1808
THE NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE
No. 91

difficulties and profits were required to generate the funds needed
to produce better programmes.

It was seeking to substitute talk back programmes apparently
having a reasonably widespread common appeal for programmes
of special interest to various minority groups.

The Tribunal had described Radio Pacific’s programmes as:

“To provide news and current affairs, information programmes
covering a wide range of social political educational
industrial and economic matters and presenting, on major
issues, clearly and impartially, all sides of the question.”

Mr Bryers submitted that the Tribunal gave considerable weight
to community involvement with its references to the community
station, “We are satisfied that the station would meet some
significant needs of the community and we give considerable weight
to the importance of this function of the station. While we have
some reservations about the real educational development that might
occur as far as children are concerned, particularly at the times
when the station is in competition with television, we do feel
that an attempt at this role at a practical community level would fulfil
some of the needs of the area.”

He also referred to the Tribunal’s statement at page 16:

“A determination to disseminate information and make people
more aware of alternatives, to make them more socially
conscious and informed, to improve their relations with each
other and their understanding of other groups in the community
and of matters multi-cultural, and to provide a small voice
for minority national groups seems to be a sincere and
practical attempt to provide for the needs of the area. We
have given considerable weight to these aims.”

And at page 25:

“In the circumstances of this application we do not think the
conditions will be unduly hampering if the subscribers to the
company understand that the application has been made on
the basis that a certain type of programme will be produced
and that a warrant is not to be regarded as open for permanent
use in any way in which the warrant holder considered
commercially suitable.”

After referring to some comments made about Hauraki Enterprises
in its decision of 29 July 1980 considering the renewal of that
warrant, Mr Bryers submitted the deletion of condition 4 (b) should
not be allowed since it would destroy the integrity of the Tribunal
process, the credibility and the role of the Tribunal. The station
had ignored the conditions of its warrant and belatedly came to the
Tribunal to seek its sanction. It was seeking to delete conditions
which were instrumental in allowing it to obtain its warrant in the
first place because they were unprofitable, which was the argument of
objectors to the granting of the warrant. The Tribunal would be
endorsing the approach of an applicant advancing any undertaking
that it thought necessary or desirable to obtain a warrant and later
withdrawing that undertaking at the earliest convenient opportunity.

The Tribunal had made it clear that the involvement of the
community in the applicant’s operation was of great weight and
importance. Although one or two of the 11 paragraphs in 4 (b)
may not now be relevant and could be deleted or could be enlarged,
the Tribunal should look at dropping conditions as a remedy of last
resort.

The Auckland Committee on Racism and Discrimination
(“ACORD”) objected to the change, reminding the Tribunal that
it had been impressed by the evidence given by Dr Hohcpa, Mr
Garfield-Johnson and Mr Ralph Witten and others as to the needs
of the local community at the warrant hearing. ACORD said that
although in the early days of Radio Pacific an attempt was made
to implement the aims in the application, commitment steadily
diminished until any pretence of meeting the conditions of the
warrant appeared to have been abandoned. It said that Polynesian
groups felt duped and betrayed and a mockery had been made of the
Tribunal.

ACORD was represented by Margaret Arthur, Chris Lane and
Titewhai Harawira. ACORD submitted that the station didn’t seem
to think it should include specific community interest or the
languages of those groups, but ACORD considered that it could not
have multi-cultural broadcasts without being multi-lingual. The
station was now another station aimed basically at a Pakeha
audience. It duplicated opinions on other stations. It submitted that
ratings had dropped after the programmes in specific languages had
been dropped. There were now no access programmes. It accused
Mr Stevens of paternalism and pointed to the absence of music
programmes of interest to Maori and Pacific Islands groups and the
lack of proportional representation in the guest celebrations on the
station. The mini-programmes were not of special interest to Maori
or Pacific Island listeners.

The effect had been to get rid of all community involvement in
the running of the station, and to dismantle Maori and Pacific Island
programming. The Tribunal should take a more active role—an
investigative role. The station had started out to be positive and
hopeful but those who could have been helpful had left the station,
and Maori stations will only succeed if granted on Maori terms.
(Radio Pacific had maintained that Pacific People’s programme were
only the sixth most popular programme among Polynesians
themselves.)

Mrs Harawira said that Radio Pacific had not kept up with a
changing Maori world. In South Auckland health programmes had
been disastrous and efforts by Radio Pacific in community
programming would have been beneficial. There were capable people
available who speak both Maori and English and people for whom
the station was designed and for whom nothing was being done.
She said that the station was not catering for the needs of Maori
people who had suitable people trained who could run it in a more
positive way.

Decision

The Tribunal has made it clear on a number of occasions that it
expects the substance of undertakings and conditions and programme
proposals made at the time of the granting of a warrant to be broadly
adhered to by applicants. Otherwise an application immediately
had to be made to the Tribunal for an amendment. This was not
done promptly in the case of Radio Pacific which made more than
one change to its format without the approval of the Tribunal. That
will be a matter for consideration at the renewal of the warrant in
determining the period of renewal.

What the Tribunal is concerned about at this stage is whether or
not any condition should be revoked and whether it is necessary
in the public interest to impose new conditions.

We do so within the context of a background in which a number of
stations have had warrant renewals and have had their programme
obligations updated since the period of 10 years earlier when those
applications were granted.

Some stations have needed no such amendments.

However, it is clear that some aspects of original proposals have
not proved to be practicable in the long term and it is necessary to
revise them. We first intend to discuss the major amendment
required and then separately to deal with the limitation on
shareholding.

We start from the difficulty that the condition and the way it is
worded so far as programme content is concerned, has not been
the choice of the Tribunal. Both the Tribunal and the Supreme
Court versions were based on what the applicant was prepared to
undertake. In one case it was to base programmes on certain needs
and in the latter to concentrate a majority of its time to providing
such programmes. And the needs were defined in terms that limit
the effectiveness of the clause as it fails to define obligations in a
readily enforceable form. It was not a condition to adhere to the
programme proposals as is more usual.

We also note that the condition that the station will remain
primarily informational is not to be interfered with. That is a basic
format requirement.

The difficulty lies in the needs which Mr Dryden obliged the
station to serve and the time which would be devoted to serving
them. The other needs and the time which might be devoted to
them are not defined.

Some of the needs are either irrelevant or redundant. We have
little difficulty in deciding that, in the light of the range of audience
support for the type of programming the station has had from the
beginning, it is not appropriate to try, in the segmented Auckland
market, to have a programme which would appeal to older children
and young adults, as well as an older audience. The station simply
cannot succeed in audience terms by trying to serve the full range
of ages.

About the other obligations we have some doubt. We would like
to see the obligations spelled out to continue a responsibility for
community involvement and health education. We were impressed
with and largely accept the evidence of Mr Stevens on the events
and the problems faced in ethnic programming.

But it is to be noted that because of the limitations in the Act at
the time the Tribunal was not able to impose a requirement that
the station produce programmes which it proposed in the
application. The description of the programme proposals is a
description of the basis on which the application was made but the
only relevant conditions are those which we have set out. In respect
of the major issue of multi-cultural or ethnic broadcasting, we are
faced with what appears to be a reasonable objection from ACORD
that the station is simply not carrying out what it promised the
community it would do.

There are 2 relevant needs described in the application document:

1. The need of Auckland and South Auckland’s 800,000 people
   to develop as an understanding, multi-cultural society.