Media Development and Diversity Agency Bill: deliberations

Meeting report

COMMUNICATIONS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
11 March 2002
MEDIA DEVELOPMENT AND DIVERSITY AGENCY BILL: DELIBERATIONS

Chairperson: Mr. N Kekana

Documents handed out
 

Media Development And Diversity Agency Bill [B2-2002]

SUMMARY
This issue of the Agency's independence was a concern of all the committee members. There was general agreement that all representatives on the Agency board had to act in the public interest. There was also significant discussion around how Board members would be remunerated.

All members also expressed concern with the amount of overlap the MDDA would have with ICASA. Very little agreement was reached on how this issue would be resolved. The DP and NNP contested many of the clauses. Overall, significant amendments were recommended.

MINUTES
Announcements
- The Chairperson thanked GCIS for preparing a summary of the public submissions from the hearings the previous week.
- He noted that he had received word from the Speaker that the National Assembly has commissioned a study on the functioning of parliamentary committees in general.

Media Development And Diversity Agency Bill
Informal deliberations were conducted in chronological order beginning with Clause two.

Clause Two - Establishment of Agency
Ms Smuts (DP) explained the background to her thinking on Clause 2(4) dealing with independence. She said that it was crucial that sections of the Constitution were considered. In particular she referred to sections which dealt with freedom of expression and speech as well as the need for independent regulatory bodies. The Constitution stated that ICASA had the sole responsibility to diversify the media. Further, many of the MDDA clauses were laid out in different words by ICASA. Ms Smuts expressed dissatisfaction with the Bill as it was. She was unhappy as ICASA had overridden the role of the MDDA and could therefore be seen to be transgressing the Constitution. She suggested that the Bill must ensure that the MDDA is subordinate to ICASA.

Ms Smuts raised another point of contention in reference to the Agency's independence. She said that GCIS should in no way be involved in the Agency, as its role was to disseminate government information. Therefore, it would be an infringement on the principles of freedom of speech to put the funding of the media into the hands of government. She suggested that no representative of GCIS should sit on the Agency Board to ensure that it was truly independent.

Mr. Pieterse (ANC) said that the points raised by Ms Smuts were clear. He suggested that the relevant section of the Constitution be merged with the objectives of the Bill to provide greater clarity.

The Chairperson asked members to consider what type of structure was being created and also to consider its role in terms of already existing bodies. What was needed was an environment where people could express their culture in their own language. Perhaps the Constitution needed to be extended to incorporate the MDDA. He said that ICASA had clear objectives and the Portfolio Committee needed to come up with similarly clear objectives for the MDDA.

An ANC member suggested that Clause 2 of the Bill needed substantial amendment. This included a careful outlining of the objectives of the Bill which would be consistent with freedom of expression as stipulated in the Constitution.

The Chairperson concluded the discussion on Clause 2 by saying that the Bill needed to ensure that the distinction between the Agency and other bodies was carefully explained. Furthermore, it must be put beyond all reasonable doubt that the Agency would not affect the content of various media institutions.

Clause Four and Five - Constitution of Board and Nomination and Appointment of members
The Chairperson outlined the ANC position by stating that they would prefer to replace seven members of the Board with nine. This would cover most of the proposals made at the public hearings.

Ms Smuts disagreed and asked what part of the public submissions had made the ANC decide on nine members rather than seven.

The ANC replied that they felt that the Board needed more members to ensure that all role-players were included.

Ms van Wyk (NNP) agreed with the ANC on the need for nine members but no more. However, the committee needed to look carefully at how these members would be remunerated. She suggested rather than remuneration, Board members expenses be covered and they be granted an honorarium.

The GCIS, represented by Mr T Trew, outlined its position in terms of who should be represented on the Board. The ultimate objective would be to try ensure that all sectors were represented, but that representatives would act as individuals on the Board rather than pursing the interests of the their sector. Moreover, all representatives should be acting in the interests of the general public.

Ms Smuts said that it was going to be very difficult to ensure that all representatives acted beyond commercial and political interests. She pointed out that it was important to note that government would not be funding the Agency and therefore most of the funding would come from commercial interests. She suggested that commercial sector representatives be asked to take an oath saying that they would act in the public interest.

Mrs. Van Wyk said that Clause 5 should be amended to ensure that the community media had greater representation. Moreover, government departments such as GCIS should be excluded altogether.

The Chairperson agreed saying that the Board must be strictly biased towards the community media. The Committee needed to understand whether having a government representative on the Board would be unconstitutional or not. He asked the GCIS representatives to motivate why they should have representation.

The state legal advisors mentioned that it was not normal to have government representation on such Boards.

The GCIS responded that it was nominated by the government to play this role. Mr Trew commented that GCIS played an important role in policy-making and in funding considerations.

The Chairperson continued by saying that surely the people sitting on the Board must represent the general public. He questioned how the whole nomination process would be operated and asked whether nominees could be removed.

Clause Six - Disqualification
The Chairperson suggested that the clause was satisfactory other than some minor changes. In particular, 6(2)(e) which gives the President power to withdraw appointments from the Board. It was mentioned that this sort of minor decision-making should not be an extra burden to the President.

Clause Seven - Term of Office
Ms Smuts disagreed with 7(3) as again there seemed no reason to include the President in this minor decision-making. There was general agreement that the need for Presidential intervention was unnecessary and should be removed.

Clause Eight - Remuneration
Apart from the points made earlier with regard to remuneration, it was agreed that members must not be paid. The covering of expenses and an honorarium would be more appropriate.

Clause Ten - Conflicting interests
Ms Van Wyk objected to 10(4), saying that it was not the job of this committee to decide on what sort of disciplinary or criminal action should be taken. This should be the job of the Justice Department. The Chairperson agreed that the clause should be amended accordingly.

Clause Eleven - Staff
The ANC suggested changes to the entire 11(1). They also suggested that the word "may" be changed to "must" in 11(4)(a).

Clause Thirteen - General functions of the Board
Ms Smuts suggested that 13(4) be excluded altogether, as the MDDA will be a funding body and therefore should have no role in policy matters as the section suggests.

Clause Sixteen - Allocation of support
Ms Smuts suggested the exclusion of 16(3) altogether as she felt it should be the Board's decision as to who gets funding.

Clause Eighteen - Projects
Ms Smuts suggested that in the case of broadcasting, the Board should consult with ICASA and both parties must reach agreement before money is allocated.

Mr. Pieterse suggested that the Board should rather consult with the Minister.

Clause Nineteen - Evaluation of projects receiving support
Ms Smuts suggested that the entire appeal mechanism be amended. She asserted that failed projects should be allowed to reapply for funding after a certain amount of time had elapsed.

The Chairperson adjourned the meeting until the following day when formal proposals would be considered and debated.