Stacey Wood: Chief Executive of the Broadcasting Standards Authority discusses expansion in their jurisdiction

The Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) has issued a provisional decision claiming jurisdiction over a complaint about an online radio show. 

They said that the complaint fits their formal definition and requirements, meaning that they have to act.  

Chief Executive of the Broadcasting Standards Authority Stacey Wood told Mike Hosking that the BSA had long been debating expanding the boundaries of their jurisdiction.  

‘Transmission of a programme by means of telecommunication includes the internet.’ 

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
The Broadcasting Standards Authority seems to be making a big
play over their jurisdiction now. They visioned a issued a
provisional decision and claiming jurisdiction over a complaint that involves
online radio or an online program. This is the platform
they claim new media falls under the Broadcasting Act. Stacy
Wood as the chief Executive of the Broadcasting Standards Authority

(00:20):
and as whetherus good morning, good nay, you're reaching here
a bit or not?

Speaker 2 (00:26):
Ye sin note, we are applying the Act that we have,
but it is the first time that we've done so
in this way.

Speaker 1 (00:34):
Why now?

Speaker 2 (00:35):
Why now? Because we've received a complaint that sets the
definition and meets our formal requirements. We can only act
when we receive a complaint and we feel that we're
required to in accordance to their Act.

Speaker 1 (00:50):
I've got the clause of the Broadcasting Act in front
of me.

Speaker 2 (00:54):
I'll go to the lot of people died.

Speaker 1 (00:56):
Yeah, and I can see why you've gone there. But equally,
I can mount an argument as to why you wouldn't.
So why have you chosen the former?

Speaker 2 (01:05):
We've s been a long time thinking about this. We've
been the regulator for thirty six years. Obviously I haven't
been there the whole time, but we have thought about
this a lot, discussed it a lot, talked to a
lot of people about it. And this isn't a position
we've developed over night. We actually published it back in
twenty nineteen said we're going to do a full scale
review of our jurisdiction. Twenty twenty regulatory review was put

(01:30):
on the cards. There was an election coming with you,
we're going to pause the full review. But if a
complaint comes along about an online broadcast, will consider it.
And that's what's happened.

Speaker 1 (01:41):
Difficulty with it if I was advising you, which are
not obviously, but the difficulty with the complaint you're dealing
with it's in what I would term a fairly you know,
it's an inconsequential complaint. It some winduris says, you know,
so and so said, so you know this isn't this
isn't a dieing the ditch type decision that you could
you could stand behind.

Speaker 2 (02:00):
Well, we haven't considered the merits of the complaint, and
I can't talk about that, but what I would say
is the Act doesn't give us that discretion when accepting
a complaint. The authority has the power to uphold, not uphold,
or decline to determine. But even in making that decision,
it needs to accept for consideration every complaint that meets

(02:21):
the very basic formal requirements of the Acts. So my
hands are sort of tied if we accept that transmission
of a program by means of telecommunication includes the Internet.

Speaker 1 (02:32):
Yeah, but do you I mean, obviously you've thought about it,
so you hand down your decision, whatever that decision is
in the individual circumstances. But you are now in this space,
and being in this space, you set a precedent. And
the precedent you set is worrying, isn't it? Because what's
the difference between the platform online and the mic Hosking

(02:54):
Facebook page.

Speaker 2 (02:56):
And that's a great question, and that is why we've
been saying for fifteen years legislative change is the cleanest
way to solve this problem. Because there are some programs
online that clearly fit within the definition of the Act.
There's a whole lot of question marks on other kinds
of media that are online, and we, as a very
small crown entity, don't have to power to legislate the

(03:19):
whole internet to site what people think. It's very gratifying,
But we don't want to regulate everybody. No, not clarity, No, But.

Speaker 1 (03:28):
You're opening the door to you doing that, aren't you.
Now if I complain, if I lay complaining against my
wife's Instagram account, what are your hands equally tired? And
you must now look at that.

Speaker 2 (03:39):
We've said that we're going to assist online complaints on
a case by case basis, and we have previously said
that things like social media don't seem as clearly within
the purpose of the Act. However, we acknowledge these broadcasters
that simultaneously broadcast on their own channels, terrestrial channels, their
Facebook pages. So yeah, good, very good, quick, and we

(04:00):
look forward to determining those complaints.

Speaker 1 (04:02):
Of So what is it about Shawn's operation, because we speak,
of course with Sean Plunkett. Is it the fact he's
in a so called studio with a microphone and looks
like it could be a radio program as opposed to
my wife's Instagram account and she's standing in a field
saying perhaps allegedly the same thing but without the format
of a studio.

Speaker 2 (04:22):
Yeah, I mean part of it is the wording of
the act. But yeah, it's applying a pragmatic, pragmatic lens
to it. Does it look like radio? Does it sound
like radio?

Speaker 1 (04:35):
You can't stay so you can't possibly ask does it
look like radio? Does it sound what?

Speaker 2 (04:39):
What?

Speaker 1 (04:39):
An?

Speaker 2 (04:40):
When you go to Well, when I excess Radio, for instance,
I don't use a radio yet. So the way I
excess Ranger National for instance, as I go to their
website and press a button to listen live.

Speaker 1 (04:51):
Well, that's your fastive mistake, isn't it?

Speaker 2 (04:56):
As an example, when I'm listening to the microp fingers,
they might do the same, But when you go to
Sean's website you do the same thing. Why does Wi
Fi differ from radio waves? Yeah?

Speaker 1 (05:10):
Does the government need to step in here and do something?
I mean, my only concern for you is that this
is Pandora's box personified, isn't it?

Speaker 2 (05:20):
Yep? And we would like to real they just let
it change to clarify this for us because we have
eight staff and we're required to consider a resumplaint that
comes to us, so we can easily see that this
conturn unto all workload management issue for us?

Speaker 1 (05:37):
Would you find not that this and this is my
great criticism of the bsas I'm sure you're well aware
anyway is that most of the decisions you make are
of no great consequence, and you go so and so
said this, and you shouldn't have done it, and that's
the end of that. If you were to find in
the Platform's case something substantive, you won't in this obvious instance.
But in a serious complaint, if you found something substantive

(05:59):
that required a file or some sort of penalty that
ends up in court, doesn't. I mean this is where
this ultimately will be decided. Sadly.

Speaker 2 (06:07):
Yeah, our decisions can be appealed to the High Court.
There's obviously also opportunity for judicial review, and people are
welcome to use whatever legal avenues are available to them.
I know that Sean's were emotional about the receiving our
decision US today and I can understand that it's intimidating
to eat a letter from a regulator. Well maybe not

(06:28):
for you, your seasoned, but the look out. We don't
actually have the power to shut people down, as you know,
if we assure a decision.

Speaker 1 (06:43):
Racy light, you want to shut me down.

Speaker 2 (06:46):
The only appeals that we've had in the last year
are actually that decisions that we haven't upheld, which I
find interesting. So people shouldn't be too worried. I feel
that if people look at what we're wanting and what
we're saying, act is, the comparison to Nazi Germany might
start to fall away.

Speaker 1 (07:04):
Yeah, no, okay, it's good to talk to your preciate.
A very much fascinating subject. I don't know the wider
world's fascinated by it, but certainly I am, because if
I was in charge of anything, i'd stop the BSA immediately,
because the industry runs itself perfectly professionally. I can't remember
the last time they made a decision that was a
profound decision on a very serious complaint where somebody had
overtly crossed the line to a level that most New

(07:28):
Zealanders would go, geez, we need someone to step in
here and get this thing under control. And in the
Shorn Platform case, it's somebody. I think he used the
term mumbo jumbo referring to some Mari content, and that's
the sort of stuff they deal with on an ongoing
and regular basis. If I was sure and plunking now
that I'm handing out advice all over the place this morning,
I'd be more worried about my financial circumstances than I

(07:49):
would about some regulatory authority that's really not to bother us.

Speaker 2 (07:54):
For more from the Mi Casking Breakfast, listen live to
news talks.

Speaker 1 (07:58):
It'd be from six am weekdays, or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio