Written By:
- Date published:
1:31 pm, October 16th, 2025 - 46 comments
Categories: broadcasting, david seymour, human rights, Media, the praiseworthy and the pitiful, uncategorized, winston peters -
Tags:
Stand by for the latest culture war skirmish.
Sean Plunket is deeply upset at the notion that he should be subject to fairly minimal standards and is theatening to sue the Broadcasting Standards Authority and its members.
The cause is the BSA indicating to him its belief that the Platform is a broadcaster for the purposes of the Broadcasting Act 1989.
In my view there is a very good argument that the Platform is subject to the Act.
A broadcaster is defined as a person who broadcasts programmes.
Broadcasting is defined as:
“[A]ny transmission of programmes, whether or not encrypted, by radio waves or other means of telecommunication for reception by the public by means of broadcasting receiving apparatus but does not include any such transmission of programmes—
(a) made on the demand of a particular person for reception only by that person; or
(b) made solely for performance or display in a public place.”
And a programme includes sounds or visual images, or a combination of sounds and visual images, intended to inform, enlighten, or entertain; or to promote the interests of any person; or to promote any product or service.
Broadcasters are responsible for the observance of good taste and decency, the maintenance of law and order, the privacy of the individual; and the principle that when controversial issues of public importance are discussed, reasonable efforts are made, or reasonable opportunities are given, to present significant points of view either in the same programme or in other programmes within the period of current interest.
I can see why Plunket is aghast that these requirements should apply to him.
The definitions are pretty wide. Transmission of programmes via the internet must be a means of telecommunication for reception by the public by means of broadcasting receiving apparatus which must include a computer.
And this particular issue has been highlighted by the BSA since 2019 after the Christchurch massacre.
Then chair Bill Hastings said this in the 2019 Annual Report:
I joined the BSA at a pivotal time in the history of content regulation. We live in the so-called information age, which is characterised by access to a vast supply of information delivered to us by a wide range of evolving and new technologies across a wide range of platforms. In my view, what content is regulated should not be determined by the medium or technology we use to deliver and receive that content, yet that is how the laws we use are presently drafted. It is apparent that these new technologies continue to test our ability to regulate content using existing outdated legislation. This challenge extends beyond traditional forms of broadcasting to all technology platforms.
This was starkly, and tragically, brought to the fore on 15 March 2019 when our country, our people, were subject to the horrific terrorist attack on two mosques in Christchurch. The livestreaming of the attack on social media, as well as the necessary simultaneous and subsequent reporting of a terrorist event in New Zealand, raised new and challenging issues for content regulation.
It is clear that now, in 2019, convergence has happened. New Zealanders are recipients of content from many platforms, from many providers, and from many jurisdictions. Broadcasters distribute content via radio waves, public spectrum satellite and the internet – yet our role has traditionally only extended to only some of those distribution channels. Whether it has broader application needs to be considered and tested. As my predecessor, Peter Radich said, it is now critical for the content regulatory framework to change if the agencies charged with overseeing community safeguards are to be effective in promoting ethical standards and avoiding harm across the much broader range of content available to us all.
Six years later the BSA is wanting to test that jurisdiction.
Clearly the view is that if something that would be actionable if said by Heather Du Plessis-Allan on Newstalk ZB should also be actionable if said by Sean Plunket on the Platform. To allow a remendy against one shock jock and not the other for doing essentially the same thing is weird.
And Plunket is no stranger to the BSA. He was originally a member of the BSA appointed by the last National Government but resigned after he tweeted a sympathetic message about convicted serial rapist Harvey Weinstein.
In 2020 he was fined for amplifying negative stereotypes about Maori. He then left talkback radio station MagicTalk after a threatened advertiser boycott and set up the Platform.
New gig, same sort of right wing ranting but Plunket believes that the slight change in delivery methods means that he should be immune from repercussions for his words.
He has chosen to attack the BSA after it provided a draft opinion to him that determined that he was a broadcaster. The complaint reates to further Maori bashing by Plunkett. On receipt of the complaint the Platform replied “You Plonker we aren’t subject to the Broadcasting Standards Authority”.
Little did the Platform know.
Plunket has been offered help by NZ First donor and former Stuart Nash supporter Troy Bowker.
Bowker has been involved in a number of things. He paid Simon Lusk to write a strategy report to set up a new centrist party. Nash denied initial knowledge of it.
He also donated money to Nash. He railed against the bright line test and accused the last Labour Goverment of being socialist. If only.
He also hates use of the name Aotearoa.
His place in history is that he was one of the people Nash leaked confidential cabinet minutes to, thereby spelling the end of his career as a Minister, at least under a Labour Government.
Winston Peters and David Seymour have chosen to chime in. Of course they have.
Peters has stated:
Why does the Broadcasting Standards Authority think they can make up their own rules in secret meetings to act like some Soviet era stasi. The blatant overreach on display by the BSA now dictating they can censor and monitor anything transmitted on the internet is highly concerning.
And not to be outdone Seymour has said:
When the Broadcasting Standards Authority was formed by Parliament in 1989, there was no internet.
“Parliament never asked them to police the internet, but they’re going after The Platform New Zealand. They’ve decided it’s their job because a broadcast is sound and pictures. Sounds like a brave move from them, I look forward to seeing their explanation.”
But as pointed out in the draft opinion section 11 of the Legislation Act states that “Legislation applies to circumstances as they arise.”
Of course the Bill of Rights does apply. It provides significant protection for language and the BSA already has to balance this against the damage that offensive language causes. Have a read of this Steven Price opinion if you want to understand the subtleties.
But this is not an attack on free speech. It is an attempt to ensure that all broadcasters abide by similar ethical requirements and the means of transmitting their public programs should not mean that some are exempt from any standards.
Stand by however for the circus to start.
Update:
Paul the other one has a similar view.
And yes Reality Check Radio is concievably caught as well.
The real problem is the can of worms it opens, how do you decide which online content is subject to it?
The various streams and youtube channels that fill equally niche markets? Gaming streams on Twitch which are massive? Bombers politics show? Tiktok? They all have content which falls foul of the BSA.
That was my first thought: if the BSA thinks Sean Plunket expressing opinions in a live-stream video falls under its remit, it needs to say what livestream opinion content it thinks is NOT covered by its remit. What are the criteria?
So you are OK with this site being within the remit of the BSA?
This site does not broadcast programmes.
mmm… yes it applies “Legislation applies to circumstances as they arise.” remember?
even where we share video from other sites, the Act seems to say that the responsibility is with the broadcaster, not the platform provider. Will be interested to see what Lprent has to say on this.
2.2
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1989/0025/latest/whole.html#DLM155371
I would actually be fine with this site being subject to the Act. The obligations are not too onerous and the repercussions not great.
The difference is that we don't do it as a commercial entity. This clearly contrasts us from Plunket or for that matter Reality Check Radio.
you could run the tutorial for the authors
I imagine the government will legislate to fix this anomaly. They clearly don't feel it reflect parliament's intention so will close the loop in the next 6 months.
It is not an anomaly.
What is an anomaly is Plunket thinking that he is under the BSA when he works as a shock jock in a radio station that broadcasts over air and internet but not when he works as a shock jock for a station that only broadcasts over the intenet.
my understanding is it is the first complaint about a webcaster to the BSA (which is extraordinary in itself). I'm betting Plunket isn't the only webcaster or podcaster reacting to this or not thinking they are covered by the BSA.
The Platform appears to be a venue for political right bile. Perhaps that is why Winston came out calling the BSA "Stazi' (Secret Police!!)….only not so secret really.
Perhaps that is why Platform money support from the right has pledged to assist?
Must keep the deluge of rancorous accusations and catcalls free of criticism.
The faucet flow will be full bore ahead of the next Election. We will be drowned in diatribe drivel.
Really? Because what he said is that he thinks he will attract an unreasonable number of politicised complaints, which is probably true. If that happens I expect to see it weaponised against the left. Because that's what happens when you frame this as a culture war issue, a culture war ensues.
I think the BSA fucked up by using this complaint against Plunket to test the coverage of webcasting and podcasting. There's now an organised move to get rid of the BSA altogether. This seems unlikely to succeed, but what it does is gift the right another set of tools in their push to remove democratic norms.
I'd like to know why the BSA waited for this complaint, which was always going to create a big stir, instead of signalling they wanted to broaden their remit so that everyone knew what was happening and importantly who it would cover.
On the face of it, there's a clear and compelling case to include webcasters like The Platform and it seems reasonable for the BSA to want to do this.
The problem is going to be how non-TV/radio organisations are defined. Presumably if TP and Reality Radio is covered then so would BHN and Bomber's programme. What about podcasters? Which ones? All of them if they are NZ based? Political party livestreams? Any livestreams for that matter.
tiktok, instagram, FB, twitter. If someone in NZ runs a regular Space on twitter is that covered? what about a one off Space?
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/576062/sean-plunket-calls-for-broadcasting-standards-authority-to-be-disbanded
Sure, but most people in NZ aren't going to read the legislation and be able to make sense of it. Maybe the BSA should explain all the things so the public can understand.
twitch, discord… I have no idea. BSA really should have thought this stuff through and prepared answers.
Thats the problem in a nutshell, its something parliament needs to define and if they want the BSA to moniter it will need alot more resource and probably legislation as broadcasters currently have to pay a levy and file accounts with the BSA each year.
what do you mean file accounts?
maybe they're going to go complaint by complaint. Which would be a terrible approach.
agree that it’s something for parliament to establish
As its currently set up, large broadcasters with revenue over $500k pay a levy which funds the BSA the levy is currently set at .00051% of total revenue. Broadcasters need to file accounts showing revenue.
If the BSA were to expand its reach so widely more revenue would need to be found. That would take legislation.
The same sort of thing in different words is the big broadcasters are seeing their revenue get slashed as advertising moves away from legacy media to on-line platforms.
Like so many of these issues, motivation isn't cut and dried and down to a single factor.
I know he is from the 'other side' but Liam Hehir has an opinion piece on his Substack. The points I took was that the crux of the issue is the term "broadcast" and the BSA has chosen the broadest definition of broadcast.
He also opines "Entities like the BSA have an interest in expanding their domain. As I have written before, there is a serious humility deficit in New Zealand when it comes to servants of the state interpreting their own mandates."
In the link he cites Te Whatu Ora opposing a McDs in Wanaka and attempting to close down charity raffles as well as the Reserve Bank and Privacy Commissioner not 'sticking in their lane'.
https://thebluereview.substack.com/p/the-bsa-has-logged-on
His arguments fall short, of course.
Many people receive internet via wireless transmission and are not ‘online’ at all. These would qualify as broadcast even when strictly adhering to a constrained interpretation of technology referred to in the 1989 Act.
I don't know that regulators spend a lot of time hoping to extend their jurisdictions, especially if resources are constrained. However, not including internet transmission could lead to outcomes like TVNZ or RNZ broadcasts coming under the BSA if broadcast on TV or Radio, but not if broadcast solely online e.g. TVNZ On Demand (which occasionally has shows that haven't been broadcast on TV in NZ) or YouTube.
That's not intuitive, so I could imagine commissioning legal advice to see either way if a complaint was received about an online-only programme, after which it's difficult to ignore the advice if it concludes that broadcasting includes via internet.
https://www.lawcom.govt.nz/our-work/regulatory-gaps-and-new-media/tab/report
It does seem some work was done 2013 that went nowhere, the Law commission seemed to be of the view the that a new body was needed and 'an amendment to the Broadcasting Act 1989, to alter the jurisdiction of the Broadcasting Standards Authority;'
and 'Currently web-based news sites and current affairs bloggers are subject only to the minimum legal requirements which apply to all communicators. Broadcasters are subject to statutory regulation with respect to the content they live stream, but content made available on-demand, and the content published on their websites, falls outside this regulatory framework'
It does seem they've drawn a very long bow.
With the demise of the conventional broadcasters the BSAs relevance would be diminishing. So I can understand them wanting to widen their purview.
There's less of us watching TV, I know in our household the tele is used for casting from other devices.
No doubt, but it seems that a law change would be needed. Perhaps they've decided to force the issue and The Platform was a good target to do that.
He has a good turn of phrase and is also correct.
He’s very good at describing the Coalition that epitomises that and which leads by example.
Don't get me started on the fact that our lack of a written constitution and "Parliament is sovereign" means it's impossible for a government with a parliamentary majority to exceed its mandate…
Ministers not staying in their lanes, telling-offs by the Attorney-General, the sheer arrogance of this lot shows a severe humility deficit. Sad thing is that this isn’t the only shortcoming of the Coalition.
A bit like how nation state governments that do not need to show any accountability to international rules act then?
The three heads of the Coalition hydra will have different interpretations at times and their agendas won’t overlap all the time and can even lead to internal conflict before it even reaches Parliament. And don’t get me started on the strain it could put on the Government’s social licence if it decides to ‘overreach’; this Thursday will be a show of hands (or fingers, rather).
It appears that, like the Coalition of Cockups, the writer is only concerned with State servants "exceeding their mandate" when it is something he personally doesn't like.
Parallels with Seymour and Peter's lip service to "free speech"!
Humans being human, things we don't like are the examples we tend to notice.
From another angle do they advertise or promote in any form as I've seen many RC billboards along highways. Hyde, Williams etc seeking your attention.
It looks and acts like a traditional radio station with one form of delivery medium. Follow the money, whats Plunket getting p.a. one wonders to stir it up.
Rimmer and Winnie will not help the cause IMO as this just brings them more audience
If you have Radio or News in your name you are media.
If you undertake editorial discourse or interviews you are media. ( ISTR Whaleoil going to court to establish that?)
If the public can easily access your pronouncements then you are broadcast.
Just my $0.02 worth.
Agreed. Keep digging Sean.
Whatever.
Plunket is still announcing that he doesn't think he should adhere to the very minimal standards of responsibility and decency, set by the BSA.
ACT rides to the rescue with their "no standards" (and why have public funding for state owned media) approach.
https://www.thepost.co.nz/politics/360858104/act-considers-bill-abolish-broadcasting-standards-authority
They get to spray and walk away all the time. People need to see the arrogance, lack of substance and general bluster when they're asked a decent question.
When does the ACT party start to get questioned over shambolic school lunches, their ministry of well paid mates etc.
Can someone also ask Peters how he saves the billions he trumpeted about now he's finally got another ferry builder locked in.
Peters melts down often now and is so quick with the cheap shots for sound bites acting the grumpy old man to a T.
"When does the ACT party start to get questioned over shambolic school lunches, their ministry of well paid mates etc"
Yep, along with that Ministers lying during wage negotiations (Collins, Luxon, Brown), Ministers and senior Public Servants involved in Torture in State Care (Jagose, Collins again, and others from past regimes) through to the blatant acts of self service practiced by Mr Thumb- selling real estate once he had the bright line test changed and removing EV subsidies once the Tesla stable at his home was full.
AI
Background.
https://www.dia.govt.nz/media-and-online-content-regulation
Update this year
https://www.hgmlegal.com/insights/significant-regulatory-reform-proposed-for-new-zealand-media
The Platform isn't broadcasting cos unlike TV & radio they don't have a broadcast license. If the BSA want to play censor then they need to do every podcast and rando YT channel, and, and. All they and Mickey Savage have done is draw attention to Plunkett which he's probably pretty stoked about as eyballs=ads=revenue.
Issued by MBIE to manage the radio spectrum, not content.
Not strictly true, the issuing of a licence and frequency comes with the requirement to join, fund and adhere to bsa standards and procedures. If you care to read the Law Commisions work I linked to above they are of the opinion that even the ondemand services of the major broadcasters arent covered under the current legislation.
Allelujah ! good to be back. I despise Sean Oliver Plunket and all others like him but this as given Seymour and Peters something to whine about self righteously. But unfortunately taken the eyes off the real issues of this horrid government.
I agree Darien. The fuss is always covering other underhand overt or problematic things.