New Zealand is set to abolish its broadcast industry regulator, but experts are concerned a lack of an appropriate replacement means the move will do more harm than good. 

In May, the New Zealand Government announced its decision to ‘disestablish’ the Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA), with Media and Communications Minister Paul Goldsmith citing regulatory settings which had not kept up with a dramatically changed media landscape. 

The BSA is a statutory regulatory body which oversees broadcasting standards, including accuracy, fairness and balance across New Zealand’s TV and radio programs. 

The organisation does not argue against accusations of being outdated. 

In fact, the BSA has been “one of the loudest voices calling for reform”, Better Public Media Trust vice-chair Peter Thompson tells PIJI. 

But he says the government’s sudden decision to axe the regulator instead of reforming it was a shock – and could have serious implications for both trust in, and trustworthiness of, news broadcasters in the future. 

Self-regulation weak spots 

Goldsmith pointed to industry self-regulation as the way forward, and said the New Zealand Media Council was expected to become the country’s primary journalism regulator. 

The Media Council is an independent, non-governmental organisation that is already the primary self-regulator for New Zealand’s print media. 

Thompson says the Media Council is respected by professional journalists who seek to uphold its principles as a matter of brand image and journalistic pride. 

But he says it might not have the capacity to fill the gap the BSA will leave behind regarding research into industry and audience trends. 

The Media Council also lacks the BSA’s statutory powers, which are used in the most “egregious” circumstances to issue fines, restrict advertising or pull broadcasters off air for a certain period. 

Media Council membership is voluntary, and in cases of breaches of the organisation’s principles, it can only issue censures or request public corrections, replies or retractions.  

New Zealand faces a shrinking news workforce; Thompson says the country has seen a decrease from 4000 to less than 2000 journalists over the last 14 years.

With fewer people doing more work, he says the risk of cutting corners becomes greater – something self-regulation may not be able to fully combat. 

He gave the US – which does not have a single, mandatory news media regulator – as an example of a country which has seen “a proliferation of increasingly irresponsible media” who have “abandoned fairness doctrines” and lacked concern for the truth.  

If the BSA is abolished, Thompson expects similar dynamics will eventually permeate New Zealand, particularly further cynicism towards mainstream media and migration to alternative news sources that refuse to uphold standards. 

“You’d start to see … increasing polarisation, and ultimately a corrosion of democratic process, as you’re no longer able to sustain a national conversation on important issues,” he says. 

He suspects the government’s decision to axe the BSA is less of an effort to address regulatory shortcomings, and more an attempt to score political points. 

Political timing 

The need for broadcast media regulation reform in New Zealand is largely undisputed, with a late-1980s era design ill-equipped to deal with the increasing presence of online media. 

Last year, the BSA reacted positively to a government proposal that would have seen the regulator focus more on systemic issues and acting as a backstop when needed while leaving everyday audience complaints largely to be dealt with by industry bodies. 

Auckland University of Technology associate professor of communication studies Merja Myllylahti linked the government’s sudden decision to abolish the BSA with New Zealand’s upcoming general elections and the BSA’s recent clash with digital media site, The Platform. 

The Platform caught the attention of the BSA after a complaint was lodged over comments made by founder Sean Plunket (who previously incurred a fine as a radio host) describing tikanga Māori as “mumbo jumbo”. 

In response, Thompson says the BSA took the opportunity to finally investigate whether their function in the modern digital environment would be best served by applying their standards to an online provider that served something which “looked, smelt and quacked” like a broadcast. 

The BSA concluded it had jurisdiction to consider a complaint about content transmitted by an online broadcaster. 

This decision was met with outrage from Plunket, as well as the leader of a party in New Zealand’s governing three-party coalition who accused the BSA of acting like “Soviet era stasi”. 

“I think there is a lot of political pressure coming from the right-wing side of the government – New Zealand First, ACT,” Myllylahti says. 

“We are having the general elections coming up and it seems that this government has decided suddenly to do something about the media, where they have been sitting for the last three years not doing anything, really.”

Thompson says the decision to abolish the BSA on the heels of the regulator’s The Platform decision was “not so much a dog whistle as a megaphone” designed to appeal to voters with alt-right-aligned scepticism of mainstream media. 

He and Myllylahti agree there is not enough time for the current government to abolish the BSA before this year’s elections.  

If the current Opposition wins, the BSA may be saved; if not, Myllylahti says dismantling the BSA is the wrong move, especially as the local news industry battles through a wave of “AI slop, misinformation and disinformation” to regain trust lost over recent years. 

She says it is also unclear whether the remit of the Media Council, in replacing the BSA, would extend over digital media such as YouTube and podcasts. 

The BSA and Goldsmith’s office did not respond to PIJI’s requests for comment. 

– Sezen Bakan