David Farrar: Why the BSA Board must go

It is heartening to see Winston Peters, David Seymour and Todd Stephenson lash the Broadcasting Standards Authority for their secret decision to expand their regime to the Internet. Winston may have been using hyperbole in comparing them to the Stasi, but they deserve odium for what they are attempting to do. Their conduct is so bad faith and outrageous that I believe the Government should sack the entire board.

Let’s deal with their secret decision in two parts – the substance and process. Both are damning.

Their claim that you can read the Broadcasting Act requirement that a broadcasting receiving apparatus is any Internet capable device rather than a television or radio is preposterous. One reason broadcasters have been treated differently is they were granted (paid for) a chuck of the telecommunications spectrum for their exclusive use. When you apply for a chuck of the spectrum, you agree to the conditions of using it for broadcast. This is not the case for people who simply produce video and audio over the Internet.

There can be no doubt the BSA is acting in bad faith in declaring The Platform is a broadcaster, because if they truly believed that they would have not waited until a complaint to make this determination. The Broadcasting Act says all broadcasters must:

• broadcast at least one notice per day for each day of broadcasting about the BSA procedure
• provide an annual return of revenue by 31 July to the BSA and pay an annual levy

Did the BSA ever ask The Platform to provide an annual return? Did they ever write to them when they first set up and say “We think you are a broadcaster, so please make sure you inform people of the BSA complaints process”?

No they did not.

They claim in an RNZ story:

The Authority’s chief executive Stacey Wood told RNZ it decided in 2019 that it also regulated online broadcasts.

“This position has been public and published since 2019.

If this is the case, why did they never ask any online broadcasters to file returns? Why did they never e-mail Bomber Bradbury and demand he informs his podcast viewers of the BSA complaints process, and that he must file an annual return to them?

So the substance of their decision is ridiculous, but their process is what is truly damning.

If they really think the law supports them having jurisdiction over anyone who produces video or audio content over the Internet, they should publish a discussion paper listing the pros and cons. The discussion paper could then become a white paper. Affected parties should be able to submit on it. They should give notice of when their interpretation would take effect, so people know when they have to start filling in annual returns and that they are now subject to the BSA. They would do a major information campaign.

Instead of doing all this, they made a secret in principle decision that The Platform comes under their juridisction. By doing so they would then set a precedent that would be binding on every producer of video and audio content in NZ, and it would have all happened behind closed doors.

There can be no confidence in the Broadcasting Standards Authority for their secret power grab. The board should go, or the whole organisation should go.

David has an earlier article in this regard here > https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2025/10/time_to_abolish_the_bsa_as_it_is_attempting_a_secret_power_grab_over_the_internet.html

David Farrar runs Curia Market Research, a specialist opinion polling and research agency, and the popular Kiwiblog where this article was sourced. He previously worked in the Parliament for eight years, serving two National Party Prime Ministers and three Opposition Leaders