Following the move, the internet will be riddled with conspiracies and misinformation. In other words, not much will change.

The government’s decision to play the Goodnight Kiwi ad on the Broadcasting Standards Authority was announced in a dry early-afternoon press release from media and communications minister Paul Goldsmith yesterday. “Government to disestablish the BSA,” its headline read, before the minister went on to promise to investigate self-regulation options for the media in the BSA’s absence.

Some screamed in anguish. Others celebrated. A larger, arguably more normal contingent simply said “what’s all this about then?”. Thankfully, as someone who spent five years listening to Colin Peacock prattling about the news as his producer of RNZ’s Mediawatch, I can explain.

First off, what is the BSA?

It’s a regulatory body governing our broadcasters, which until recently just meant TV and radio outlets like TVNZ, Newstalk ZB or RNZ. “That’s quite boring,” you might be saying. But take note of this next part because it will come up later. The BSA was established by law under the Broadcasting Act 1989 and as such has legal authority to impose fines and order apologies be made.

That will all change soon, when the government takes it out back for humane euthanising.

Why is this happening?

The decision was almost certainly prompted by a huge fuss kicked up over the BSA’s efforts to expand its remit to include online broadcasters, most particularly one of our more colourful commentary outlets, The Platform. For a long time, internet streamers had been able to eschew the BSA’s oversight. But last year the body decided to consider a complaint over The Platform owner and broadcaster Sean Plunket referring to Māori customs and beliefs as “mumbo jumbo”. 

Plunket responded with trademark calm, accusing the BSA of trying to put itself above the laws of New Zealand and calling for its abolition. A host of politicians joined the cause, with New Zealand First leader Winston Peters arguing the BSA’s efforts to regulate the internet were “bordering on fascist” and Act putting forward a member’s bill to abolish the organisation.

Now all their wishes have come true, and Act in particular is already trying to claim credit.

What’s going to change now?

Here’s the thing: for outlets like The Platform or Reality Check Radio, not much. They weren’t regulated before. After a small burble of proto-regulation, they won’t be regulated in future.

So who’s actually going to be impacted?

More than small internet platforms, TV networks and radio stations will really notice a change. They’re currently governed by the BSA, and as you’ll remember from earlier, its decisions are imbued with real legal teeth. Those organisations will most likely now opt to be regulated by the Media Council, a self-funded industry body rather than a government entity.

The Media Council’s main power comes from shame-outs. It can uphold complaints and order outlets to issue apologies and corrections but it can’t issue financial penalties or use the full might of His Majesty’s New Zealand Government to compel outlets to comply with its rulings.

For TVNZ, Three and a host of radio stations, life is likely about to get a little less scary.

Will those TV and radio news outlets start going absolutely hog wild then?

Probably not. Newspapers and news websites are already governed by the Media Council. They’re not perfect. The Spinoff, for instance, once ranked Duncan Garner as the number one MediaWorks personality. 

But they’re not noticeably more horrible than the TV or radio. Even if it can’t issue fines, news outlets still have a reputational and economic stake in upholding Media Council principles, including maintaining accuracy, fairness and balance and ensuring children and young people are protected. 

So everything is pretty much going to be fine then?

Oh God no! Ha ha. My word. Absolutely not. 

While media organisations will almost certainly sign up to industry regulations, internet streamers like The Platform and Reality Check Radio almost certainly won’t, preferring a continuation of their unregulated status quo. Both have already issued their fair share of questionable content. You may remember when Plunket delivered a lurid, lengthy account of a false, likely defamatory rumour about former Wellington mayor Tory Whanau in 2023, for instance. If anything, those outlets will feel more insulated from consequences than before. 

But they’re just small fish in the poisonous, sewage-encrusted pond of the internet. Even if the BSA had succeeded in expanding its remit, it would have left a huge amount of the world wide web as a free-for-all. It wasn’t going after YouTube streamers that broadcast just as much as The Platform. Nor was it cracking down on Twitch, Facebook Live, or the dank back alleys of X.

The Labour government had proposed a one-stop shop to regulate all forms of media, including those on social sites. But that was scrapped by Act’s Brooke van Velden back in 2024 and today’s decision is just another confirmation that the online world will remain unregulated. With the BSA gone, the internet will be awash in scams, degrading content, misinformation, conspiracies, Duncan Garner and even the occasional update from your aunt. In other words, not much will change.

Where to from here?

For this, let’s cross live to The Spinoff’s media insider Duncan Greive:

“Perhaps the most interesting path opened up by unifying media regulation under one roof is what can be done with that in future. Australia has just rebooted its News Media Bargaining Code to capture the likes of Meta even if it stops carrying news on its platforms. While such an approach feels highly unlikely under the current coalition, which has made little secret of its disdain for much of the news media, it would allow a government of a different stripe to interact with and legislate for all the different stripes of normie journalism under one umbrella.

Another approach which has occasionally been mooted is for government or its agencies to ringfence a proportion of its advertising spend to accredited news media platforms. Figuring out exactly who might be in that group hasn’t always been easy – but it’s simpler now. And while that would exclude Sean Plunket and his Platform, who seems highly unlikely to submit to any voluntary regulation, it would still contain serious upside for him: The Platform’s brand position as an untameable renegade is if anything strengthened under the new regime.”