The Museum cherished the values of ubuntu, stewardship, integrity and respect, and learning and development.
The Nelson Mandela Research Library was now in place and books were being processed; the research programme, new exhibitions, guided and self-guided tours, graded accommodation, well equipped conference venues, and diverse public programmes were in place. An improved visitor experience was reflected in comments in the visitor's books. Staff development was ongoing. Baseline funding or recapitalisation was still needed. Human capacity was still a challenge: only 22 out of 42 required positions were funded and filled. Delays in council appointments were still a challenge. The Museum had partnered with Parliament in last year’s opening ceremony to mark Mr Mandela’s 20th year out of prison. The Mvezo issue was still not resolved. The Bhunga upgrade was delayed.
Audit Reports had improved. Two years ago the Museum had a disclaimer; last year it had an unqualified audit opinion; this year the audit opinion was also unqualified, but with emphasis of matter on irregular expenditure with reference to the availability of local suppliers and the interpretation of the allocation of monies. The Auditor-General drew attention to other matters – measurability of performance information and alignment between budget and strategy.
The Museum then introduced a short, but detailed, supplementary slide presentation on the audit issues, copies of which were not available – even for Members of the Committee.
Members were so annoyed that they called for the presentation to be abandoned and the Museum's delegation to be sent home to prepare properly and supply copies of all documentation to be discussed in advance. The Museum would return on Wednesday, 23 February 2011 and brief the Committee at its next meeting.
The National Film and Video Foundation briefed Members on the Foundation's annual report and audit queries for 2009/10. Mr Eddie Mbalo, Chief Executive Officer, National Film and Video Foundation briefed Members on the Foundation's annual report and audit queries, 2009/10. The Foundation's value charter reminded us that film and video were not about “pacifying the nation with forms of escapism”. The Foundation's moral imperative together with its value charter could be the basis for legitimate political engagement, policy and programme formulation, and consensus between the state, industry and citizens. The Foundation indicated its positioning strategy with civil society, the state and the private sector and its content industry strategy, the latter co-formulated by the Department of Arts and Culture , the Department of Communications, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Foundation, and the South African Revenue Service. The Cabinet had approved the content industry strategy. The Foundation developed its business case based on programmes that would address critical issues of development and growth of the film industry as part of the Cultural Industry Growth Strategy framework, the Macro Economic Reform Strategy, the Accelerated and Shared Growth Initiative for
Employee Benefits included a Comprehensive Provident Fund and Medical Aid Scheme. There was a staff complement of 26 of whose members 92% were black. 74% of the staff members were females. 67% of senior management staff members were females, and 76% of middle management staff members were females. Highlights of the Foundation's training for the sector were the Lionel Ngakane Scholarship Fund, the Trevor Jones Scholarship Fund, and the Sediba Skills Development Programme, which included a screenwriting programme and international financing programme for producers. An investigation had been conducted into the feasibility of establishing a national film school. Major findings of the study were that graduates did not have the necessary skills for the industry. The industry was not yet transformed – black graduates still struggled to find work and the industry was dominated by white owned companies. Figures were given for the number of projects funded from 2001-2010. Details were given of co-productions. There were five active film co-production treaties with
An unqualified audit had been achieved each year since the Foundation’s establishment. Good financial and performance management systems and controls, and effective internal control function had been established. Annual risk assessments, a three year internal audit plan, an effective Executive Controls Council, an Executive Committee (Exco), an Audit Committee, and a Human Resources Committee were established.
Members asked how the Foundation recruited students for the film schools, especially prospective students from the rural areas and talented speakers of indigenous languages, why there were fewer black males, what the Foundation's strategy for digital migration was, if the treaties for artistic cooperation between South Africa and other countries benefited the people in the townships – An African National Congress Member was concerned that the Executive signed international treaties without fully consulting Parliament while the latter had to account to members of the public if things went wrong, if the Foundation received funding only from the Department of Arts and Culture, if the Foundation's employees included persons with disabilities, asked how the Foundation' sought civil society organisations with which to cooperate and if it lobbied them sufficiently, what really happened about the proposed national film school and why the school was rejected, what informed the distribution of funds, noted that black graduates struggled to obtain work, asked if the Foundation had any plans to establish cinemas in rural areas, if the Foundation had considered forming partnerships with the Department of Higher Education and Training, and what partnerships the Foundation had established with provincial and municipal departments of arts and culture and with traditional leaders. A Democratic Alliance Member commended the Foundation on achieving unqualified audit opinions since its inception, asked if the Foundation kept track of the subsequent careers of students to whom the Foundation gave bursaries and training, and observed that if to achieve a viable film industry it was necessary to provide members of the public with entertainment as well as with educational films. The Chairperson advised the Foundation to increase the number of its public partnerships, and to report its concerns to the Committee. The Chairperson said that Parliament could call upon the Foundation at any time. The Foundation had been ill-advised by the Department of Arts and Culture with regard to attending meetings of the Committee. The Foundation should establish a strategic partnership with the Department of Higher Education and Training.
Previous minutes were adopted. The Chairperson noted that the two parliamentary liaison officers of the Ministry of Arts and Culture would be expected to attend the 23 February 2011 meeting. Earlier, she had been amazed that a director from the Department of Arts and Culture had, while introducing himself, said that he was present to support the Chief Executive Officer of the
The Chairperson welcomed Members and delegates, and asked all present to introduce themselves. She advised that the Parliamentary Monitoring Group (PMG) was present to oversee the proceedings. She further advised that the proceedings were being recorded and insisted that Members and delegates must be strict with themselves in using the microphones when contributing to the meeting.
Apologies were received from Mr S Ntapane (UDM), who was unwell, and Mr J Smalle (DA) who was occupied in another meeting.
Mr Khwezi ka Mpumlwana, Chief Executive Officer (CEO),
The Chairperson was amazed when Mr Irwin Langeveld, Director, Department of Arts and Culture (DAC), said that he was present 鍍o support the CEO_.
Nelson Mandela Museum annual report and audit queries, 2009/10
Mr Mpumlwana briefed Members on the Museum's annual report and audit queries for 2009/10 on the basis of the document handed out in the meeting and already supplied to Members.
Mr Mpumlwana outlined the Museum's legal mandate. The Musuem was inspired by the South African Constitution, established In terms of the Cultural Institutions Act, and subject to the National Heritage Resources Act and to the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA).
The Museum was the official museum of the South African people and Government to Mr Nelson Mandela. It was a declared national institution in terms of the Cultural Institutions Act, one of the portfolio of Arts and Culture legacy projects along with the
The Museum was located in the
As to institutional arrangements, the Minister of Arts and Culture Minister established a juristic person
The Museum accounted to the Minister, the National Treasury and to Parliament, and interfaced with diverse stakeholders.
The Museum's vision was to be a leading museum that represented and interpreted the life story and values of Mr Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela, a product and champion of ubuntu.
The Museum’s mission was to develop a site for collecting, interpreting, and curatorship that promoted critical understanding of Nelson R Mandela’s work, life memory and legacy. It was to be a centre for cultural life in the forefront of restoring ubuntu as a pioneering philosophy for social change, to build Nelson Mandela's legacy as a vehicle for social change, nation building, pursuit of human solidarity, through education and advocacy programmes, and to promote sustainable community development and self-upliftment in partnerships.
The Museum cherished the values of ubuntu, stewardship, integrity and respect, and learning and development.
Its strategic priorities were to build and renew museum’s content and quality of offering, build and mobilise resources to increase organisational capacity, improve museum’s public profile, accessibility, footprint and public perception, and improve infrastructure, security and facilities.
Mr Mpumlwana outlined the Museum's plans for building and renewal of content: the Nelson Mandela Research Library was in place and books were being processed; the research programme, new exhibitions, guided and self-guided tours, graded accommodation, well equipped conference venues, and diverse public programmes were in place.
The Museum sought to build and mobilise resources to improve institutional capacity. Audit Reports had improved. Two years ago the Museum had a disclaimer; last year it had an unqualified audit opinion; this year the audit opinion was also unqualified, but, Mr Mpumlwana stressed, with emphasis of matter on irregular expenditure.
An improved visitor experience was reflected in comments in the visitor's books.
Facilities were graded by the Tourism Grading Council and the Automobile Association (AA). There was improved execution of the Museum's programme. Staff development was ongoing. Baseline funding or recapitalisation was still needed. Human Capacity was still a challenge: only 22 out of 42 required positions were funded and filled. Delays in council appointments were still a challenge.
The Museum achieved an improved public profile, accessibility, footprint and public perception, and a presence in more provinces and reaching diverse disadvantaged audiences. The Museum had partnered with Parliament in last year’s opening ceremony to mark Mr Mandela’s 20th year out of prison.
The Mvezo issue was still not resolved –there was occasional negative publicity (generally no comment given). The former Minister had convened a meeting where the National Lottery confirmed that no money was ever released.
The Museum sought to improve infrastructure, facilities management and security with a new security and cleaning company, graded accommodation, new backup arrangements for electricity and water supplies, and partially upgraded facilities for collection management. However, the Bhunga upgrade was delayed.
The Museum managed a collection of gifts and awards given to President Mandela, managed sites associated with his early life and pointed to the rest of the landscape. It conserved, interpreted and presented for public benefit the story of the life and work of Nelson Mandela in context. It offered education programmes, research, exhibitions and outreach; and promoted social cohesion, national unity, patriotism and economic development through tourism, and other initiatives.
The Museum offered free entry to a quality cultural experience, exhibitions, education and outreach programmes, guided and self guided tours, entry into the National Liberation Heritage Route, a base from which to explore the liberation related sites in our region, preserving and interpreting part of the authentic landscape of Mr Nelson Mandela’s childhood, and a fully equipped conference centre with graded accommodation and a museum shop with growing diverse offerings.
The Museum had planned for 2009 and 2010: improved organisational capacity, better governance and unqualified audit; a better national footprint; three exhibitions and improved heritage resource management, infrastructure renewal, strengthening of security, and training and capacity building.
The Museum accomplished in the year under review: an unqualified audit with emphasis of matter; outreach to other provinces; completion of the upgrade of the collections of the library; new exhibitions; and diverse growth in visitors.
The Museum did not accomplish the following: an adjustment to baseline was not achieved; the new council was not in place; and Mvezo was not resolved.
General lessons for the period under review were the value of reaching out to other provinces; the need to factor in more contextual information in projecting project implementation; the need for a new funding formula; the need for recapitalisation; the need for timely appointment and capacitating of independent councils; to strengthen alignment of strategy and budget; ongoing attention to human capacity and Infrastructure; to achieve resolution of the Mvezo matter; and the value of partnerships.
Some incidents of note beyond the financial year included 2010
For the way forward, the Museum planned to incorporate the recommendations of the committee on the strategy within the budget. It planned to continue to pursue the approved strategy, including resource mobilisation and strengthening the enterprise capacity of the Museum.
The Museum planned to continue to strengthen governance and planned to implement the Bhunga upgrade this financial year, close the Bhunga building, operate from Qunu and implement unprecedented outreach for the Museum.
Mr Mpumlwana gave Members a statement of the Museum's financial position (slide 19) and a statement of the Museum's financial performance (slide 20).
The Museum's audit opinion was unqualified but with emphasis of matter on irregular expenditure with reference to the availability of local suppliers and the interpretation of the allocation of monies. The Auditor-General drew attention to other matters – measurability of performance information and alignment between budget and strategy.
Mr Mpumlwana introduced a short, but detailed, supplementary slide presentation on the audit queries, copies of which were not available – even for Members of the Committee.
The Chairperson objected that Members had no copies of the supplementary slide presentation.
Ms M Morutoa (ANC) said that, for want of the supplementary slide presentation document, Members were in a very serious predicament. How could Members be expected to interact? It would not be profitable to continue the discussion without it.
The Chairperson said that the Committee had sent a message to the Museum on 18 January 2011. There was no excuse. The Committee required reports on time so that Members could scrutinise them. Moreover, Members could hardly read the supplementary document, in a small type face, from the screen. She saw hat Members were unhappy and might have reason to believe that the Museum had something to hide. She asked for their views.
Mr P Ntshiqela (COPE) said that Members were completely disarmed. It was essential that Members could participate on the basis of sound information and produce good results.
Dr A Lotriet (DA) said that she would do a disservice to the Committee if she attempted to comment in the absence of the opportunity to study the supplementary document before the meeting.
A Member asked if the Museum's Chief Financial Officer could elucidate.
The Chairperson said that one tried to avoid sending delegations back for such reasons. The Museum would no doubt be aware of such occurrences from the media. She asked for Members' advice.
Ms L Moss (ANC) said that Members were far behind with their work: every year committees heard the same thing. It was imperative to send the Museum's delegation back in order that Members could receive the supplementary documentation in advance, read it thoroughly, and make a constructive decision on the Museum.
(Ms) Hosi T Nwamitua-Shilubaha (ANC) said that an important organ like the
Ms Morutoa said that Members were required to follow the Money Bills and Related Matters Amendment Bill when they dealt with annual reports. Members were trying their very best, in every way and by all means, to build an efficient Parliament of the people and Members could not be vague in their deliberations. Members were geared to the rules of Parliament. This was a very important report and the Museum must consider Parliament's requirements.
Ms F Mushwana (ANC) proposed a compromise. Members needed the supplementary documentation, but asked that they be given the opportunity to listen to what the delegation had to say; at the same time, the delegation must be instructed not to make the same mistake again.
Ms Morutoa said that Members would indeed like to listen, but would not do justice to the Committee or to Parliament if they, as representatives of the public, indulged themselves thus: the proper procedures must be followed.
Dr Lotriet fully agreed. It might be harsh, but she could not fulfil her role without the proper documentation – a brief idea of what was going on was insufficient.
The Chairperson said that Members were merely following the rules of Parliament. On the other hand, visiting delegations had a tendency to think that Members knew little about the subjects under discussion. The previous week, the Acting Director-General, Department of Arts and Culture, had complained about the budget allocation. It was because proper reports were not forthcoming, and reports were not convincing, that there was a negative impact on the budget process. The
The Chairperson said that the Committee would not be lenient, but would offer the Museum an appointment on Wednesday, 23 February 2011.
Mr Mpumlwana took seriously everything that had been said. He offered an explanation. He said that the audit report had been dealt with in the original presentation, but what had happened was that from his interaction with the Department he had been advised to go into more detail about the audit issues. Such detail included items that were not even part of the annual report. There were so many columns in the supplementary presentation because it went into such detail. If he had not been told that he had to go into such detail about the number of visitors, he would have done so. The original presentation highlighted all the main issues and these were in the annual report. He begged to be understood in that light. The supplementary presentation was a one pager, followed by two pages which dealt with the financial position, and then the graph was annexed. So when he was advised to give more detail, he decided to list the issues and then give the actions that the Museum proposed to take in response to every one of them. He asked Members to review their approach.
However, the Chairperson was not convinced and said that Mr Mpumlwana was confusing the Committee. The message that the Committee had sent to the Museum was that it should also present on the audit queries, and on what steps it was taking to correct them. The most important part, as Ms Morutoa had said, was the audit; in a few weeks time it would be the budget vote, so if Members were not given clarity, they would have a problem. She was not satisfied with Mr Mpumlwana's plea that the audit report had been dealt with adequately in the original presentation.
Mr M Mdludlu, Chief Financial Officer (CFO), agreed with Mr Mpumlwana, but conceded that the details were not present in the original documentation: indeed, they should be included. He would allow Mr Mpumlwana to conclude.
A Member said that wanted to know what the Museum was doing to redress the audit queries; this should be in the original presentation document rather than offering a slide that served only to confuse. He wanted to know who the local suppliers were. This was not a SPAZA shop.
The Chairperson demanded the details of everything. It was as if the delegation had never presented in Parliament before.
Ms Morutoa said that the Museum was trying to explain, but this was not the way we worked in Parliament. Members were trying to improve. This audit report was not sufficient for Members to interact. Members needed a comprehensive report to show how the auditors reached these findings.
The Chairperson dismissed the Museum's delegation and told it to return on Wednesday, 23 February 2011 with a full report.
National Film and Video Foundation annual report and audit queries, 2009/10 briefing
Mr Eddie Mbalo, CEO, National Film and Video Foundation (the Foundation, the NGVF) briefed Members on the Foundation's annual report and audit queries, 2009/10.
Mr Mbalo said that the Foundation's value charter articulated desirable ends about the structural objects of
the film sector that were currently unevenly distributed in our society. It reminded us that film and video were not about “pacifying the nation with forms of escapism”. The character of the “Value Charter” was encapsulated in the moral imperative which read: “is a national imperative to create facilities for ordinary South Africans to bear influence in the expression of their own images, thereby deepen democracy and create prosperity”. The National Film & Video Foundation strove for the realisation of this noble ideal. The moral imperative together with the Value Charter could be the basis for legitimate political engagement, policy and programme formulation, and consensus between the state, industry and citizens.
Mr Mbalo illustrated the Foundation's positioning strategy with civil society, the state and the private sector (slide 5).
In 2003, the content industry strategy was co-formulated by the Department of Arts and Culture (DAC), the Department of Communications (DOC), the Department of Trade and Industry (the dti), the Foundation, and the South African Revenue Service (SARS).
This strategy called for a comprehensive strategic thrust that would create sustainable development and growth of the whole audiovisual content industry.
The Cabinet approved the content industry strategy based on the sectoral programme approach. The dti developed the film and television production incentive rebate. The NFVF developed its business case
The essence of the business case was that the NFVF had formulated programmes that would address critical issues of development and growth of the film industry as part of the Cultural Industry Growth Strategy (CIGS) framework, the Macro Economic Reform Strategy (MRS), the Accelerated and Shared Growth Initiative for South Africa (AsgiSA), Industrial Policy Action Plan (IPAP) and New Growth Path (slide 8).
Mr Mbalo highlighted achievements shown in the annual report.
As to governance, an unqualified audit had been achieved each year since NFVF’s establishment. Good financial and performance management systems and controls, and effective internal control function had been established. Annual risk assessments, a three year internal audit plan, an effective Executive Controls
Council, an Executive Committee (Exco), an Audit Committee, and a Human Resources Committee were established.
The human resources strategy was in line with the NFVF strategic direction. As to performance management, a Talent Management and Mentorship Programme was successfully developed and implemented. As to remuneration, salary increases were based on the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) and Performance Management Reviews.
Employee Benefits included a Comprehensive Provident Fund and Medical Aid Scheme. As to employment equity and workplace diversity, there was a staff complement of 26 of whose members 92% were black . 74% of the staff members were females. 67% of senior management staff members were females, and 76% of middle management staff members were females (slide 12).
Highlights of the Foundation's training for the sector as reflected in the annual report were detailed, with particular reference to the Lionel Ngakane Scholarship Fund and Trevor Jones Scholarship Fund (slide 13).
Particular reference was made to the Sediba Skills Development Programme, which included a screenwriting programme and international financing programme for producers. (Slides 14-15)
Details were given of short film contests, including films in indigenous languages (slide 16).
An investigation had been conducted into the Feasibility of Establishing a National Film School (NFS) in terms of Section 2(e) of NFVF Act between 2006 -2008. There had been extensive consultation with DAC and the dti and it was discussed at Indaba 2009 with industry and Government stakeholders.
Major findings of the study were that graduates did not have the necessary skills for the industry. The industry was not yet transformed – black graduates still struggled to find work and the industry was dominated by white owned companies. The study recommended the establishment of a NFS for
Production and development of content was described. This included the philosophy of the production and development (P&D) department, understanding the South African market place, encouraging work that resonated local audiences and addressed national imperatives, increasing volumes of scripts, increasing volumes of productions, and developing sustainable businesses (slide 18).
Figures were given for the number of projects funded from 2001-2010. Details were given of co-productions.
There were five active film co-production treaties with
Total allocation received from the DAC and other sources was detailed (slide 21).
Details of awards and achievements by South African films were listed:
Tsotsi – Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film
Hotel Rwanda – 4 Oscar nominations
Yesterday – 1 Oscar nomination
Elalini – Oscar for Best Student Film
U-Carmen e-Khayelitsha - Golden Bear, Berlin
Wooden Camera - Silver Bear, Berlin
Drum – the Golden Stallion & Best Art Direction, Fespaco
Zulu Love Letter – European Union Prize & Best actress, Fespaco
Max and Mona – Best First Time Director (Feature), Fespaco
Lion’s Trail – Emmy Award
Skin – 4 international awards
Izulu Lami - 4 International awards
Shirley Adams – Best film , Locarno
Father Christmas - Best Narrative Short, Tribeca
Details of an unofficial co-production were given:
Total Budget R 22 200 000
South African Contribution R 13 700 000
QSAPE R 18 000 000
No. of jobs 197
Box Office R 8 152 864
WW Revenue R 42 000 000 ($6 million)
Awards Winning an Oscar
Total Budget R 22 200 000
Labour costs (1/3) R 6 000 000
Pay as You Earn (PAYE) R 1 500 000
Vatable production amount R 16 200 000
Value Added Tax (VAT) on production R 1 989 474
VAT on Box office R 1 001 228
Total amount back to the state R 4 490 702
% back to the state 32.78%
Performance indicators for a South African film were given.
Title White Wedding
Total Budget R 4 665 604
DTI Contribution R 1 632 961
No. of jobs 387
Box Office R 4 971 581
The figures for contributions to the state in the form of pay as you earn (PAYE) and value added tax were highligted. The state contributed R1 632 961, but the total amount back to the state was R1 381 324 – 84.59% of the state's contribution. (slides 25-26)
Performance indicators for the Repulbic of
Finance and funding for the sector was described. Innovation initiatives included co-finance sourcing assistance, for example, Otelo Burning, business case for entity, low budget model developed with the Industrial Development Corporation (IDC), the dti, and South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC), and an exhibition platform – business case (slide 28).
A wide range of Government interventions had had positive impact, but were neither large enough, nor integrated enough. They were illustrated with a flow chart and text, with reference to the dti rebate, IDC investment, SABC advances and investment, South African Revenue Service (SARS) tax relief, and NFVF production investment. There was a need for greater investment and coordination. (slide 29)
With reference to global positioning, international markets and festivals,
International awards and provincial film commissions played an important role. There were consolidated efforts toward positioning South African resources through the Durban Film Office, the Cape Town Film Commission, and the Gauteng Film Commission (slide 30-31)
Under the heading of demand stimulation and audience development, Mr Mbalo referred to South Africa Film and Television Awards (SAFTA)'s entering the fifth session of awards, building talent and stars, National Film Festivals, Durban International Film Festival, Kwa Mashu Film Festival, Encounters Documentary Film Festival, Tri-Continents Film Festival, Out in Africa Gay & Lesbian Film Festival, Bafundi Student Film Festival, Nab’ubomi Schools Film Festival, distribution (e.g SKIN), quadrupled expected box office revenue, leveraged R20million in PR student outreach - national campaign for school pupils and research (slides 32-33).
Under the heading of intergovernmental and stakeholder relations, Mr Mbalo said that NFVF hosted an Intergovernmental Indaba in 2008. The Indaba built cooperation on issues of the development of film and video in
Prospects for 2012-2025 were indicated. NFVF received an additional R135million for 2012 – 2014. Its programmes were aligned to the New Growth Path. Programmes included : education and training programmes that addressed the skills gap; the increase in resources to both script development & production; the introduction of three additional slate funds; a short film contest to launch careers of new entrants into the sector; the set up and support of incubation programmes nationally; the support of innovative distribution initiatives; and the empowerment of entrepreneurs from Previously Disadvantaged Communities to access the film industry (slide 35).
Mr Mbalo said that his term of office as CEO would end on 31 March 2011. Ms Karen Son had been appointed by the outgoing Council to be the new CEO from 01 April 2011 (slide 36).
The Chairperson noted that Members had received copies of the presentation in their pigeon holes the previous week.
The Chairperson wished Ms Son success in her new position, and hoped that Mr Mbalo would continue his work in the film world.
Ms Morutoa asked Mr Mbalo how the Foundation recruited students for the film schools, especially prospective students from the rural areas.
Ms Morutoa asked how the Foundation recruited talented speakers of indigenous languages.
Ms Son said that the Foundation did interact with all the various institutions that offered film studies at degree level and ensured that they were aware that the Foundation provided bursaries. Such institutions would then inform prospective students that they could apply to the Foundation for bursaries.
Ms Son said that the Foundation interacted with the various film commissions around the country and with the provinces too, in order to advise people of the Foundation's offerings. This was how the Foundation recruited students. Moreover, the Foundation intended in the future to get more involved at the high school level. It wished to attend more career expos. In the past, the Foundation, together with the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) and the Film and Publications Board, had attended a few high school road shows to inform members of the public what opportunities were available in the film arena.
Ms Morutoa asked why there were fewer black male producers (slide 15). What was especially attractive to women?
Ms Morutoa asked for a comparison between the exposure of people to television and to cinema.
Ms Morutoa asked how the convergence of technologies and the migration to digitally modulated radio and television transmissions came together from the Foundation's perspective.
Ms Morutoa asked what the Foundation's strategy for digital migration and switching off analogue transmission was and how it would affect the Foundation and the industry.
Ms Makhwanya said that digital migration and digital content afforded the industry many opportunities and more work. There were many benefits. Once the policy had been sorted out, there would be more demand for content. This would mean more work for South African producers, and more products for the South African audiences to consume.
Mr Mbalo added that digital migration offered opportunities for the different platforms – cinema, television, internet, for example, to support each other.
Mr Mbalo said that South Africans preferred local content on television. Digital migration offered a chance for more platforms, but it was necessary to ensure that there was sufficient local content, as otherwise the additional hours of broadcasting that would become available would be filled with foreign content, as was apparent with satellite television, which was expensive, but to which people were migrating because of the crisis at the SABC.
Ms Morutoa asked if the treaties for artistic cooperation between
Ms Aifheli Makhwanya, Head of Policy and Research, the Foundation, said that
Ms Makhwanya, however, said that she could not say exactly how ordinarily South Africans benefited. It was a difficult question to answer.
Ms Makhwanya added that the benefit was that there were stories that were told between the two countries from the perspective of both countries. So audiences in both countries derived the benefit of adapting stories that they would not ordinarily have seen as films.
Ms T Lishivha (ANC) asked if the Foundation received funding only from the Department of Arts and Culture.
Ms Son replied that currently the Foundation received funding only from the Department, but throughout the year the Foundation tried to leverage partnerships, for example, film festivals, such as the Cannes Film Festival, at which, because of the 2010 World Cup, the International Marketing Council was highly willing to give sponsorship to the Foundation.
Mr Mbalo referred to lack of capacity in the National Lottery Trust Fund. There needed to be state intervention. It usually took a year just to get a letter of acknowledgement from the National Lottery Trust Fund. This was why many programmes had to close down. Funding for the arts, moreover, had to be informed by the national strategy for the arts. There was no long term relationship between the Department of Arts and Culture and the National Lottery, which was nonetheless a state institution.
Ms Son said that it was not that the Foundation sought funding only for itself; it was rather concerned about funding for the sector.
Ms Lishivha asked if the Foundation's 26 employees included persons with disabilities.
Ms Son replied that there were none; however, this was not a conscious decision.
Dr Lotriet commended the Foundation on achieving unqualified audit opinions since its inception. This was quite an achievement.
Dr Lotriet asked if the Foundation kept track, to ensure getting value for money, of the subsequent careers of students to whom the Foundation gave bursaries.
Dr Lotriet asked if the Foundation kept track of the subsequent careers of students to whom the Foundation gave training.
Ms Makhwanya responded that the first time the Foundation had the opportunity to conduct a study on graduate absorption was in 2008. One of the major findings was that the industry was losing many workers to other sectors. The challenge was that they were not finding employment in the areas for which they had trained. Ms Makhwanya referred to chapter 4, page 66 of the investigation. The industry was still dominated by certain companies. If one did not have experience, it was difficult to find work that was sustainable.
Mr Mbalo said that black students did not have an avenue through which to be absorbed. The crisis at the SABC did not help, since independent producers had fewer opportunities. It was the responsibility of the industry to find ways of absorbing graduates.
Dr Lotriet saw a needs analysis in the investigation into the feasibility of establishing a national film school, but not a financial or cost analysis to determine if this was a project that could be considered. For the project to be fully funded by the Department, it was necessary to know the figures. Had the NFVF done such a study?
Mr Mbalo proposed that the next step was to develop a feasibility and costs study. The first step had been to study the need. It was also to align with educational policy.
Dr Lotriet observed that if one was to achieve a viable film industry (slide 2) it was necessary to provide members of the public with entertainment as well as with educational films.
Dr Lotriet said that the next step after producing films was to encourage people to attend the cinemas. Thereafter one could promote educational films.
Mr Ntshiqela commended the compilation of the presentation. Why had the Foundation not presented to the Committee for several years?
Mr Mbalo replied that the Foundation came at the invitation of the Committee. It continually asked the Department of Arts and Culture when it would be scheduled. It would always be told that it had had a clean audit and therefore was not a priority. The Foundation had, indeed, written in the 2009/10 annual report that it was not happy to be deprived of an opportunity to meet the Committee.
The Chairperson said that Parliament could call upon the Foundation at any time.
The Chairperson said that the Foundation had been ill-advised by the Department of Arts and Culture with regard to attending meetings of the Committee.
Ms Morutoa said that the Foundation must come to the Committee and not take any short cuts without consulting the Committee. If it took short cuts it would by-pass the legislative process.
Mr Ntshiqela asked what the Foundation's criteria were for selecting the civil society organisations with which it would cooperate (slide 5).
Mr Mbalo replied that the Foundation did not select partners. Everyone had the right to request the Foundation for service.
Mr Ntshiqela asked what really happened about the proposed national film school (NFS). Why was the school rejected? What were the Foundation's recommendations?
Ms Makhwanya replied that at the indaba held in 2009, a forum in which there were various stake holders from civil society and training providers; there were various topics that had to be looked at. There were certain groups that did not see the need for a national film school; however, this was not necessarily an objection to the research done by the Foundation. The indaba was just a platform to obtain input from stakeholders in terms of what the research had found out. It was not necessarily an objection as had been suggested by the question.
Mr Mbalo said that the Foundation was surprised that an industry representative body went on the platform to say that there was no need for a film school. The Foundation had to listen to everyone. It knew that there was a skills gap. Digital migration meant that people had to be retrained with a view to the convergence of technologies. Everything had to change.
Mr Ntshiqela asked about intergovernmental stakeholder relations. Was it about getting more money from these departments or entities? (Slide 34).
Mr Mbalo referred to strengthening of relations and the need for everyone to work together. It was important that entrepreneurs did not invest in the industry and then lose money. The Foundation cooperated with the South African Revenue Service (SARS) to guide it on the workings of the film industry. The Foundation was reviewing the certification of co-productions from the exchange control perspective. Partnerships were critical, and it was proud of progress in this regard. It now remained to get the co-operation of the National Lottery.
Ms Mushwana thanked Mr Mbalo for a comprehensive document. She asked what informed the distribution of funds.
Ms Mushwana asked what happened if only one group needed funds and if the Foundation gave training to match the needs of the industry at large. There was need to establish cinemas in rural areas.
Ms Son said that the Foundation first saw what applications it received, and then made awards on the basis on need. It did not have a quota system according to racial or gender group. It was completely on the basis of need.
Ms Mushwana noted that black graduates struggled to obtain work (slide 17).
The Chairperson asked if the Foundation had considered forming partnerships with the Department of Higher Education and Training (DoHET).
The Chairperson asked what partnerships the Foundation had established with provincial and municipal departments of arts and culture.
The Chairperson asked what partnerships the Foundation had established with traditional leaders. Such leaders had access to the people.
The Chairperson commended the example of Bollywood. Had the Foundation considered the feasibility of
The Chairperson noted that students of private film schools had said that these schools were very expensive, even for white children. Had the Foundation done enough lobbying with civil society organisations, with traditional leaders, and with business?
The Chairperson emphasised the need for lobby groups.
The Chairperson stated that the Foundation would not survive without the help of civil society, at any rate or at any level.
The Chairperson said that
Ms Morutoa was concerned that the Executive signed international treaties without fully consulting Parliament. However, if subsequently things went wrong with the treaty, it was Parliament which had to account to members of the public. Parliament should not be a rubber stamp.
The Chairperson also asked who benefited from treaties. She shared Ms Morutoa's concerns.
Mr Mbalo replied that treaties were of critical importance to the film industry since it lacked sufficient resources. The film Tsotsi had given two South Africans an opportunity for life. Films made in partnership with foreign countries had benefited South Africans rather than the citizens of the participating foreign countries. For example,
Ms Hosi Nwamitua-Shilubaha asked the Foundation to ensure that no talent was left untapped in areas, such as her own, where there had been no cinemas, and where a cinema had been built it had remained unused. There was need for a tangible partnership with the Departments of Basic and Higher Education and Training. For people in the rural areas, the film industry was new.
Ms Mushwana commented on the percentage of the takings of a film paid back to the state.
Ms Mushwana said that encouragement must be given to story tellers.
The Chairperson said that the Foundation must reach out to increase participation.
Mr Mbalo said that the Foundation wanted to reach out and work with the provincial and municipal departments of arts and culture, but the Foundation had difficulty in this respect. This was regrettable because it was at the local level that service delivery began.
The Chairperson noted that
The Chairperson advised the Foundation to increase the number of its public partnerships, and to report such concerns to the Committee. The Foundation should not be demoralised by initial set backs, in the first round, of discussions towards establishing a national film school. The Foundation should establish a strategic partnership with the Department of Higher Education and Training.
Previous minutes were adopted. [Mr Ntshiqela proposed.]
A Member said that the Acting Director-General, Department of Arts and Culture, should attend the 23 February 2011 meeting.
The Chairperson noted that the two parliamentary liaison officers of the Ministry of Arts and Culture would be expected to attend the 23 February 2011 meeting.
The meeting was adjourned.
- We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting
Download as PDF
You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.
See detailed instructions for your browser here.