12,000 New Zealanders Tell Goldsmith to Put the Broadcasting Standards Authority Back in Its Box

A Growing Public Response

Late on Friday afternoon, the Broadcasting Standards Authority moved on three complaints against The Platform, requesting recordings of broadcasts that were never aired on traditional channels. Each of the programmes in question was published online.

That decision has triggered a significant public response.

Around 12,000 New Zealanders have now written to the Broadcasting Minister through the Free Speech Union’s campaign, calling on him to rein in the Authority. The number continues to grow.

Jurisdiction Under Question

At the centre of the issue is whether the Broadcasting Standards Authority has any legal mandate to regulate online content.

"An unelected panel of four people in Wellington is working through a stack of complaints against an independent online publisher it has no statutory authority to regulate," said Jillaine Heather, CEO of the Free Speech Union.

"Whether those complaints have merit is beside the point. Parliament never gave the Authority the power to hear them. Fairness, accuracy and privacy are serious matters, but there are lawful forums for them. The Broadcasting Standards Authority is not one of them."

A Precedent Beyond One Case

The concern extends far beyond The Platform itself.

If the Authority’s interpretation stands, any New Zealander could file a complaint about any online broadcast they disagree with — including podcasts, livestreams, and webinars.

Commentator Liam Hehir highlighted the scope of the issue:

"Any smartphone or laptop falls within the definition. Which means that any Zoom webinar or Twitch stream open to the public could be seen as a broadcast."

He also raised a fundamental constitutional question:

"If the legislature considered and declined to extend the Broadcasting Act to the internet, should an appointed Authority do it via creative interpretation?"

Broad Criticism Across the Spectrum

Criticism of the decision has not been confined to one political or media viewpoint.

Duncan Greive of The Spinoff described the ruling as "logically inconsistent," noting that it appears to exempt major global platforms such as YouTube and Netflix, while targeting a smaller independent publisher.

Political figures including Winston Peters, David Seymour, and ACT’s Laura McClure have also weighed in, signalling broader concern across the political spectrum.

Mission Creep Concerns

For advocates of free expression, the issue is one of regulatory expansion.

"This kind of mission creep always starts with someone controversial," said Heather.

"Today it is Sean Plunket. Tomorrow it is a podcaster with 400 listeners, or a community group on Zoom."

The argument is that once jurisdiction is extended informally, it becomes difficult to contain.

Calls for Ministerial Action

The Free Speech Union is now calling for immediate intervention from Broadcasting Minister Paul Goldsmith.

The group is asking the Minister to:

• Publicly confirm that the Broadcasting Act does not extend to online content
• Direct the Authority to pause all complaints against online publishers pending legislative clarification
• Bring forward the Government’s position on the future of the Authority

"If New Zealanders want online speech regulated, that is a conversation for Parliament, in public, with the Bill of Rights Act at its centre," said Heather.

"Not a regulator that spent twenty years asking Parliament for this power, then quietly helped themselves."

The Bottom Line

More than 12,000 New Zealanders have now made their position clear.

The debate is no longer just about one broadcaster or one decision.

It is about where the line is drawn between regulation and free expression in the digital age — and who has the authority to draw it.