24 JANUARY THE NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE 265

service. (There was even an element of elitism in the tone that was
taken.) Those who were not receiving an adequate signal placed a
far greater emphasis on the importance of developing the service
beyond the reach of the existing metropolitan transmitters.

In fact the Corporation (correctly, in the view of the Tribunal)
stressed the need to extend the YC service to major non-metropolitan
areas rather than give priority to a conversion to a FM service in
the metropolitan areas. In order to carry out this development it
sought revenue from advertising. That we will deal with shortly.

At this stage however it is necessary to comment on the form of
the application. The Corporation said its application was based on
a direction from the Minister of Broadcasting. That direction was
sought by the Corporation. The origins of the policy are clear.

It is also clear however that the purpose of Government policy
was to see a conversion of the YC programme from AM to FM.
For reasons which we suspect are based largely on the wish to retain
the YC-AM transmitters, the Corporation has favoured both the
relay station approach and simulating for extensive periods
together with a retention of some elements of YC programming on
YC-AM only rather than on YC-FM.

Furthermore, the Corporation has left its actual timetable vague
both as to the development of new stations and the extension of
hours.

To the extent that the applications are granted, it will necessarily
be a condition of the grant that the Tribunal approve the precise
proposed programme development for longer hours and the
proposed dates for the establishment of relay stations.

The Tribunal does not, on the basis of the information available
at present, consider that simulcasting is necessary, for instance, in
Auckland.

For the proper development of broadcasting, it is necessary that
not only the broadcasters but also the listeners adapt to the necessary
change.

We do not accept the argument that the YC audience is incapable,
reluctant or unable to afford the change to the FM mode and given
the long notice of impending changes we consider the Corporation
should eschew simulcasting for those reasons.

The Corporation is at present opposing the use of the one spare
AM frequency in Auckland because of future developments it wishes
to make and also appears to want to retain the YC frequency for
a considerable period partly for simulcasting there.

However, the Tribunal makes no final ruling on the matter, leaving
it for a specific application to be made at the time when the applicant
can state a date for the establishment of an FM transmitter in
Auckland.

As far as Hawkes Bay and the Waikato are concerned, the
application to establish the stations is granted, effective immediately.

The issue of simulcasting does not arise there, except in the sense
that the YC programme from 2YC is inadequately received within
the catchment area of the FM transmitter, which is at present
operating on a short-term broadcasting authorisation.

The application amounts to permission to establish a network
and as the priorities have varied and may vary in other ways from
time to time according to factors which the Corporation might like
to take into account, we think it is best that the procedure we propose
should be followed.

Advertising

The Tribunal gave thorough consideration to an application for
advertising in the Sports Roundup programme which is broadcast
on the YC stations. (Decision 6/81) The Tribunal traversed at length
the considerations which led it to decline that application. We do
not intend to traverse in detail all the arguments that were carefully
considered there. They have been taken into account in arriving at
this decision.

It is however reasonable to refer to one part of the decision where
we said on page 10:

“The Tribunal considers that the Corporation ought to consult
the Government and determine whether or not there is an
established policy as to the support of non-commercial
broadcasting by means of licence fees in the future. It should
be possible for the Government to indicate its general policy,
either publicly or to the Corporation. The Corporation is
entitled to have some indication of the Government policy
on the extent of licence revenue it can anticipate in the next
5 years. The Corporation can then decide whether to make
an application again within a short period in the knowledge
of that policy or even in the knowledge that the Government
is not prepared to establish a policy.

“If that is the case the Tribunal will be prepared to consider
this application and any other application the Corporation
puts forward to develop revenue to support non-commercial

radio broadcasting services. The Tribunal would consider this
application in the light of the Corporation’s statement of all
the options open to it and the arguments it puts forward in
following whatever course it chooses to adopt. Such an
application could properly be made after March 1982.”

It cannot be said that the Corporation or the Tribunal have rushed
the matter. What can be said is that there is no policy appropriate
for the development of commercial revenue and that we find that
it is reasonable for the Corporation in all the circumstances to seek
such revenue.

We do not intend to detail all the individual submissions which
ranged from the protection of mental health to broad statements
of philosophy. We record simply that many cogent arguments were
put by those very many people, articulate and educated, who so
value this programme in its present form. They were carefully
weighed.

This aspect of the proposals caused considerable concern to the
Tribunal, both from the programme point of view and the financial
justifications. The Tribunal took some time over arriving at a
decision, which it has not found easy. It has also had to take into
account other applications that had been lodged and which would
themselves have an economic effect on the Corporation. As the
decisions have effectively been made in respect of those applications
and will issue shortly after this application, the Tribunal considers
itself in a better position now to make the decision than it would
have been immediately upon the receipt of final submissions at the
end of 1983.

The Tribunal has, with some reservations and conditions, decided
to grant the application in relation to advertising.

The Tribunal considers that it is not in a position to establish
the order of financial priorities which the Corporation should have
within its own financial and programme planning.

What the Tribunal is entitled to do is to consider whether on the
face of it the Corporation has assessed the situation and actually
established some priorities, the effect of those decisions and their
necessity or desirability. We do not think it is appropriate for the
Tribunal to substitute its own view of the priorities, for instance,
as between the development of the Concert Programme and the
development of TV2 network.

Furthermore, the Tribunal does not have the evidence on which
such matters could be based since no evidence is generally given
by any Board member and the witnesses brought before us either
have limitations relating to the service for which they work, either
radio or television, or the office they hold if they are employed in
the Corporation’s central services.

It would be helpful to all concerned if there were some national
guidelines or priorities established as a result of a broadcasting policy
widely debated and accepted.

The Tribunal has detailed earlier some of the considerations in
relation to section 80 of the Act.

Three points are clear.

First of all, it is agreed on all sides that the Concert Programme
broadcast from the YC stations is of excellent quality judged by
any world standards.

Secondly, it is accepted that in the normal course of events the
Corporation would wish to retain this as a non-commercial service.

Thirdly, the Corporation has been denied increases in television
licence fee (a proportion of which is available for radio) despite
inflationary increases in costs. The Corporation has been subsidising
its non-commercial activities from commercial surpluses earned by
television or radio. Those surpluses are also used for capital
development and for capital expenditure not covered by
depreciation.

The Tribunal understands and sympathises with the objections
that are made by listeners to the commercial intrusion into the type
of programme in which they are so involved. But it does accept
that there is a difference between the proposed commercial intrusion
into this type of programme and a wholly commercial format which
is the most popular type of broadcasting drawing the vast majority
of listeners.

The Tribunal considers that the impact of advertising in the Sports
Roundup programme would be far less. Having regard to its previous
decision in that respect, a case can be made out more readily for
utilising the Sports Roundup broadcasts for the gaining of
commercial revenue than for the music programmes and other
spoken content of the YC broadcasts.

The Tribunal accepts that the Corporation’s proposed restrictions
on advertising are reasonable. Advertising is to be limited to a
maximum of 6 minutes per hour, not an average of 6 minutes.
Because of the programme format, the nature of the advertising and
the audience levels, a lower average amount of advertising per hour
than is the case on “commercial” stations with a similar time
restriction would be broadcast.

The Tribunal listened to a demonstration tape of the type of
advertisements, which we must point out would also include