BSA overreach is real, but so is Plunket’s broadcast problem

The Broadcasting Standards Authority is outdated, overreaching and badly in need of reform. But Sean Plunket has a problem too: if you use terrestrial radio, you don’t get to pretend the broadcast rules don’t apply.

The initial outrage was easy to understand.

The Broadcasting Standards Authority investigates Sean Plunket for calling tikanga Māori “mumbo jumbo.” Cancel culture, censorship, mission creep. The full stack of predictable fury. I called it overreach myself. The BSA seemed desperate to stay relevant in a world where nobody watches TV and newspapers are dying on their feet.

But here’s the problem. That argument only holds if you ignore what Plunket’s actually doing.

And he’s not just podcasting.

The inconvenient terrestrial radio problem

The Platform isn’t purely digital. It broadcasts over Radio Aotearoa, a small terrestrial network that carries Plunket’s content over AM and FM frequencies. That’s not a technicality. That’s the entire legal framework.

The moment you step into traditional broadcast, you step into BSA jurisdiction. That’s not up for debate. That’s the law as it stands.

Plunket can argue all he wants that he’s an internet broadcaster. But he’s also a radio broadcaster. And the complainant, a man everyone’s been happy to mock, seems to have grasped this better than anyone else.

Richard Fanselow didn’t complain to the wrong body. He found the weak spot in Plunket’s position and drove straight through it.

The BSA hasn’t invented new powers here. It has applied the rules that already exist to the frequencies Plunket chose to use. You don’t get to take the reach and legitimacy of broadcast radio while rejecting the obligations that come with it.

That’s not principle. That’s having your cake and eating it too.

The BSA is still a dark ages body

Now, does that mean the BSA should exist at all?

No.

The entire organisation is built for a media environment that disappeared a decade ago. Jillaine Heather from the Free Speech Union is right when she calls it what it is: a censorship body now attempting to police the internet.

“It’s so inconsistent,” she told me. “This is not who you want determining what should be said and what shouldn’t be said.”

She’s absolutely correct.

The BSA was designed for a world of spectrum scarcity, where a handful of broadcasters had a monopoly on public airwaves. In that environment, standards made some sense. You couldn’t just turn the channel.

Now? You can find thousands of options in seconds. If you don’t like what someone’s saying, you switch off. Or better yet, don’t go searching for it in the first place.

But the BSA is in survival mode. Bureaucrats always are. They need mission creep to stay funded and relevant. And because Parliament hasn’t updated the law, they’re interpreting it as broadly as possible to keep themselves in the game.

That’s not acceptable.

Minister Paul Goldsmith needs to freeze them where they are, clarify their scope, or scrap them entirely after the election.

The real issue isn’t “mumbo jumbo”

Let’s be clear. The original complaint is rubbish.

Calling something “mumbo jumbo” is an opinion, not a breach of broadcasting standards. It should have been binned in two minutes. Instead, we’re looking at a 90 day investigation and a mountain of taxpayer funded bureaucracy over two words.

But the BSA has used this silly complaint to make a wider point: that The Platform, through its terrestrial radio deal, is under their watch.

That’s the real battle here.

And it’s one Plunket can’t win by pretending Radio Aotearoa doesn’t exist.

Heather raised an important question: why isn’t Radio Aotearoa facing the same complaint?

“The obligation belongs to Radio Aotearoa, not Sean,” she argued, “because they are the broadcaster.”

That’s a fair legal point. If the BSA wants to pursue this, the complaint should go to the radio station carrying the content, not the content creator.

But the BSA has made it personal. They’re coming for Plunket specifically, and they’re doing it because they can.

Parliament needs to act, not ministers

The solution isn’t for the BSA to interpret the law differently. The law is clear. It covers terrestrial broadcasting.

What’s needed is for Parliament to clarify where digital content sits, and whether entities like The Platform should be subject to these rules at all.

Goldsmith has been useless on this. The Free Speech Union raised the issue with him late last year and again in February. He claimed it was operational at first. Then he said he’d do something.

Now? Nothing.

That’s not leadership. That’s avoidance.

“He does need to send a message,” Heather said. “He could easily just say, freeze it as it is, we’ll fix it after the election. But he’s done nothing.”

She’s right.

Until he does, we’re stuck with a regulator that is past its use by date, attempting to control speech in a world it doesn’t understand.

The real fight here isn’t about tikanga or “mumbo jumbo.” It’s about an outdated body desperately trying to stay relevant, and a broadcaster who wants all the benefits of traditional radio without any of the baggage.

Both need Parliament to sort it out.

Until that happens, we’re all stuck watching this pointless arm wrestle.