1804
THE NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE
No. 91

conditions of the warrant, even in general terms, must comply or
seek an amendment of that condition if they did not intend to
comply with it.

In the situation of Radio Windy today, we find a station of a
different character from that originally proposed and for which a
warrant was granted. Furthermore there have been format changes
that moved the targeted audience away from that which it originally
intended to serve.

It may have been appropriate to make the changes that were
made, but they should have been preceded or accompanied by an
application to the Tribunal. We take into account that the warrant
was renewed without comment in 1979 and that there are still
substantial informational elements in the application. Nevertheless
it is clear that what is offered is, in terms of commitment, somewhat
less today than at the original warrant hearing.

We make it clear once again that the dropping of a particular
item or of changing the way in which some particular need is catered
for, will not of itself constitute a breach of warrant and a shortening
of the renewal period. But in this case the Tribunal in the light of
previous decisions cannot regard the matters as merely technical.
While the change in news bulletins in itself is more akin to the
situation in the Radio Otago case, the extensive dropping of talk
and talk-back programmes is more fundamental.

The Tribunal has therefore decided to renew the warrant for a
period of 3 years. It is essential however that it be understood quite
clearly by all who read this decision, that if the warrant holder
complies with the new condition relating to format and content, it
will be entitled at the end of the 3 year period to a 5 year renewal
in the absence of any other breaches of warrant.

It is important however that directors of companies which make
applications understand at the time they make such applications
that the Tribunal takes their undertakings and promises seriously
and that there is some accountability for them.

In evidence Mr Isles, who only recently became a director,
observed that Radio Windy had not met the expectations held for
it by its founders which he attributed to 2 fundamental and inter-
related causes. One was features peculiar to the market and the
second was a lack of programming consistency, continuity of
objective and continuity of staff.

It is not necessary for use to traverse these arguments, but we do
affirm that those who take up warrants are volunteers. They are not
compelled to apply for a warrant and they are not compelled to
make the promises that they do beforehand. The Tribunal is not
particularly sympathetic to claims of difficulty in making sufficient
profits to carry out promises. Warrants can be transferred to others
who may wish to try or they can be surrendered. While a company
by holding a warrant may well be preventing others from having an
attempt at running a radio station it should comply with the
terms of its warrant or apply for amendments, if it feels it can make
a case.

News

Mr Isles pointed out that the position of Wellington as a source
of national interest news imposed a unique burden on Radio Windy,
even allowing for the coverage provided by a Parliamentary News
Bureau servicing private stations. He also indicated changes of
technology and policy regarding news among private stations needed
to be agreed.

We do not need to traverse in detail the burden of the case of
the Journalists Union which was ably presented by Mr Wilton. While
not opposing the renewal the Union was concerned at the standard
attainable on the staff and other resources of the station and was
concerned to ensure the independence of the news editor who shall
always be an experienced journalist. While considerable attention
was paid to the staffing situation, as we have pointed out in other
decisions, unless this is a specific condition in the warrant the
Tribunal is not concerned. It is concerned with the output of the
station.

The Tribunal is concerned at reduction of news coverage but is
prepared to accept some reduction in evening bulletins.

We are concerned that the private industry should sort out
arrangements that will provide better news, without eliminating local
coverage at weekends. Reliance on networks does not replace the
need for on-the-spot local coverage, either by the use of Radio Windy
or a supplemented Parliamentary News Bureau staff adequate
coverage should be provided to all stations through journalists in
Wellington.

The independence of the news editor should be firmly established
by tradition but, in the absence of any indication of interference
we do not, at this stage, intend taking up the suggestion of imposing
a condition in relation to an agreement for the securing of that
independence. If however the station wishes to embark on that
course at a later date it would be appropriate to do so since 60
percent of the shareholding is held by other news media companies.

Renewal

The warrant is renewed for a period of 3 years to 11 October
1986.

Amendment

The amendment sought is in substantially the same form as that
imposed on other warrants at the time of renewal. It varies from
them in form only. In view of the change of the character of the
station we agree to the amendment sought.

Condition 4 (b) will be deleted and the following substituted:

The warrant holder shall not substantially depart for the basic
format and content of its proposed programmes or the type or
extent of the services intended to be provided at the time of
the amendment of the warrant without the prior consent of the
Broadcasting Tribunal and subject to any conditions that the
Tribunal might impose in the public interest.

This should not be regarded as an indication of approval of news
staff or news source arrangements.

News media ownership

Clause 4 (g) of the warrant reads:

“That the total aggregate shareholding in the holder of the warrant
by one or more news companies as defined by the News Media
Act 1965 whether as beneficial owner or otherwise shall not
exceed 30 percent of the issued capital of the holder of the
warrant.”

This provision has not proved effective. Although Hauraki
Enterprises Ltd., applied for and obtained consent to increase its
shareholding to up to 30 percent of the capital of the company, 2
holding companies for newspaper groups have obtained shareholding
of about 15 percent without the consent of the Tribunal. The reason
for this is that the companies which took the shares were holding
companies of newspaper companies but did not themselves conduct
the business of a newspaper. This was clearly not in the spirit of
the clause but the Tribunal, although aware of the situation when
the warrant holder drew the Tribunal’s attention to it, could not
find that there was a breach of the warrant.

The Tribunal has invited private stations to amend their warrants
to a form first approved for Radio Avon Ltd., which is more
comprehensive and meets the situation. Although there was no
formal application made to the Tribunal at the time of the present
application for this particular amendment, the applicant, through
its counsel, suggested that the Tribunal should amend a warrant to
bring it in line with the Radio Avon clause of its own motion.

The company consented to such an amendment the effect of which
would be to require a consent to any further acquisition of shares
in the applicant company by a news media company as now defined
by that clause.

As both those companies are represented on the Board of Capital
City Radio, the Tribunal sees no reason why it should not bring
the warrant into line as suggested and makes an order accordingly.

Leave is given to the applicant to submit the necessary wording
to accommodate the present news media shareholding.

The Tribunal notes that another condition of the warrant provided
that no director of any news company as defined by the News Media
Act which publishes a newspaper, either directly or by means of
subsidiary companies, should be appointed a director of the warrant
holder without the prior written consent of the Broadcasting
Authority.

That will be amended to read “Broadcasting Tribunal” instead
of “Broadcasting Authority”. The Tribunal considers that condition
needs to be brought in line with the new news media clause. The
applicant may submit proposed wording to the Tribunal.

Dated the 30th day of March 1984.

Signed for the Tribunal:

B. H. SLANE, Chairman.

Decision No. 9/84
BRO 39/83

Before the Broadcasting Tribunal

In the matter of the Broadcasting Act 1976 and in the matter of
applications by HAURAKI ENTERPRISES LIMITED for a renewal of
sound-radio warrant AM/43:

Chairman: B. H. Slane.

Members: L. R. Sceats, A. E. Wilson.

Hearing: Auckland, 24 August 1983.

Counsel: S. P. Bryers for applicant.

B. G. Impey for Radio Pacific Limited.

R. L. Maclaren for Metropolitan FM Limited.

H. F. Callagher for the Northern Journalists Union.