The Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) says a listener’s complaint about The Platform host Sean Plunket is the first that clearly meets the requirements of the Broadcasting Act.
Plunket is dismissing the complaint sent to him by the BSA, saying his online platform does not fall within its jurisdiction.
He said the BSA had “woefully and egregiously overstepped its bounds” and was calling for the regulator to be “disbanded”.
But the authority is defending the decision. saying “everybody wants to have a reaction, but it seems like nobody wants to read the Act,” and it has long held the position that online broadcasts are included within its remit.
The Foreign Minister and the Free Speech Union have slammed the decision, saying it’s a worrying overreach.
Winston Peters on Wednesday accused the BSA of “Soviet era stasi censorship”.
The Platform published the letter it got from the BSA, which said it “has found it has jurisdiction” to consider a complaint about The Platform’s live talkback programme on the basis the transmission of the programme met the definition of ‘broadcasting’ in the Act”.
The complaint itself relates to concerns about what the listener alleged were “unacceptable racist comments” in The Platform’s July 22, 2025 programme, the letter stated.
When the listener first complained to The Platform, the online media organisation responded “You Plonker we aren’t subject to the Broadcasting Standards Authority”.
The complainant then went to the BSA.
The morning’s headlines in 90 seconds, including a former Prime Minister dies, coroner says teen had been huffing nitrous oxide before a fatal crash, NRL clamps down on possible R360 defectors. (Source: 1News)
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.
“The BSA was reviewing its jurisdiction and intending to apply it to online broadcasters. It was paused in 2020 because there was about to be an election, and there was a promise of impending regulatory changes.”
The substantive review was paused but the BSA said it would take complaints if they met the requirement, said Wood.
Since then, she said, there had been a promise of regulatory changes on and off, but the agency could no longer wait for that because “we have had a complaint that we feel obliged to take”.
Complaint ‘clearly meets the requirements of the Act’ – BSA
Wood said that was because it was the first complaint that “clearly meets the requirements of the Act”.
The Act requires broadcasters to have a complaint system, they have to respond to complaints, and complainants have to get the response from the broadcaster before they can refer it to the BSA.
She acknowledged if a broadcaster did not have a complaint system, that’s far less likely to happen.
“So yes, this is the first complaint that we’ve had about an online broadcaster that meets those requirements.
“We have not been selecting or rejecting complaints. This is simply the first one that came to us.”
On concern this was an overreach or censoring of free speech, Wood said she encouraged people to look at the Act, and look at the agency’s decisions from the last 20 years.
“Point to an instance where somebody has been censored or prevented from expressing themselves.
“Our vision is freedom of expression and broadcasting without harm, and freedom of expression is where we start. Always. We just disagree that freedom of expression means an absolute right to freedom of speech to say whatever you want.”
Wood said research had shown the public trusted a “well-regulated media”, and people deserved to have access to accurate, reliable information about the world around them.
“That’s what we want to protect.”
But Plunket believed the BSA had breached the Bill of Rights, and he didn’t want “anything more to do with them”.
He explained to RNZ he’d written to them saying he didn’t recognise its jurisdiction.
“I will not take part in your bogus complaints procedure.”
He said the BSA didn’t have the ability in 2019 to review its jurisdiction, only Parliament could do that.
“How can I be held to a code of behaviour that doesn’t exist?
“I don’t broadcast, I don’t have a license to broadcast, and I now have numerous legal opinions that say it’s acted outside its jurisdiction.
“It has ignored the will of Parliament, which considered this matter as to the jurisdiction of the BSA some time ago, and decided to leave things as they were.”
He pointed out the BSA levied broadcasters, which was how it funded itself, “and it’s never levied me”.
Plunket said he’d hold BSA board members individually and collectively liable for any damage that accrued to him personally or his company, financially or otherwise, as a result of their actions.
“They’ve decided they want to have a crack at me, and they’ve held a kangaroo court hearing in secret and presented me with their decision, which they have made completely illegally.”
He said he was getting advice on how to respond next, and that there may need to be a judicial review, “but to be honest, I’ve got more important things to do than worry about a bunch of politically motivated bureaucrats trying to save their jobs”.
Plunket thought the BSA should be disbanded, and that there was no need for a regulator.
“We have laws that cover freedom of speech. We have defamation laws.
“We have numerous remedies under our civil and criminal code for people doing things or saying things that damage others.”
By RNZ’s Lillian Hanly
