Copy of a letter sent to Prime Minister and leaders of political parties one week before the decision to abolish the Broadcasting Standards Authority

28 April 2026

Dear ……,

I have had a career in journalism and academia that stretches back six decades. In that time, I have been subject to media regulation, observed it in action, reviewed its activities, and had opportunities to compare it with regulation in other jurisdictions.

Now, a controversial determination by the Broadcasting Standards Authority has been a catalyst to calls for its abolition. These recent actions were preceded by the lodging of a private member’s bill also seeking closure of the regulatory body.

These calls are indications of a broadly held view that the BSA’s empowering legislation is no longer fit for purpose. Indeed, in the decision that led to the recent calls for its removal, the BSA itself acknowledged is own long-held view that it was impaired by anachronistic law.

Simple abolition, however, could have unintended consequences and, crucially, would include the removal of a statutory right of appeal currently available to the public (under s.18/19 of the Broadcasting Act) that is not available to Media Council complainants.

The BSA situation is merely a symptom of a much wider malaise: Our entire media and information regulatory system is a creature of the past. Neither statutory nor voluntary systems fully reflect the digital environment in which we live, and the most impactful parts of the system – transnational platforms – have minimal domestic oversight.

I urge your party to see the potential abolition of the BSA as not an isolated problem to be fixed, but as an inflexion point. It is time to put aside the puncture kit and to build a new vehicle.

The imperative for change is not a need to control media and public discourse. The need lies in recognising that the technological, political, and social environments in which we live are hazardous. The citizens who elected you and under whose mandate you govern are finding each of those environments imposing negative as well as positive impacts on their lives.

These environments are complex. They have large numbers of interacting components, and it is patently obvious that they are arranged asymmetrically. Transnational platforms have come to dominate the environment, while the smaller components of the information ecosystem are subject to the most oversight.

New Zealand media’s existing regulatory bodies, each predicated on form of distribution (BSA, NZ Media Council, Classifications Office, Netsafe) or function (Advertising Standards Authority, IAB NZ), are guided first and foremost by the limitation of harm. They are beset, however, by jurisdictional overlap, representational gaps, power differentials, and technological determinism.

Abolition of the Broadcasting Standards Authority will not solve any of those problems: It will simply conflate the problems a little.

There is now an urgent need for a complete reappraisal of our media regulatory systems – both statutory and voluntary – with the stated aim of providing New Zealanders with a new regulatory regime that will serve their needs in rapidly changing times.

I caution against the adoption of any proffered ‘solution’ in the hope of affecting a quick ‘fix’ to the ‘problem’ of the BSA. It is vital that any system which replaces the current multi-agency framework is the result of broad consultation and independent consideration. Only then can it be expected to enjoy wide support from the public whose interests it would be expected to serve. No imposed ‘solution’ would enjoy such support.

I therefore urge you to support the establishment of a public enquiry to consider the creation of a new media and communications regulatory system. Such a system should be founded upon public trust, the prevention of harm, and the balancing of free expression atop those two pillars. Public trust will be more readily accrued of members of the community invest in its creation by making submissions.

An enquiry – whether it be a department-led project or a Royal Commission – would require comprehensive direction to guide its deliberations. I would like to suggest the following areas of enquiry.

• Rationale (guiding principles e.g. prevention of harm)
• Scope (what types of activity should be regulated)
• Form (type of authority: statutory crown entity/statute-endorsed independent body/voluntary body)
• Structure (How a regulatory body or bodies should be organised)
• Appointments (how members are appointed to adjudicating bodies)
• Jurisdiction (what powers a regulator should have)
• Limits (what limits should be placed on those powers)
• Models (what examples may be found in overseas jurisdictions, suggested solutions such as that by David Harvey, and the extent to which the recommendations of the 2011 Law Commission enquiry may still be applicable).

It is in New Zealand’s interest that we foster a media system in which the actions of Parliament and the Executive can be accurately relayed to the public, and on which voters can make informed decisions. An accountable media system that reflects the nation to itself is one in which the public can reside its trust.

This letter is being sent to all Parliamentary political parties because I am convinced there is a growing danger of instability within our media systems that we must all address. I urge you and your colleagues to give the matter the prompt attention it increasingly requires.

I would, of course, welcome any opportunity to discuss the matter further.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Gavin Ellis ONZM MA PhD