an interview request from The Platform), and whether the public would be consulted on the proposal.

g)  Plunket’s discussion of the FENZ report generated a lot of listener feedback through calls and texts which appeared largely to support his own views, and he generally thanked those listeners for their feedback.  

h)  This was not the only topic discussed in the three-hour broadcast; Plunket also discussed and invited the audience’s views on several other topics including: sharing what they get paid, in regards to a bill before Parliament; a relatively long interview with David Seymour on various topics; and a breaking news update concerning developments in media ownership. 

Our finding – 22 July 2025 broadcast

[58]  Authority decisions over the years have established that standards of good taste and decency do not prohibit challenging or potentially offensive material; content that some find offensive, challenging or inappropriate is not, in itself, enough to find a breach of standards.²⁵

[59]  The Authority has previously declined to uphold complaints alleging broadcasts were demeaning or dismissive of certain cultures or beliefs, for example: 

a)  A complaint about comments made by Plunket on his talkback radio programme about Christians and Christianity. While Plunket made highly critical comments and expressed scepticism, the Authority concluded this was not beyond audience expectations for a robust, opinionated programme and was unlikely to cause widespread offence or encourage discrimination against or denigration of Christians.²⁶

b)  A complaint that a talkback radio discussion ‘turned into a session bashing the Catholic Church’ (and the complainant, who had phoned into the programme in support of the church) was not upheld under the fairness, discrimination and denigration and good taste and decency standards.²⁷ Comments from callers included, ‘I would never believe in anybody under any circumstances dying and coming to life again [...] for me it’s all one hundred percent mumbo jumbo’ as well as references to the ‘absolutely stupid judgements’ and the ’abhorrent’ or ‘indefensible’ position of some Christians, the complainant and/or the Catholic Church.

[60]  However, we consider these decisions distinguishable from the present case, primarily because of the sustained and one-sided nature of the comments against Māori and tikanga Māori in The Platform’s broadcast:

a)  In the Petros decision,²⁸ a key factor in the decision not to uphold a complaint about a broadcast ‘turning into a session bashing the Catholic Church’ (including one caller’s view that Catholic beliefs are ‘mumbo jumbo’) was that callers were dealt with in a ‘fair and even-handed manner with [the complainant] given an opportunity to state his point of view in support of the Catholic Church’. In other words, balancing viewpoints were presented, mitigating the overall impact of any potential offensiveness.

b)  Similarly, critical comments in the broadcast considered in Te Whata²⁹ were not as sustained, and the Authority noted Plunket (also the host in that case) made it clear the comments were his own view and others may hold different views. Callers with a range of perspectives were able to put forward their views, for listeners’ benefit and to enable them to form their own opinions on the topic discussed.

[61]  More closely related to the focus of the present complaint, the Authority also declined to uphold a complaint about another talkback host referring to the use of te reo Māori names for government departments as the ‘Māorification of this country’.³⁰ The Authority in that case acknowledged the phrase ‘Māorification of this country’ would be offensive to some listeners (even in the context of a programme known for its controversial opinions) – however, the focus of the discussion was the Government’s policy objectives, in particular those concerning the use of te reo Māori names for government departments, with the phrase used once, in passing. The Authority therefore concluded it did not meet the threshold to constitute a breach of the standard.

[62]  Contrasted with these three broadcasts, The Platform’s broadcast is much less able to be seen as a measured, genuine discussion of a controversial issue, given the level and sustained nature of the scorn and abuse³¹ directed at Māori and Māori culture. This is the context in which we are required to assess Plunket’s description of tikanga as ‘mumbo jumbo’ – and, in this context, the term cannot be interpreted as just one viewpoint in a balanced discussion serving the public interest. 

[63]  Referring to tikanga as ‘mumbo jumbo’³² would not, on its own, breach broadcasting standards, in the context of a discussion carrying public interest. However, we consider the scornful, anti-Māori and one-sided nature of the discussion in this broadcast meant it did not carry a level of public interest sufficient to offset the harm caused.

[64]  Context is crucial in assessing the overall potential for harm to the audience or society generally. As noted by the complainant, the reference to tikanga as mumbo jumbo was not fleeting or made in isolation, but rather as part of a broader ‘sarcastic, scornful’ discussion ‘of a Māori issue’, alongside Plunket’s ‘childish, exaggerated’ and ‘drawn out’ pronunciation of Māori words. This discussion included FENZ’s Kaupapa Māori proposal being variously described by Plunket and listeners as ‘ludicrous’, ‘ridiculous’, ‘nonsense’, ‘nuts’, ‘stupidity’, ‘utter crap’, ‘Māorification rubbish’ and ‘woke’. 

[65]  The ‘mumbo jumbo’ comment in our view contributed to the overarching tone and theme of Plunket’s discussion of the issue, which we consider can readily be described as strongly racially-focused (as suggested by the complainant), and demeaning and dismissive of Māori culture – rather than making a genuine contribution to discussion carrying public interest. 

[66]  Plunket’s initial comments set the tone – including framing the issue as ‘the latest piece of woke Māorification in our government and it is a doozy’, and a further three or more references to ‘Māorification’ in his initial sharing of the FENZ report. This served to encourage derisory and offensive audience messages denigrating Māori and Māori beliefs, and objecting to any consideration of tikanga as part of vital public services – essentially reducing the proposal down to ‘saying a karakia before putting out a fire’ and questioning whether the proposal would ‘help [the fire service] put out more fires more efficiently’. Plunket referred repeatedly to it being ‘woke’ and ‘Māorification rubbish’ that he thought ‘the Government was putting an end to’. Plunket allowed callers and listeners (by reading out their texts) to express equally derogatory views. The comments with the greatest potential to cause harm, in our view, included:

• At least 17 derogatory references to ‘Māorification’ (including ‘Māorified’ and ‘Māorify’) throughout the broadcast – with 10 of those coming from listeners, and seven or more from Plunket.
• One caller’s suggestion that maybe it was ‘right’ that the fire service should stop and say a ‘karanga’ before putting out a fire on a marae (which might be interpreted as suggesting they should delay their emergency response if Māori were in danger or at risk).
• Another text from a listener saying, ‘I’ll get on board and all is forgiven if they change the siren to the Once Were Warriors theme.’
• A text saying, ‘As we Māorify, we become more primitive in all our systems and methods. Is New Zealand going backwards?’
• Several comments about people making ‘self-indulgent’ efforts to be ‘pushed up the ranks’ and ‘get better jobs’ by ‘conforming’ to ‘Māorification’.
• At least two instances of listeners referring to (variations of) ‘elite Māori grifters’.

[67]  In a couple of instances Plunket condemned listeners’ remarks, eg suggesting ‘Māorified water is wetter’ (‘Oh, [listener], no. That’s a fail’) and that fire engines should set their siren to the ‘Once Were Warriors theme’ (‘That’s terrible’), but for the most part he simply thanked listeners or appeared to endorse their views so there was no mitigation of their likely impact or potential offence.

[68]  We have already signalled our view that the discussion did not engage meaningfully with the issues – reducing tikanga and kaupapa Māori to suggesting that, for example, ‘saying a karakia’ was ‘ridiculous’, the use of te reo Māori or recognising tikanga at functions was ‘utter crap’ and ‘a wank-fest’, and fire engines and natural disasters are not ‘cultural’. In this context, the term carries a strongly anti-Māori sentiment which is reflected and reinforced by the sentiments of those texting or calling in. 

[69]  Unlike Petros and Te Whata, no countering viewpoint was offered in support of FENZ or why the fire service would appropriately have regard to tikanga and Rautaki Māori | Māori Strategy. While the FENZ Chief Executive may have declined to speak on the programme, information about the strategy and the basis for it is freely available on the FENZ website³³ and in reporting on the appointment of a new deputy chief executive for the Kaupapa Māori and Cultural Communities branch of FENZ in September 2023 (almost two years before this broadcast). These explain:³⁴

a)  Māori are overrepresented in the rates of fire-related deaths and injuries compared to non-Māori, which needs to change.

b)  ‘Māori and iwi are key stakeholders and vital partners in building community resilience and informing emergency response. By having a basic awareness and understanding of kaupapa Māori, our people can do their job to the best of their ability by minimising harm during emergencies as well as building relationships for effective risk reduction.’ (quoting Deputy Chief Executive)

c)  FENZ recognises ‘iwi as our partners in risk reduction as significant and growing land and forest owners’ (with associated increased risk in rural areas); ‘[A]lmost half of their asset base [is] invested in “climate sensitive” industries (forestry, agriculture, fishing, and tourism)’, meaning ‘they are also highly impacted by climate change related fires’. 

d)  Almost 10 percent of front-line officers identify as Māori: ‘[F]or them and many others, the inclusion of tikanga Māori is becoming an expected and normal way of doing business.’ (quoting Deputy Chief Executive, September 2023)

e)  ‘By committing to work with tangata whenua we contribute to a safer environment not only for Māori but for all New Zealand communities.’ 

f)  Embracing kaupapa Māori and diverse cultural perspectives contributes to a more inclusive and diverse organisational culture – directly contributing to FENZ’s ‘journey to a more positive workplace culture’.

[70]  Whether or not this focus and dedication of resource within FENZ is consistent with the Government’s expectations or what the New Zealand public wants may well be a legitimate issue for discussion. However, the tone and themes of the discussion in this broadcast did not in our view serve to ‘advance the public’s understanding of an important issue’ (see paragraph [56] above). In the context described above, we are unable to identify any value in the broadcast discussion sufficient to outweigh the potential harm – which we view as significant. 

[71]  The scorn and abuse directed at Māori and Māori culture would be harmful in any context. It is particularly harmful at a time of significant change and conflict around the place of Māori culture and the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi that require its active protection.³⁵

[72]  Finally, we considered whether audience expectations of The Platform, and of Plunket as a well-known talkback host who frequently offers provocative or controversial views – as well as the public’s ability to ‘switch off’ or to choose ‘not to listen’ – meant the broadcast in this case was less likely to breach standards. 

[73]  We remain of the view – as expressed in paragraph [51] – that these factors, along with the right to freedom of expression, should not be seen as giving the broadcaster a free pass to seriously offend accepted norms of taste and decency, or more broadly to avoid any level of social responsibility. People and platforms with a certain ‘reach’ have an influence over their audience’s attitudes and behaviour. They can incite outrage and abuse towards people they criticise on their platforms, whether those targeted hear it or not.

[74]  For these reasons, we uphold the complaint as a breach of the broadcaster’s s 4(1)(a) obligation to maintain standards consistent with the observance of good taste and decency. We consider this to represent a lawful, reasonable and justified limit on the right to freedom of expression.

Law and order – 15 October 2025 broadcast 

[75]  Cyberbullying and other modern forms of harassment and intimidation can have a devastating impact. The HDCA Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 aims to deter, prevent and mitigate harm caused to victims, ie individuals who are the target of a posted digital communication.³⁶ The HDCA’s ‘Communication Principles’ state that a digital communication should not (among other things):³⁷

• disclose sensitive personal facts about an individual
• be threatening, intimidating, or menacing
• be used to harass an individual
• make a false allegation
• contain a matter that is published in breach of confidence
• incite or encourage anyone to send a message to an individual for the purpose of causing harm to the individual.

[76]  We have little difficulty finding that the manner in which Plunket conducted this discussion, in relation to the complainant, was inconsistent with ‘the maintenance of law and order’. This Authority does not have the power to make a finding that a law has been contravened, but it is not necessary for us to do so in order to find a breach of broadcasting standards.³⁸ Our decision is reinforced by the outcome of Plunket’s words – the complainant was contacted directly, immediately following the broadcast, and threatened (eg, ‘You should be cautious’), as well as finding himself the target of ongoing online criticism and abuse. 

[77]  We asked the complainant for further information about the quantity and nature of communications he received. The complainant provided screenshots of examples of social media comments either about him or tagging his full name. WK estimated there were, in total, ‘probably hundreds’ but said he could not give exact numbers (as he was blocked from both The Platform and from commenting on its social media). The complainant said:

[I]t was a kind of snowball for me […] following each of the subsequent 20+ Platform programmes about this issue – more and more [...] social media [comments which were] 90% abusive [...] and regular media coverage [...] that was almost all about Mr Plunket and his “fight for free speech”. […] [E]ach subsequent broadcast to that on 15 October just built on the way [I] had been portrayed on it, and more insulting messages came. […] [T]he 15 October on-air behaviour was the spark for them […]. And the consequences of being branded as an enemy of The Platform are lasting – I am not a big social media participant, but if I do comment on things totally unrelated to this issue – out come the […] abusive terms.

[78]  Whether or not Plunket explicitly encouraged his followers to contact the complainant, it was easily foreseeable there was a real risk and likelihood that at least some of them would be inspired by his words and tone to do so, with an adverse impact on the complainant. 

[79]  Plunket disclosed the complainant’s full name numerous times, as well as his complaint correspondence. As the complainant said, this was in the context of a heated, highly emotive discussion about ‘the biggest existential threat’ to The Platform to date, ‘going to war’, and facing The Platform ‘[going] under’ – and, as Plunket admitted, despite the Authority’s correspondence and decision being marked confidential and not for publication. We agree with the complainant that the tone throughout was scornful and invited ridicule. In that context, and reinforced by the broadcaster’s ongoing conduct – including further broadcasts and social media coverage about the complaint and the complainant – we consider the broadcast was ‘likely to promote’ potentially illegal or antisocial (bullying) behaviour towards the complainant, as envisaged by the current equivalent of the law and order standard (see paragraph [42] above). It is clear people have in fact acted in response and that the complainant has been harmed.

[80]  We are satisfied that upholding the complaint, as a breach of the broadcaster’s obligation to observe standards consistent with the maintenance of law and order, places a limit on the right to freedom of expression that is prescribed by law,³⁹ reasonable and justified in light of the harm caused to the complainant. As we have said, the discussion of the Authority’s draft decision and wider issues of free speech carried public interest. However, we consider it a reasonable restriction to expect the broadcaster not to use information about the complainant, provided in the context of a complaints process, to name and shame the complainant – this was not necessary to discuss the relevant issues and clearly had the potential to cause harm.

[81]  Accordingly, we uphold the complaint under s 4(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

Privacy – 15 October 2025 broadcast

Criteria for finding a breach of privacy

[82]  Generally, there are three criteria for finding a breach of privacy in a broadcasting context:

a)  The individual whose privacy has allegedly been interfered with was identifiable.⁴⁰

b)  The broadcast disclosed private information or material about the individual, over which they had a reasonable expectation of privacy.⁴¹

c)  The disclosure would be considered highly offensive to an objective reasonable person.⁴²

[83]  These criteria are drawn from the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand. They are broadly consistent with the Privacy Act 2020, which applies to information relating to a ‘specific identifiable person’,⁴³ as well as New Zealand common law relating to protection of privacy.⁴⁴ It is therefore appropriate to apply them in assessing a potential breach of s 4 of the Act.

Identification

[84]  The complainant’s full name – which is not a common name – was disclosed at least 10 times during the broadcast, and his first and/or last name at least another four times – enabling people unknown to the complainant to contact him. The complainant was clearly identifiable in the broadcast, meeting the first criterion for a privacy breach.

Information attracting a reasonable expectation of privacy 

[85]  The broadcast disclosed the following information about the complainant:

• his full name at least 10 times, and his first or last name at least four times
• the fact he had complained to the Authority and what the complaint was about
• the full text of his complaint referral sent to the Authority
• Plunket’s description of the complainant as a ‘left-wing activist’
• Plunket’s ‘understanding’ that the complainant ‘runs a charity aligned with [name of lobby group] which is a Green Party-affiliated action lobby network who run campaigns against people they don’t like […].’

[86]  The broadcast did not directly disclose the complainant’s email address, but this was published by The Platform on its website and Facebook page later the same day as part of sharing the Authority’s full correspondence, including the draft decision and a copy of WK’s complaint to the Authority, which Plunket had already read out during the broadcast. Plunket signalled at least three times in the broadcast he was planning to publish the correspondence. It was therefore highly likely people would be motivated by Plunket’s comments to visit the website to find the information.

[87]  In assessing whether there was a reasonable expectation of privacy attaching to the information disclosed, we considered the following factors:⁴⁵

• whether the content was in the public domain
• whether the content was intimate, sensitive or traumatic in nature
• whether the individual could reasonably expect the content would not be disclosed
• the nature of the individual (eg public figures have lower expectations of privacy in relation to their public roles).

[88]  We consider it reasonable for a complainant to expect, in the initial stages of making a complaint to the BSA and going through the complaints process, that their identity, the contents of their complaint, their name and their contact details will be treated in confidence and not disclosed by the broadcaster to the wider public.

[89]  Plunket did not, to our knowledge, disclose this information when the complainant originally contacted him in July 2025. There is no suggestion the complainant is a public figure or that he publicised the fact of his complaint or what it was about prior to this broadcast. The complainant says he is not associated with the group alleged by Plunket, and there is no publicly available information to support such a connection. So, the information disclosed does not appear to have previously been ‘in the public domain’.

[90]  By the time the Authority issued its draft interlocutory decision to the complainant and The Platform several months later on 14 October 2025, the Authority had determined it was appropriate to suppress the complainant’s details in that decision, signalling its intention to keep the complainant anonymous in any published decision going forward. The Authority’s process makes it clear that, generally, a complainant’s name and a summary of their complaint will appear in any final published decision – except where name suppression is granted. Name suppression may be granted, as it was here, due to a likelihood of adverse consequences arising from publication of the complainant’s name (ie the complainant’s identity might reasonably be described as sensitive information in the circumstances). 

[91]  Therefore, it remained reasonable for the complainant to expect his name and details would not be disclosed to the public, having received the Authority’s draft decision. This expectation was reasonably supported by the fact the decision was marked ‘not for publication’, and the Authority’s accompanying correspondence stated, ‘Please note that each page is marked “Not for Publication” and the draft is confidential to you and the [broadcaster], for you to provide feedback on the jurisdiction issues it addresses.’

[92]  Whether or not it was reasonable to expect Plunket would not discuss the complaint publicly at all, we consider it was reasonable for the complainant to expect the broadcaster would not, in the course of publicly discussing the Authority’s ‘confidential’ decision, disclose his identity and other information about him in a sustained and disparaging way. The complaint could have been thoroughly discussed without reference to the complainant at all.

[93]  It is irrelevant that Plunket had not agreed to receive the information in confidence – this is not a claim for breach of confidence. The fact that the documents were marked ‘not for publication’ should have put the broadcaster on notice that the complainant had an expectation of privacy.

[94]  We note in this regard a BSA decision in 2000, upholding a breach of privacy under s 4(1)(c) of the Act.⁴⁶ It concerned a radio broadcaster who named a complainant and read part of their complaint letter on air. The Authority found:

• ‘…[T]he host referred to the complainant in a disparaging way in the knowledge that the complainant intended to pursue the matter as a formal complaint under the Broadcasting Act. This kind of public attention at the hands of the person complained about seems inappropriate. Partisan on-air comment by the person concerned has no part in the complaints process.’
• ‘…[T]he details of a complaint, at least at the enquiry stage, are not matters of public information.’ 
• ‘…[T]he naming of the complainant and the reference to his complaint was no accident; it was deliberate.’

[95]  Additionally, the complainant certainly would not reasonably expect false claims to be broadcast about his alleged involvement with an organisation he says he has never heard of. Past decisions of this Authority and the High Court have confirmed that personal or sensitive details about a person, even if false or disputed, can still constitute private information and potentially lead to a breach of privacy.⁴⁷

[96]  We therefore consider the matters disclosed in the broadcast in relation to the complainant attracted a reasonable expectation of privacy, satisfying the second criterion. 

Highly offensive disclosure

[97]  The third criterion is that private information was disclosed about the individual in a way that would be highly offensive to an objective reasonable person in the position of the person affected.⁴⁸ Factors relevant to determining whether disclosure of private information was highly offensive, applied to the present case, include:⁴⁹

a)  Whether the content is particularly embarrassing or has the potential to impact negatively on reputation: The fact of WK’s complaint and the nature of that complaint were not ‘particularly embarrassing’. However, the way in which Plunket presented these and the scornful, ‘dismissive descriptions’ of the complainant – in the context of highly-charged language about The Platform facing its biggest existential threat to date and the possibility of ‘going under’ – clearly had the potential to impact negatively on WK’s reputation.

b)  Whether the individual is particularly vulnerable: For the same reasons, we consider there was a level of vulnerability for the complainant as the first person to bring a complaint about The Platform, as an online broadcaster, to the Authority.

c)  The seriousness of the circumstances (eg the means by which the information was gathered, whether the broadcast was exploitative or gratuitous): As we have said, the information disclosed by Plunket in the broadcast was clearly intended to be treated confidentially, and in framing the broadcast as discussing ‘the greatest existential threat we have ever faced’ we consider it was exploitative and gratuitous to name and shame the complainant, whose identity was not integral to those issues.  

d)  Whether the individual has made efforts to protect their privacy or has not consented to the broadcast: It is clear the complainant did not consent to the broadcast, and as we have said we think it was reasonable for the complainant to expect his identity would be kept confidential during the complaints process; there is no suggestion the complainant had himself disclosed information about his complaint prior to this broadcast.

e)  Whether the disclosure was made for the purposes of encouraging harassment: For the reasons we have outlined in relation to both the maintenance of law and order and the complainant’s privacy, there was a clear risk that disclosing information about the complainant in the context would result in harassment of him. If disclosure of the complainant’s details was not expressly for the purposes of encouraging harassment, Plunket was at least reckless around this risk.

[98]  In these circumstances, we find the third criterion is also met and therefore find a breach of the complainant’s privacy.

Defence – public interest

[99]  It is a defence to a privacy complaint to publicly disclose matters of legitimate public interest. A matter of legitimate public interest is a matter of concern to, or having the potential to affect, a significant section of the New Zealand population (as opposed to being a matter of general interest or curiosity to the public).⁵⁰ For the defence to apply:⁵¹

• The level of public interest must be proportionate to the seriousness of the breach of privacy.
• The public interest must relate to the disclosure of the particular information that is alleged to breach privacy.

[100]  As we have signalled already, we recognise the Authority’s draft interlocutory decision generated considerable debate and public interest, including in relation to the importance of protecting free speech. 

[101]  However, discussion of that issue did not require disclosure of private information about the complainant. 

[102]  We therefore find the public interest defence does not apply.

Conclusion on privacy

[103]  For these reasons, we are satisfied that upholding the privacy complaint places a limit on the right to freedom of expression that is prescribed by law,⁵² reasonable, and justifiable, in light of the harm caused to the complainant. 

[104]  We therefore uphold the complaint as a breach of the broadcaster’s s (4)(1)(c) obligation to maintain standards consistent with the privacy of the individual.

Remaining aspects of the complaint 

[105]  The complainant raised other issues and standards in the original complaint and their complaint referral to us, which we address briefly here for completeness:

Good taste and decency – ‘The Ballad of the BSA’

[106]  Citing s 4(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 relating to ‘the observance of good taste and decency’, the complainant provided a link to a song on YouTube titled ‘The Ballad of the BSA’, published by The Platform on 20 October 2025.⁵³ The complainant said, ‘This is a song the Platform has released that obviously repeats the falsehoods concerning the BSA, but clearly finds enjoyment in also ridiculing me, as the ending shows [supplying a screenshot of the YouTube video with “Plonker!” onscreen] “Plonker” is clearly a reference to Mr Plunket’s response to my [earlier] complaint.’

[107]  We listened to the relevant portion of the 20 October 2025 broadcast. The YouTube song was not the same version of the song that was broadcast, meaning we cannot consider the YouTube song complained about as it appears not to have been part of the broadcast complained about. 

[108]  With respect to the song that was broadcast, the song parodied and made light of the BSA situation and elements of the correspondence quoted in the decision – rather than coming across as malicious or targeting the complainant per se. 

[109]  While we recognise the timing of its release caused offence and distress to the complainant, we do not believe the song seriously threatened norms of taste and decency in the context.

Fairness

[110]  Citing the fairness standard of the Code of Broadcasting Standards (alleging The Platform was also broadcast on radio simultaneously), the complainant said, ‘Attacking a private individual who is simply asking a question, revealing their identity, and prefacing it with false, abusive terms is a severe breach of the fairness standard.’ 

[111]  Had it been broadcast on radio, this programme by The Platform would certainly raise issues of unfairness to the complainant. However, we are dealing only with the online broadcast, assessed against the provisions of s 4 of the Broadcasting Act – which do not include fairness. No complaint has been made about any corresponding radio broadcast to the relevant radio broadcaster. Any consideration of the fairness standard is therefore outside the scope of this decision. 

For the above reasons the Broadcasting Standards Authority upholds the complaints that:

• the online broadcast of Plunket Unchained on The Platform’s Live Talkback on 22 July 2025 breached s 4(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989
• the online broadcast of Plunket Unchained on The Platform’s Live Talkback on 15 October 2025 breached ss 4(1)(b) and 4(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

[112]  Having upheld the complaints, the Authority may make orders under ss 13 and 16 of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

[113]  In determining whether orders are warranted and the type of orders to impose, we generally consider the following factors:

a)  the seriousness of the breach and the number of upheld aspects of the complaint

b)  the degree of harm caused to any individual, section of society or the audience generally

c)  the objectives of the upheld standard(s)

d)  the attitude and actions of the broadcaster in relation to the complaint, for example, whether the broadcaster upheld the complaint and/or took mitigating steps; or whether the broadcaster disputed the standards breach and/or aggravated the breach and any harm caused

e)  whether the decision will sufficiently remedy the breach and give guidance to broadcasters, or whether something more is needed to achieve a meaningful remedy or to send a signal to broadcasters

f)  past decisions and/or orders in similar cases.

[114]  In this case, we have also taken into account the novel circumstances of the complaints – being the first we have addressed about online broadcasts. The nature of such ‘test cases’ is that they involve additional complexity, procedural steps and consequent delay. In this case that has included formal determination of the jurisdiction issue with the participation of an intervenor (to which the broadcaster did not object). This means our decision is being issued more than a year after the original broadcast and complaint. 

[115]  Drawing from our findings above, we noted the following additional factors in this case:

Aggravating factors

• We have upheld the complaints under three sections of the Broadcasting Act 1989, ss 4(1)(a), (b) and (c). 
• We consider the resulting harm to Māori, from the 22 July 2025 broadcast, and the complainant, from the 20 October 2025 broadcast, places the breaches at the higher end of the spectrum in terms of their seriousness.
• The broadcaster has continued to name the complainant and discuss his complaint during its online broadcasts, in publications on its website and on its social media, meaning the harm to the complainant is ongoing.
• The broadcaster has continued to broadcast its view of tikanga as ‘mumbo jumbo’.
• In terms of the broadcaster’s attitude and actions towards the complaints, we are conscious the broadcaster continues to dispute the Authority’s jurisdiction to consider the complaints, and as such has not engaged with the complaints process beyond making submissions on the issue of jurisdiction. However, we note the broadcaster shared the complainant’s private information despite the explicit expectation of confidentiality, noted in the Authority’s correspondence and its draft interlocutory decision.
• Plunket attempted to apologise to the complainant for doxxing him in his 20 October 2025 broadcast (Appendix 1), but in doing so again disclosed the complainant’s full name. Plunket also requested his followers leave the complainant alone in the 22 October 2025 broadcast (Appendix 1) – but as noted above has nevertheless continued to bring up the complaint and the BSA matter in broadcasts, and mention the complainant on social media (at least as recently as 18 April 2026). 

Mitigating factors

• At the time of both broadcasts, the Authority’s jurisdiction over The Platform’s online broadcasts was yet to be confirmed as the provisional decision on jurisdiction was still under consideration and open to submissions from the parties.
• These are the first complaints to be considered, and upheld, by the Authority about The Platform. 
• The host on two occasions appears to have attempted to apologise to the complainant or asked his followers to leave the complainant alone.

[116]  In most cases, the factors above would likely have led the Authority to address the breaches through some form of order(s). However, given the novel circumstances of these complaints, including the length of time since the complaints were received (whilst jurisdiction issues were worked through) and the evolving and uncertain regulatory landscape, in all the circumstances, we are not making any orders.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
11 August 2026    

Appendix 1 – Broadcasts

22 July 2025

1.  During the 22 July 2025 online broadcast of Plunket Unchained on The Platform’s Live Talkback (7am–10am), host Sean Plunket discussed ‘Fire and Emergency Services’ new Kaupapa Māori proposal’. Opening the show, Plunket introduced this topic, saying:

We’ve got a great show for you this morning. I’m going to uncover the latest piece of woke Māorification in our government and it is a doozy from the fire service […]. 

2.  The initial discussion of this topic by Plunket was approximately six minutes into the programme, as follows: 

Plunket:          Right, let’s have a look at a story – and I love it when this happens, when I get an envelope in my office. […] But occasionally, someone will send me something that has got a story in it. And this happened on Monday. And I thank whoever this anonymous person was. 

What they sent me was a report – it’s actually published online, but I wouldn’t have bothered going to look for it unless it had been sent to me – it’s a report from the Fire and Emergency Services in New Zealand, which is administered by the government via the Minister of Internal Affairs. So, Fire and Emergency, they run our fire stations and our rescue services. They’re very important people. And their chief executive was a guy called [name]. And he’s got some proposals for realignment of Fire and Emergency’s functions. And most of it seems like a pretty meaningful push to make the outfit more efficient, deliver more bang for your taxpayer’s buck. And of course, the fire service is run by insurance levies and the like, very important – save people’s lives, save people’s properties. You wouldn’t have thought, would you– and don’t forget I read this in the context of having a government for a year and a half and a Prime Minister who said only recently he’s going to get rid of ‘Māorification’ in the public service. 

But here is what the boss of the Fire and Emergency New Zealand […] had to say on page 15 of this report, which the person who sent it to me had highlighted. Good on you. Just bear with me, it’s going to be much more exciting and engaging [...]. [FENZ Chief Executive] says this: 

[Reading]        ‘I’m proposing to realign the functions of the Kaupapa Māori and Cultural Communities Branch so that this important mahi–’ 

Plunket:          Which I think is the Māori name for work. 

[Reading]         ‘…is more closely connected with other capability-building efforts across the organisation. The proposal involves moving our Pou Takawaenga Māori | Māori Liaison Officers into a renamed Operational Response Branch, aligning their work more closely with our broader operational and engagement efforts. This reflects the current operating delivery mechanism where this team is embedded at the district layer. Similarly, our Pou Whirinaki Cultural Capability Team would transition to the People branch where they can work alongside teams focused on leadership, development, and organisational culture.’ 

Plunket:          Why do Fire and Emergency need to be cultural? What has that got to do with fighting fires? That’s me asking that. Now this is the real interesting paragraph. 

[Reading]        ‘These proposed changes would help embed Kaupapa Māori throughout all areas of our work by integrating our internal cultural capability initiatives–’

Plunket:          Word salad. 

[Reading]         ‘…with our wider efforts to build a safe, positive and inclusive workplace. We can create stronger, more consistent outcomes.’ 

Plunket:          Does that mean you’ll put out more fires? 

[Reading]        ‘It will also allow us to better align our engagement with Māori communities and our operational work leading to a greater reach and impact.’ 

Plunket:          Does that mean you’ll put out more fires more efficiently, or not? 

[Reading]        ‘Rather than keeping this work within one branch, this approach encourages the whole organisation to take shared responsibility for delivering on Rautaki Māori.’ 

Plunket:          Whatever that is. 

[Reading]         ‘I’m also proposing the creation of a Pou Ārahi Kaupapa Māori and Cultural Communities role to provide strategic and operational and cultural leadership, ensuring that Te Ao Māori perspectives, values and tikanga–’ 

Plunket:          Tikanga, which is just mumbo jumbo stuff– 

[Reading]         ‘…are ingrained in how we function.’ 

Plunket:          Will that help you put out more fires more efficiently, I wonder? 

[Reading]        ‘The role would help ensure our services, policies and programmes are culturally appropriate.’ 

Plunket:          I never realised a fire engine had to be culturally appropriate and effective for the many different cultures across Aotearoa New Zealand – well, it’s called New Zealand, not Aotearoa New Zealand. This doesn’t look to help any other culture but the Māori culture, doesn’t it, [FENZ Chief Executive]? 

[Reading]         ‘By sitting outside ELT–’ 

Plunket:          Whatever that is.

[Reading]         ‘…the Pou Ārahi can work across multiple teams and layers to remove barriers to embed Te Ao Māori and cultural perspectives into our work to keep us accountable to our commitment to Māori as tangata whenua.’ 

Plunket:          Well, I’m tangata whenua too, mate. And what commitment is this? Is that written down in your act? 

[Reading]        ‘They can maintain independence to focus on their specialist advisory mandate without being tied to day-to-day operational managers of this organisation. Having this role report directly…’

Plunket:          Oh blah blah blah blah. 

[Reading]        ‘I want to be really clear, this is not about taking Kaupapa Māori out of the organisation.’ 

Plunket:          Clearly. 

[Reading]        ‘These proposed changes would help us ensure the work of Kaupapa Māori becomes a part of everything we do by encouraging all parts of the organisation to take ownership rather than it being siloed in one area.’ 

Plunket:          So, there we go. Māorification of the fire service. What is that even doing in there, I wonder? Go to the fire service, look at this proposal, you can find it online. I’ve also put it up on The Platform’s [social media] [...]. So, what are your thoughts? Is this a sort of Māorification that you want, or you voted for? 

3.  Plunket and The Platform’s producer discussed that they had contacted FENZ for comment, saying (approximately 14 minutes into the programme):

Plunket:          We went to [name], the chief executive of the fire service… What did the people at the fire services say?

                        […] 

Producer:       It was, ‘Thank you for your opportunity, but we decline your request. Consultation is underway and we’d like to give our people the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposal before any final decisions are made.’ 

Plunket:          Ah, so ‘we don’t want to talk about this.’ What about giving the public a chance, seeing you’re a public organisation, to provide a little feedback, [FENZ Chief Executive]? What about fronting? What about doing the mahi, mate? We will go to– and I’ll ask David Seymour about this, but there it is. What do you think? Are you pretty relaxed about that, a little bit of tikanga in our fire service, or not? 

4.  Plunket then had the following exchange with the first listener to call in on this topic (at 15–18 minutes into the programme):

Caller:             Yeah, good morning, Mr Plunket. Yeah, you just hit a raw nerve there. I used to be in the fire service for 14 years and then got out, only a volunteer. But I hardly ever go to any of the functions and things now because I’m sick of the Māorification crap that you turn up to and they’ll have a dinner, and where I live, Sean, you know, I’ve told you where I live, there’s very few Māori here […] if any, right? And particularly in the service. And you’ll go there and some moron will stand up the front and talk in Māori for 10 minutes and everyone in the crowd is just sitting there looking at each other going, I don’t know what the hell he’s talking about. And what it is, I’m afraid to say it, Sean, but what it’s come down to throughout all of these public organisations in New Zealand, not just the fire service, it’s a wank-fest. They go and learn Māori and they stand up there and they dribble on about it […] and they do actually end up getting pushed up the ranks further in their jobs. 

Plunket:          I just cannot, [name], for the life of me see what tikanga’s got to do with fighting fires. 

Caller:             It’s about that guy getting a better job. It’s about that guy getting a better job, higher paid, up the ranks in the fire service, because if he doesn’t conform to the Māorification...

Plunket:          Well, he’s the Chief Executive, he can’t go any higher. Do you mean the Māori guy? 

Caller:             You’d be surprised! You know, it’s about getting better jobs, Sean, and working the ladder. And all these people– like I talk about smoko room talk, if you talk to all of these people individually in the smoko room, they’re like, yeah, it’s all a waste of time mate, but we’ve got to conform. It’s just crap. 

Plunket:          Yeah, well, Rautaki Māori [Māori Strategy] is actually making Māori part of everything, but it’s just not part of getting into a fire engine, is it? Can I ask you, do Māori fires burn differently than Pākehā fires, [name]? 

Caller:             No, you know that, Sean, they don’t. You know what grinds me? It’s turning people like me off of the Māori language. The Māori language is actually quite beautiful, there’s a lot of beautiful Māori people around, but it would be like me going out and ramming religion down people’s throat day after day after day, they would soon just get sick of it, right? And this is what’s happening to good Kiwis like me, who are sick and tired of getting Māorification rammed down our bloody throat whether it’s the fire service, the education service– 

Plunket:          Well, in the absence of a Prime Minister who will actually say, ‘this rubbish has to stop,’ it seems that it’s just rolling on.

5.  Plunket recapped before speaking to another caller (approximately 21 minutes into the show): 

Plunket:          All right, I’ve laid out for you the super-woke proposals to embed tikanga Māori in the Fire and Emergency New Zealand culture. For what reason, God only knows. And even he would– I don’t know, he’d have to drop a karakia to figure it out, I think. What happened to stopping Māorification? [Name], the Chief Executive of Fire and Emergency New Zealand, will not talk to us about this. This is in a report that came out – gosh, what it would be, just ten days ago. I thought this was all stopping. I was wrong. [Caller], good morning. 

Caller:             Is it? Is it a good morning? […] I’m not sure it is a good morning. I think that they possibly might be right this time because you need a good karanga before you go to put a fire out at a marae. 

Plunket:          Thank you, [caller], thank you.

6.  Plunket read out numerous listener texts responding to this discussion, all of which appeared to align with Plunket’s views on and criticism of the FENZ proposal, for example:

• [At 18:10] ‘“Sean, hold up, do a karakia before we put out this fire. The goddess of fire, it’s absolutely silly. Keep culture out of everyday work. It’s tokenism on steroids. Actually diminishes the mana of Māori culture.” Thank you for that, [name].’ 
• [At 22:47] ‘“Sean, maybe Māorified water is wetter.” [Plunket responding] Oh, [listener], no. That’s a fail.’ 
• [At 22:55] ‘“Sean, is this just fanning the fire of Māoridom through every government department in Aotearoa? Wait a minute, I meant New Zealand.” [Plunket responding] It’s your tax dollars that pay for this report, that pay the time that goes into injecting a cultural component into what has got to be one of the most practical, if you like, branches of government service. A fire has no regard for culture. A fire is a chemical reaction. A disaster is a natural reaction. It has nothing to do with ethnicity or spirituality or what language you’re talking when you’re holding the fire hose. So where does this culture of stupidity come from? And why hasn’t this coalition Government done what we thought it was going to and get rid of the craziness?’
• [At 23:54] ‘“Sean, it’s happened. The fire service has joined the woke brigade. WTF? [Name].” [Plunket responding] Yeah, I always thought firemen… slight misogynistic, bit of a blokes’– bit of a macho culture. People who like playing with toys and playing with their hoses. Not wokesters.’
• [At 24:14] ‘“Sean, given the issues New Zealand Fire Service is having with the serviceability of their fire engines, obviously the new approach is gonna make those issues go away,” says [name].’ 
• [At 24:24] ‘“Sean, if the coalition was serious, they would fire this [Chief Executive] character” – [Chief Executive name] is his name – “for proposing such ludicrous nonsense,” says [name].’ 
• [At 24:35] ‘“Sean, this guy was just reappointed for a further two years on the 1st of July. Ask yourself. This really hoses me off,” – oh, [listener] boom-boody-boom-boom – “The cultural BS has not been pushed by everyday Māori, it’s woke-tarded, self-loathing white people and a select group of grifting Māori. It’s a self-indulgent scam that people are using for career progression,” says [name].’ 

7.  Plunket continued (25 minutes into the programme):

Well, I’m going to say to [FENZ Chief Executive], you have put up this proposal, you wrote the report, front up, you chicken. Front up. Tell the people of New Zealand why you’re […] making this ridiculous proposal. I would have thought the best proposal was, we’ve got nothing to do with culture and ethnicity, we don’t have to uphold the Treaty of Waitangi. We need to fight fires and deal to emergencies and anything that isn’t about that, I’m not interested. How about that, [FENZ Chief Executive]? Wouldn’t that be a good, efficient way for taxpayers to have their fire and emergency services delivered? Or are you not really interested in that? 

8.  Plunket continued to read out – and, at times, respond to – listener feedback:

‘Sean, this is nuts. All about adding power to Māori. The statement makes it clear there is no accountability by those in this group,’ says [name]. 

‘Sean, [comparing to another country’s approach], maybe that’s what the aim is – total apartheid. I give up. My regards, [name].’ 

Oh, the text machine is like, humming, isn’t it? 

‘Our fire engines here in [town] have ahi on the front of them instead of a fire. This woke nonsense has been part of the Fire Service for ages,’ says [name]. 

‘[FENZ Chief Executive] is a Māori. Used to work with him in another government department years ago.’ [Plunket responding] I don’t know whether he is or not, I don’t care what his race is. I don’t judge people by the colour of their skin, just the stupidity of their internal reports. 

‘Morning, Sean. Before the show started, I was watching [another media presenter] explaining how councils are giving our rivers and lakes away. This fire service BS has left me feeling sick to the core. This country is so far gone, it’s not coming back. Thanks for the valiant effort. So sad,’ says [name]. 

‘Another great example of self-indulgent woketards and Māori elite grifters wiping their backsides with our hard-earned tax dollars,’ says [name]. Oh, [name], tell us what you really feel! 

‘14 years as a Fire and Emergency New Zealand volunteer here. Completely agree with [first caller]. The worst part is that there’s unsafe fire stations they can’t afford to replace, 25-year-plus-year-old fire trucks that break down on the way to calls, operation personnel that struggle to get uniform[s]. Yet they waste money on this utter crap.’ 

Yeah, I think we’ve hit a nerve here…

9.  The discussion and feedback on the topic of the FENZ proposal continued throughout the three-hour programme in between discussing other topics and was also raised by Plunket in his interview with Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour. Plunket introduced Seymour (approximately 34 minutes into the programme) by noting that ‘the people who would be into that fire service story, into having tikanga in the fire service, they’re the people – he is the person they most love to hate.’ 

10.  After discussing other topics, Plunket and Seymour had the following exchange on the fire service issue (at 46:15 to 50:20 minutes): 

Plunket:          Look, I want to ask you, as I’ve got you here – we have just revealed this morning a report published 10 days ago by the New Zealand fire and emergency management service, proposals for changes, which has a whole section on how they want to embed Rākuia Māori into the fire service. They want to basically make the cultural and te ao Māori an integral part of the New Zealand fire service. Look, a lot of my followers and listeners are saying, I thought this was the Māorification rubbish you guys were getting rid of. 

Seymour:       Yeah, well, that’s news to me, Sean, and I’m sure that Brooke [van Velden], who’s the Minister for Internal Affairs, will be dealing with it. But I just make the point, there’s a lot of this going on and I understand people’s frustration because, yep, so we’ve done things at the high level, we’ve got rid of the Māori Health Authority, we’re having referenda on the Māori wards, we’re saying that services need to be delivered on need, not race, and we do a lot of other things too, so we are doing a lot–

Plunket:          But the New Zealand fire service still thinks it’s okay to embed kaupapa Māori throughout all areas of our work, right? That they are some cultural gatekeeper. They’re firemen! 

Seymour:       Yeah, and look, I tend to agree. I don’t think it’s going to help you put out fires. But just to finish what I was going to say. I acknowledge that all through the Government’s apparatus – whether it’s the universities, whether it is the fire department, some, you know, policy office – there is still a large number of people who are on this kick that New Zealand would be a better place if only we sort of ranked ourselves by when our ancestors arrived and go through all these rituals and say 10 karakia before breakfast. There’s a lot of people who still think that. And our job is to provide leadership and say actually that, that’s not the direction, you have to stop doing that, but it is it is taking some time, I’ll be the first to admit that […] That’s just reality. You know, there’s a whole lot of stuff and a whole lot of attitudes that have grown up over a long period of time that you don’t just stop and turn on a dime the morning after. 

Plunket:          David, I can’t see it from anyone politically where running a government department or agency in Wellington, it by now cannot be seen as anything but an act of defiance against the current Government. Unless there was something else going on, and maybe your National Party mates are saying, no, no, no, we’re all for this, don’t worry, you carry on in the same woke way you were before. Otherwise, I just can’t see how someone like [Chief Executive], the head of the fire service, cannot know that this is going to cause him problems and it’s not what most New Zealanders want. 

Seymour:       Well, let’s not jump to too many conclusions about who’s motivated by what or who’s done this or what they knew or why they did it. 

Plunket:          Well, it’s written by [name], he’s the chief executive of the fire service, we asked him on for an interview, he won’t come on. 

Seymour:       Yeah, I’m sure, I’m sure. But all I’d say is, you know, Brooke van Velden as the minister is constantly battling and taking these things on and saying, look, actually, I’m not quite sure if that’s right, and so on. So, you know, that’s just the ongoing work, I’m afraid to say. And the only other thing I’d say is, you know, I’ve had emails– I had an email from someone a few days ago who said, oh, this is pathetic and you're useless. I say, hang on a minute. This is, this is hard work over a long period of time to turn a big ship around and, you know, if you want to keep backing us to do it, we will. If you don’t, we’ll do something else. But I can tell you this is just the job.

11.  At one point in the broadcast, Plunket appeared to be introducing the next interview, before playing what sounded like a parody of an advertisement encouraging listeners to subscribe to ‘Te Tuapapa’ (halfway through the programme, at 1:31:50): 

Alright it’s that time of the morning, we have got our next interview coming up, but we’ll just welcome our friends from Radio Aotearoa.

[Pre-recorded, exaggerated/dramatic voiceover with music] From the mists of pre-colonial time to the present day, the spirit of our mahi remains the same. Open, tolerant and free. No taxpayer handouts, no woke cultural cringe, no diversity quotas and no political bias. A taonga for free media in Aotearoa New Zealand. Become a member of Te Tuapapa Plus for enhanced content and features. Join the resistance: Te Tuapapa | The Platform.

12.  Throughout the remainder of the broadcast, Plunket had various exchanges with callers on this topic and read many listener-feedback texts, which included the following: 

• [At 58:00, text] ‘Sean, I used to always donate to every St John’s fundraiser raffles when I saw them. Since they’ve wasted so much money on all that renaming and signage stuff, I haven’t given them a cent. And I tell them why too. Seems like I’ll be boycotting the fire brigade too now.’ 
• [At 58:37, text] ‘Sean, love David [Seymour], I’m voting Act. Sadly, though, the over-Māorification of our schools is where we should be focused. School fees are going to cover the open-ended Te Tiriti cost.’
• [At 58:50, text] ‘“Re this fire service, I’ll get on board and all is forgiven if they change the siren to the Once Were Warriors theme,” says [listener]. [Plunket responding] That’s terrible, [listener].’
• [At 59:12, text] ‘Sean, coalition ministers need to start sacking those in the public service who defy the principles of colour blindness.’
• [Caller, at 1:26:36] ‘I’m a vollie firefighter as well currently […] this stuff with [FENZ Chief Executive] has been going on for a long time but the reality is on the shop floor, when we’re en route to a job we don’t give a damn what colour you are, what religion you are, what tikanga, we don’t care about any of that stuff on the job–’
  
  [Plunket interjected] ‘Shouldn’t we dial, tahi tahi tahi?’
  
  [Caller] ‘No– You do whatever you like, but the reality is most of us get in that thing and we get en route and we’re focusing on our job and what equipment we're going to need and most vollies out there relate to this. We really don't care what colour you are or what religion you are.
  
  [Plunket responding] ‘I would say there’s over $2 million on this stuff inside Fire and Emergency New Zealand being spent every year that could be spent on […] equipment and the people that actually do the work.’
  
  [Caller responding] ‘Well, you took the words out of my mouth, mate. Exactly what I was gonna say. You’re better off to spend that money on these machines that are breaking down, our appliances that are breaking down en route. But, […] like I say again, like we’re en route […] we really don’t care about your cultural needs at the time... So, you know, it’s just sad. It’s been very woke for a long time, and you just sort of stomach it and think, well, that’s just the top level. You know, the taller the tree, the thinner the branches up there, but [if] they wanna live and die on this stuff, go for it. But on the shop floor, mate, down here where we all are […] yeah no I won’t go there, but you know I’m just looking at the demograph of volunteers. Follow what I say?’
• [At 1:40:05, text] ‘“Talking about pay, how many people are employed in the fire service Māorification division–” [Plunket interjecting] Well, I’d say at least five or six – “…which sounds like it already exists, and what are they being paid?” [Plunket responding] We don’t know [listener], but it shouldn’t exist.’
• [At 1:41:15, text] ‘Sean, as we Māorify, we become more primitive in all our systems and methods. Is New Zealand going backwards? Shame on our leaders for letting it happen. Vote against it next year.’
• [At 1:47:17, text] ‘Sean, I’m hoping New Zealand First can make Aotearoa “New Zealand” again but I’m not holding my breath.’  
• [At 1:49:15, text] ‘Sean, [broadcaster] is as woke as, and are heavily invested into the Māorification of New Zealand. They already look like a Māori channel with their ads and marketing.’ 
• [At 1:51:05, text] ‘It’s like St John re-branding to Hato Honky, stealth woke takeover and National doing zero about it.’ 
• [At 1:51:14, text] ‘Would [FENZ Chief Executive] like the fire service to recite a quick karakia before they leave the station to save his burning house?’ 
• [At 1:56:04, text] ‘Sean, if you’ve watched [broadcaster], expect more Māori content. [Broadcaster] has gone down the woke, Māorification of content, all sports, including women’s league and rugby.’
• [Caller, at 2:07:35] ‘Sean, just on this Māorification of FENZ, I was speaking to National Party candidates and promoters […] the other day and they said to me that they thought that the Treaty was now a partnership. I said why don’t you support the Treaty Principles Bill and they say if we supported that [we] would have civil war in New Zealand…’
  
  [Plunket responding] ‘Oh, no, I think the National Party is essentially as woke as the Labour Party on that issue. […] I thought [Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s] heart was never really in it, de-Māorification […] we’ll try and get Brooke van Velden on tomorrow and just say, what are you going to do about this? Because I’m damn sure no one voted to have te ao Māori embedded into the fire and emergency service.’

15 October 2025

13.  On 14 October 2025, the Authority emailed to The Platform a draft interlocutory decision finding the Authority had jurisdiction to consider WK’s complaint about the above broadcast.

14.  During Plunket Unchained, broadcast by The Platform online from 7am–10am on 15 October 2025, Plunket told listeners The Platform had received the Authority’s correspondence ‘completely out of the blue’, and asked listeners whether they wanted him to share that correspondence and the decision with them, acknowledging that would be ‘in the knowledge that it may have legal ramifications’.

15.  Plunket introduced this topic at the beginning of the broadcast:

Good morning. Welcome to The Platform. I’m Sean Plunket. This is the information project. And what a show we have for you today. I’m going to start – if you want to – I’m gonna ask your opinion on this by explaining to you the greatest existential threat to this organisation, to The Platform and the free speech it exercises, we have ever experienced. And I want your views on how we proceed to the attack that is coming against us.

16.  After The Platform’s opening news bulletin, Plunket continued:

This comes in the wider context of communication I received yesterday, with absolutely no warning, from the Broadcasting Standards Authority – an organisation set up to censor and regulate what is said, in other words, control the free speech of people who are on the television and radio in New Zealand and of course we’re not on the television or radio, are we? In fact, when the Broadcasting Act was written in 1989 establishing the Broadcast Standards Authority, the internet didn’t really exist. The Broadcasting Standards Authority, which I sat on for one meeting, is a woke organisation that seeks to, by the back door, impose hate speech restrictions on all New Zealanders. I have operated The Platform, you have been part of The Platform, for three years, and the BSA has not come near us because we’re not broadcasters. 

But I received some communication from them yesterday saying they’ve had a secret meeting and they’ve changed their minds, and they now want us to be subject to their censorship and their rules. Strangely enough, they say we want submissions on our decision that we’ve got jurisdiction over you. By sending me the decision in draft form, they’ve already made their mind up, so I don’t know why you’re bothering asking me. They also sent it to me with the words ‘not for publication’ on it. Well, I didn’t agree prior to them sending it to honour that, I presume there’s no suppression order, I want to share that correspondence with you this morning, in the interests of free speech. 

I also wish to share with you the person, the left-wing activist, who sparked this complaint. I would do so in the absence of having spent thousands of dollars on lawyers to decide whether I can do that. I intend to do that simply because I think it’s the right thing to do. If you’re concerned that that could me out for liability and you don’t want me to do it, I won’t. But I’m going to leave it with you – do you want me to exercise my freedom of speech and tell you how a bunch of bureaucrats have decided to take it upon themselves to decide where the boundaries of their authority lie without reference to Parliament, to the people we elect? Or should I just shut up, spend thousands of dollars on lawyers and have The Platform go under because we will be swamped by an absolute avalanche of woke complaints? From people who do not like the views that you express or I express or [another Platform host] expresses or our guests express. 

But this is the biggest threat to The Platform and its ongoing survival and the freedom of speech that we were set up to encourage. This is the bureaucrats, the Orwellian bureaucrats coming for us. I can lie down, I can walk away, or I can fight, but if I fight it is going to be difficult and tough and it’s a hill I’m prepared to die on. So, I just want in the next 10 minutes, as I deal with this other story, I want you to tell me if you think I should take the risk and tell you the whole story as it stands to date because if I do, we’re going to war.

17.  Following listener calls and texts encouraging him to share the Authority’s correspondence, Plunket read out the Authority’s correspondence, which included the complainant’s full name:

All right, let’s get into it then and just bear with me […]. Yesterday in the ‘hello’ inbox – not even to my personal email, in the ‘hello’ inbox – we got an email from […] the legal officer at the Broadcasting Standards Authority. It was completely out of the blue. I haven’t had anything to do with the legal officer at the Broadcasting Standards Authority because I’ve got nothing to do them. Her name is [name] and she signs her letters, ‘naki no’u’, or ‘yours sincerely’, and she is a ‘she/her/ia’. I don’t know what an ‘ia’ is, but that’s [name]. I’ll read you the letter. 

‘Kia ora, [complainant’s full name]–’ [complainant’s full name] who I understand runs a charity connected with the global woke outfit [name of lobby group] who are woke activists and actually got a petition going to have me thrown off the Broadcasting Standards Authority years ago. Well. ‘[Complainant’s full name] has referred a complaint about you, your 22nd of July broadcast, to the Authority. A copy of the complaint is attached. As this is the first time the Authority has considered a formal complaint about an online broadcaster, the Authority wishes to resolve any questions of jurisdiction at the outset. The Authority has issued the attached provisional decision on the jurisdiction issue. Please note that each page is marked “not for publication”–’ So f-ing what? ‘…and the draft is confidential to you and the complainant–’ well, I have made no assurances prior to receiving this that I would abide by that confidentiality. I’m presuming there is not a suppression order on this so if you send something to a journalist you can expect it’s going to be published, sweetheart ‘…for you to provide feedback on the jurisdiction issues it addresses.’ 

So, you’ve reached a provisional decision without talking to me. And now, post-factual, you want me to comment on it. ‘It is not the Authority’s decision on the merits of the complaint.’ Which we can deal with pretty quickly. ‘The Authority will consider the merits of the complaint once it has resolved the issue of jurisdiction.’ But you’re telling me you’ve already reached that decision, you just want me to sign off on it. ‘I would be grateful if I could have submissions from you no later than Wednesday the 12th of November. Your submissions will be shared with the complainant and theirs with yours.’ No, I’m not playing that game. You don’t have authority over me. ‘If we confirm jurisdiction, the complaint will proceed in our usual way. A case manager will be appointed and a decision is typically available within 30– a further 90 days, depending on the complexity and workload. Your case manager will keep you updated. We’ll provide more details about the process after the attached decision is finalised. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please let me know. Ngaki noa naa, [name], shee herrr ea.’ 

So, we haven’t made a decision, but we have. We’ve decided we’re the boss of you. We never asked you when we made that decision. Oh, and we want you to keep this all secret, please. Even though we didn’t ask for any assurances of secrecy beforehand. And we’re not showing you any suppression order. Amazing. Oh, […] and we’re trying to trick you into getting into this complaints procedure anyway, before we decide whether or not we’re the boss of you.

18.  Plunket went on to read the complainant’s correspondence referring their complaint to the Authority:

I’ll read the complaint to you and it’s from [complainant’s full name] and I can remember this guy complaining at the time. He’s written to [the BSA]. 

‘Hello Broadcasting Standards Authority. Below is a request for comment from The Platform about what I consider–’ It wasn't a complaint, it was a request from comment – ‘…from The Platform about what I consider to be unacceptable racist comments made by Mr Plunket online.’ Not broadcasting, online. ‘I was doing so following your process of contacting the media outlet first, hopefully the description of what I complained about is clear enough, the word used was actually that tikanga is mumbo-jumbo.’ 

Yes, I did say that and I still believe it. Tikanga is mumbo jumbo, [complainant’s full name]. Tikanga is mumbo jumbo. Stick that up your jumper. 

‘And the response from The Platform was pretty clear too. Are they correct that they are not covered by your standards? Is there any kind of remedy for this obviously racist talk? [Complainant’s full name].’ 

Thanks, [complainant’s first name]. And when [complainant’s first name] wrote to me, he said, ‘I think that’s unacceptable, this is a complaint under the Broadcasting Standards Authority,’ and I just said, ‘you plonker, we aren’t subject to the Broadcasting Standards Authority.’ And [complainant’s first name] runs off to the Broadcasting Standards Authority. Now I don’t think his complaint’s got any merit. The only thing that I did wrong was said something that [complainant’s first name], who’s a wokester, disagreed with. But that’s what freedom of speech is. That’s what public debate is. So, did, when [complainant’s full name] ran off to the BSA, did they come to me and say look we’ve got an issue with this, let’s talk about it? No, they didn’t. They had a secret meeting and they produced a draft decision that without reference to Parliament which wrote the original broadcasting standards act or Broadcasting Act in 1989, long before the internet even existed, they came up with, and I’ll just show– it’s got, it’s ‘not for publication’ written all over it, but you send something to a journalist, this is what’s gonna happen, sweetheart.

19.  Plunket read out the Authority’s provisional decision. Later, he again named the complainant while further discussing the topic of the BSA: 

So, we’ll keep an eye on it [referring to another story], but I wouldn’t waste too much of your precious time worrying about it and I suppose I could say you might say the same about the issues facing The Platform. But as I said, if the BSA is allowed to, on its own whim – woke whim – put us under its control, it is the end of The Platform. It is impracticable to continue with the woke lobbyists and the Green Party supporters lining up and making stupid complaints. 

Oh, by the way, [complainant’s full name], I think tikanga is mumbo jumbo. You wanna lay another complaint, sweetheart? Tikanga, in my opinion, is mumbo jumbo, [complainant’s full name]. 

[Complainant’s first name] runs a charity aligned with [name of lobby group] which is a Green Party-affiliated action lobby network who run campaigns against people they don’t like, including running a campaign and a petition against me when I was on the Broadcasting Standards Authority, which made it impossible for me to continue. I will also add, that that campaign by [lobby group] was supported by the staff of the Broadcasting Standards Authority who are a bunch of woke Wellington shiny bums. 

20.  There was further lengthy discussion by Plunket throughout the programme that was strongly critical of the BSA, and he read out many listener texts in support of Plunket and The Platform. There were at least two instances where the complainant was named again:

• [Reading text] ‘“Sean, [complainant’s surname] is in breach of the charities rule by being politically active. Time for a complaint.” Okay…’
• [Plunket responding to another text] ‘And [listener], don’t worry too much about this complainant, [complainant’s full name], he’s not really the problem, the complaint is ridiculous. This is an attempt by a bunch of bureaucrats to stifle your freedom…’

Further broadcasts 

21.  Plunket continued to regularly discuss the BSA matter in his broadcasts, including on 20 October 2025 when he again disclosed the complainant’s full name in the context of apologising for doxxing them:

By the way, it looks like I probably doxxed this poor guy, [complainant’s full name], when I published all the correspondence from the BSA. I’m sorry, [complainant’s first name]. I didn’t mean to. There’s not much I can do now. That wouldn’t be actionable under the broadcasting standards act, that’s just me. And I’m sorry, I do genuinely apologise, [complainant’s first name]. But if you want to discuss your issues, you can ring, mate.

22.  Plunket opened his show on 22 October 2025 by saying:

Look, I want to start this morning with a request of you. As you know, issues around the BSA and The Platform have become quite the news. […] But I do want to make a serious plea and request of you. All this was supposedly sparked, though I don’t think it really was, by a complaint to me about a programme we aired– no, not a programme, about something I said in June or July. And this person wrote to me saying he wanted to complain under the BSA, and I said, you can’t you plonker, I’m not covered, and things developed from there. That individual’s identity I guess was disclosed when I published all my correspondence from the BSA and there’s nothing I can do about that now. That person has contacted me quite a lot since. Um, and […] I don’t really want to comment, I'm not going to repeat the correspondence, but it would appear to me that person has had a few things going on in their life which are causing some strain and because, and a number of people obviously have contacted or made comment about him during the last week or so – I’d ask that we don’t. That person, that individual, is not really responsible for what the BSA are trying to do for their overreach and for this controversy. I think that person was an unwitting pawn in a wider game being played by the wokesters at the BSA. So, I would ask that you leave that person alone. They’ve also suffered a bereavement in the last week or so and they are clearly feeling that and that’s impacting on them. So, I do ask that we stick to the issue on this. And we don’t play the person, and we don’t do what of course it would appear to me the people at the BSA want to do – we don’t launch our witch hunt against him. No point me taking down the stuff I posted, it’s already out there in the world, but let’s be decent Kiwis about this and let’s leave that person alone and put our focus where it is and that’s on the issues that this whole thing has raised. Thank you very much. 

Appendix 2 – Correspondence 

The correspondence listed below was received and considered by the Authority:

First complaint: 22 July 2025 broadcast

1  WK’s original complaint – 31 July 2025

2  The Platform’s response to the complainant – 1 August 2025

3  WK’s referral to the Authority – 4 August 2025

Second complaint: 15 October 2025 broadcast

4  WK’s original complaint – 20 October 2025

5  WK’s referral to the Authority – 26 November 2025

6  Correspondence between BSA and WK regarding scope of complaint – 8 to 16 April 2026

7  Further information from WK regarding abusive messages – 17 June to 8 July 2026

¹ WK and The Platform Media NZ Ltd & NZ Media Holdings 2023 Ltd, Decision No. ID2025-063
² Broadcasting Act 1989, s 8(1C)
³ WK and The Platform Media NZ Ltd & NZ Media Holdings 2023 Ltd, Decision No. ID2025-063
⁴ As above, at [69]-[72]
⁵ Section 4(1)(a)
⁶ Section 4(1)(b)
⁷ Section 4(1)(c)
⁸ Commentary: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 8
⁹ Standard 1: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹⁰ See, for example, Hunt and Māori Television, Decision No. 2009-010 at [4] and [10] 
¹¹ For example, Radio Code, 2015
¹² Standard 3: Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹³ Commentary: Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 11
¹⁴ Commentary: Privacy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 19
¹⁵ Commentary, Standard 7, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 19
¹⁶ Freedom of Expression: Introduction, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 6
¹⁷ For example, see Guideline 1.2: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹⁸ For example, see Newton-Wade and NZME Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2025-082 at [43]; YS and NZME Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2023-011 at [15]-[17]; Singh and NZME Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2024-089 from [7]; and Dempsey and 3 Others and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2014-047 at [17]
¹⁹ For a similar discussion, see Blissett and Radioworks Ltd, Decision No. 2012-006 at [16]
²⁰ Adapted from Commentary: Offensive and Disturbing Content (formerly Good Taste and Decency), Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, pages 8-9  
²¹ The Platform <theplatform.kiwi>
²² The Platform <theplatform.kiwi>
²³ See, for example, Hargreaves and MediaWorks Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2020-044B at [14]; Green and MediaWorks Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2015-087
²⁴ The Platform <theplatform.kiwi/platform-plus>
²⁵ See, for example, Newton-Wade and NZME Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2025-082 at [47] and Walker and MediaWorks Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2018-069 at [5]
²⁶ Te Whata and MediaWorks Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2020-141
²⁷ Petros and The Radio Network Ltd, Decision No. 2009-040
²⁸ Petros and The Radio Network Ltd, Decision No. 2009-040 
²⁹ Te Whata and MediaWorks Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2020-141
³⁰ Lane and NZME Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2024-033 at [10]
³¹ ‘Whether the comments were repeated or sustained’ is listed as one factor relevant to the assessment of ‘whether a broadcast has gone too far’, with respect to encouraging discrimination against, or denigration of a particular section of the community. See Guideline 4.3: Discrimination and Denigration, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 12
³² ‘Mumbo jumbo’ was not tested, and was not identified by research participants as a potentially offensive term, in the Authority’s latest research on Language That May Offend in Broadcasting – see Broadcasting Standards Authority | Te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho Language That May Offend in Broadcasting (2025) at pages 10 and 18. The Cambridge Dictionary defines the English meaning as ‘words or activities that seem complicated or mysterious but have no real meaning (“Mumbo jumbo”, Cambridge Dictionary <dictionary.cambridge.org>), while a 2014 article suggests the term’s history dates back centuries and traces its roots to Africa: the exact origin is uncertain (Lakshmi Gandhi “Unmasking the Meaning and Marital Disputes Behind Mumbo Jumbo” NPR (online ed, May 31, 2014))
³³ See, for example, FENZ “Te huarahi ō tō tatou mahi - the path that guides our work”: ‘For many years, the work of Kaupapa Māori has been carried by a dedicated few. However to build the future we want, this can no longer be the way. In 2017 we published our commitment to working with Māori as tangata whenua which recognises the importance of Māori communities as key stakeholders in Fire and Emergency’s work. In 2021, we launched Hiwa-i-te-Rangi – a programme which brought to life our commitment to working with Māori and laid a foundation for us to better connect with and serve Māori communities. In 2024, we launched our Rautaki Māori (Māori Strategy) […]. Our Rautaki is an enduring strategy to make sure we continue to deliver better outcomes for Māori […].’ <fireandemergency.nz> (accessed 2 July 2026)
³⁴ Joseph Los’e “FENZ prioritises Kaupapa Māori with new appointment” Te Ao Māori News (online ed, September 25, 2023); FENZ “About Us: Our Commitments: Rautaki Māori | Māori Strategy” <fireandemergency.nz> (accessed 24 June 2026); FENZ “Our commitment to working with Māori as tangata whenua” <fireandemergency.nz> (accessed 23 June 2026)
³⁵ See Laura Walters "Govt finalises 23 laws in scope of Treaty clause review" Newsroom (online ed, 25 July 2026); Layla Bailey-McDowell "Waitangi Tribunal begins urgent inquiry into school Treaty obligations and curriculum changes" RNZ (online ed, 15 April 2026); Te Aniwaniwa Paterson "UN sounds alarm on NZ racism and Māori rights" Te Ao Māori News (online ed, 7 December 2025); Bronwyn Houliston, Jane Jarman and Kārena Ngata "Why the new history curriculum will deepen divisions in Aotearoa" The Spinoff (online ed, 2 December 2025); "Māori wards: 25 communities vote to remove them" NewstalkZB (online ed, 12 October 2025); Te Manu Korihi "Battle over Māori Health Authority disestablishment goes to court" RNZ (online ed, 25 August 2025); Toni Talamaivao "The bill that will torch Māori-Crown relations" E-Tangata (online ed, 10 August 2025); Kathryn Armstrong "New Zealand rejects rights bill after widespread outrage" BBC (online ed, 10 April 2025); "42,000 join as Treaty Principles Bill hīkoi reaches Parliament" RNZ (online ed, 19 November 2024); Lillian Hanley "Treaty Principles Bill: What you need to know" RNZ (online ed, 24 September 2024); 1News Reporters "Section 7AA explained: The repeal that has iwi marching to Parliament" 1News (online ed, 2 August 2024); and Tova O’Brien "How the Government's push for English-first names is tracking" Stuff (online ed, 8 April 2024)
³⁶ Section 4, Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015
³⁷ Section 6(1), Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015
³⁸ For example, Ihaia & IM and MediaWorks Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2015-074 at [55]
³⁹ As discussed in Hunt and Māori Television, Decision No. 2009-010 from [15]: Parliament has recognised the importance of maintaining standards of law and order in s 4(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, and the requirement in various codes of broadcasting standards over time – as outlined above – have been drafted in accordance with Parliament’s intention, to ensure that broadcasters refrain from broadcasting material which does not respect the laws which sustain our society.
⁴⁰ Guideline 7.1: Privacy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 18
⁴¹ Guidelines 7.3 and 7.4: Privacy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 18
⁴² Guideline 7.8: Privacy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 18
⁴³ Office of the Privacy Commissioner, “What is personal information?” <privacy.org.nz>
⁴⁴ Peters v Attorney-General sued on behalf of Ministry of Social Development [2021] NZCA 355 [2 August 2021] at [98]-[99] (citing Hosking v Runting [2005] 1 NZLR 1 (CA) at [117]) and [105]: ‘The common law in relation to protection of privacy has been developed by the New Zealand courts against the backdrop of the rights recognised in the ICCPR and the Privacy Act… The tort of giving publicity to private facts was recognised by [the majority] in Hosking v Runting […] Gault P and Blanchard J considered that in New Zealand there are two fundamental requirements for a successful tort claim for invasion of privacy: (a) the existence of facts in respect of which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy; and (b) publicity given to those private facts that would be considered highly offensive to an objective reasonable person. […] Subsequent cases in New Zealand have consistently applied the formulation of the test adopted by Gault P and Blanchard J.’ The Court in Peters went on to note, ‘there has been some development in the way in which the elements of the tort are expressed, and reservations have been expressed about the desirability of a separate ‘highly offensive’ limb of the test,’ with some suggesting a threshold of ‘substantial offence’ rather than ‘high offence’, and others suggesting this limb should be disposed of and instead incorporated into the assessment of whether there was a ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’.
⁴⁵ Guideline 7.4: Privacy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 18
⁴⁶ A and RadioWorks Ltd, Decision No. 2000-048
⁴⁷ See, for example, Hill and Radio One, Decision No. 2013-074 at [12]-[15]; Mustapic and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-037 at [23]; and NH v Radio Virsa [2022] NZHC 2412 [20 September 2022] at [123]-[124]
⁴⁸ Guideline 7.3: Privacy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 18
⁴⁹ Adapted from Guideline 7.8: Privacy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 18
⁵⁰ Russek and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2007-016 at [32], citing Hosking v Runting [2005] 1 NZLR 1 (CA) at [30]
⁵¹ Guideline 7.9: Privacy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 18
⁵² With privacy identified by Parliament in the Broadcasting Act 1989 as an area warranting special protection: by its inclusion in s 4; as the only standard for which complaints may be made directly to this Authority, without having to go to the broadcaster first; and by empowering the Authority to award compensation for a breach of privacy (but not for any other breach of standards).
⁵³ “The Ballad of the BSA” (20 October 2025) <youtube.com>