Mumbo-schmumbo from the BSA

The letter to The Platform from the Broadcasting Standards Authority resembles an April Fools gag. The RNZ newsreader was barely able to cover their mirth as they read out Sean Plunket’s response: “You Plonker we aren’t subject to the Broadcasting Standards Authority.” The complaint itself in the letter only refers to “unacceptable racist comments” and that it constitutes an allegation in respect to the broadcasters’ requirements of “good taste and decency” – Sean Plunket tells us this was him saying that “tikanga was mumbo jumbo.” It does sound like a joke, an episode from a satirical TV show.

The blatant breach of natural justice in trying to hold someone to account who could not possibly have known they were within that jurisdiction, is itself mumbo jumbo. It is not just a clumsy decision –  the process of going about it is grasping, psychotic, deranged conduct far removed from the sort of professionalism expected from public servants. It is a sneaky, underhanded, manoeuvre with no integrity or honour. It is, in short, the judicial version of the ethics and standards that Sean Plunket’s live show seems to be running on.

In June 2025 the BSA members signed off on the 2026 Statement of Performance Expectations

Those expectations – published barely three months ago – make no reference whatsoever to unilaterally re-interpreting their broadcasting mandate to extend their jurisdiction into internet programmes. The BSA hectors for a wider mandate, nags and nags for “reform”, craves “influence” but it says, begrudgingly, “It is for the Government – not the regulator – to decide what legislative solutions are most appropriate…” And yet within weeks they are behaving like an alternative universe where they already have a legislative solution! Those Karens don’t so much need a judicial review as they need drug testing.

But is this about standards to protect NZ from harm, or their own bureaucratic survival? From the part on finances:

“The financial pressures facing the media sector have direct implications for our funding model. As levy returns decline and more broadcasters move towards digital only offerings, we must carefully manage our resources to maintain financial stability while continuing to deliver high-quality services. We are conscious at all times of our responsibility to use Crown and levied funds responsibly.”

Does that sound as though a couple of months later they would actually be embarking on trying to take over the internet for its revenue that the coven of Karens covet? – which is exactly what this tells us. They are buying a fight that will cost a lot in legal fees without disclosing that is what would naturally occur from trying a stunt like this. The associated legal fees for what they are attempting aren’t in their statement. The associated windfall revenue from levy enforcement on internet broadcasters also isn’t disclosed in their statement. They didn’t plan to do it in June, but now they do? What on Earth is the timeline of the BSA’s brain fart? The multiple OIA’s from everyone will yield that information in the next month so we can work out how this came about. Either the BSA made a decision to extend their jurisdiction before or after the statement. It is a significant material item that must be addressed explicitly if it is to occur.  If they made their minds up before the statement– they were obligated to disclose it and if it was after they had no right to do it because it wasn’t in their expectations. Either way it is a blunder for which their must be disciplinary action. Broadcasting Minister Goldsmith just brushing off the litigation – as he tried to do – is foolish and not a serious response to a runaway “Stasi” of Stacey and Susie (the CEO and the Chair).

On 22 July Sean Plunket said “mumbo-jumbo” on the Platform, on 31 July “WK” (Whinging Karen?) makes “original complaint” email to The Platform, Plunket responds ‘You Plonker we aren’t subject to the Broadcasting Standards Authority’ on 1 August, and then on 4 August Whinging Karen – armed with the broadcaster’s decision makes a formal complaint to the BSA. I understand Plunket got the BSA email last Wednesday, 15 October.

So, what happened in the last three months since the Statement of Intent that the Authority has decided it can control the internet? It is an ambush that puts a lie to their claim to have consulted and have good relationships with stakeholders and to have been working with the Minister – clearly not! They have fallen so far short of their own expectations in such a short amount of time and done so in such a calculated manner, that the document itself could well be seen as an act of deception on the part of the Authority members who signed off on it. Surely they knew in June what they were going to do so it was designed to deceive the Minister and the public. And they haven’t planned for any avalanche of complaints and counter-complaints that will flow in should they take complaints for internet programmes if you see the targets in the Statement. They only get about 150 formal complaints a year, that could explode – and yet they plan for slightly less complaints this year!? Kleptomaniac Karens trying to control everything without any thought about the consequences. It is so deeply disrespectful to the people they wish to govern to be treated like this. Secretly try to take out the hated, oafish enfant terrible first and cower everyone else into submission.

2023-2027 Statement of Intent: “Less than 5% of the complaints the BSA received in the last financial year were upheld, which tells us traditional media are doing a good job of upholding community standards.” – It also means there is little point in the BSA – no business. What is the point if 95% of complaints are being successfully resolved by the broadcasters themselves? And check out the decisions for the sort of anorak, Edgelerlord, wanky, pedantic complaints that are adjudicated – a waste of time by and large. All the serious stuff is dealt with seriously: by police, or be defamation action.

Most people don’t understand that Mr Bradbury and his podcast The Bradbury Group is already under the BSA because it is broadcast on radio and television, and that other podcasts, such as the BHN podcasts, are voluntarily under the Media Council – so some internet broadcasts are regulated to some degree. Is there need to regulate the other programmes online? Probably not is my answer because there is no harm reduction possible by imposing standards that isn’t greater than the loss of freedom of speech would be.  We need a wild West, a frontier.

What can be done to stop the madness given the BSA has statutory independence from government?

I see section 23 of the Broadcasting Act 1989 gives Goldie an in to nudge the BSA into declaring it’s hand:

s.23 Power of Minister to request Authority to consider matter involving broadcasting standards

(1) Where the Minister considers it is desirable in the public interest to do so, the Minister may refer any matter relating to broadcasting standards to the Authority and require the Authority to consider whether or not it is appropriate to issue an advisory opinion on the matter under section 21(1)(d).

(2) As soon as practicable after referring any matter to the Authority under subsection (1), the Minister shall publish in the Gazette and lay before the House of Representatives a copy of the reference.

The Minister can require the Authority to consider what the hell they are doing before they make any further decisions on internet jurisdiction like how do they propose to levy them, how much will the standards cost etc. Why choose”livestreaming” but leave out “social media” for example. Goldie should get onto that quickly because the rollercoaster doesn’t have any brakes and Act and NZ First are angered. The bi-culturalism of all the BSA documentation will be instantly triggering for them.

One other idea is an amendment to have the Media Council or other qualifying organisation come in and handle all complaints and use the BSA only as an appellate body so they will be dealing with a lot less complaints in future. Otherwise why are they in existence?

I note that the definition of programme excludes predominantly alphanumeric text broadcasts which must have been for teletext (now defunct), however blogs would fall under that category and so have a general exemption from the BSA under that reading.

I made a New Year’s forecast that a decision to discontinue the FreeView TV transmission will be made earlier than planned this year. I cannot help but wonder if the BSA action is being made now because it has been indicated already and then they really will be out of business.