SA Languages / Use of Official Languages Bill [B33-2011]: consideration; South African Roadies Association funding controversy

Meeting report

Use of Official Languages Bill: Portfolio Committee amendments
Mr Malusi Ncolo, Senior State Law Adviser, Office of the Chief State Law Adviser, presented the A version of the Bill (the list of Portfolio Committee amendments on their own) and asked members to read along in conjunction with the introduced Bill. Comments and approval were given by the Committee.

Mr N van der Berg (DA) said he had gone through the A-List with the Bill before the meeting and by way of background he wanted to state that the amendments were more technical and legal in nature. There was nothing affecting the essence of the Bill. The amendments were to make it linguistically more accessible and technically more in line with legal practice. He was not familiar with English language practice and syntax to that extent, thus he relied on the superior knowledge who would inform them about the amendments.

The Chairperson said she agreed. She did not use the language that was present in courts but they would be aided by the State Law Adviser as the presentation proceeded.

Ms L Moss (ANC) said she did not seek to waste time but asked Mr van der Berg to explain ‘syntax’.

Mr van der Berg said the easiest way of explaining it was that it referred to the rules of the language and language order.

Ms M Morutoa (ANC) said she somewhat understood what Mr van der Berg had said but she did not understand what his point was. Could the Committee move forward?

Mr Ncolo continued going through the A-List of Portfolio Committee amendments referring back to the introduced Bill as he went along. While reading through the list, the Committee approved each change. The following comments were also made:

Mr P Ntshiquela (COPE) said he needed to know who was the original author of what was being changed?

The Chairperson said when a piece of legislation was passed, these were the steps that needed to be followed. These procedures belonged to the court and they needed to be followed.

Ms Morutoa said she was concerned as people had put their trust in the Committee as public representatives and they had passed many laws. The exercise being done was important as one could find the situation where someone was involved in a court case and the point of reference was the Bill. Thus the work being done here was vital as the clauses could mean something else if one did not correct some of them. It needed to be clear to those present that they were making laws and not playing. The Committee could not be the ones doubting what was being done.

[Note: The contentious Clause 4 was agreed upon by all members].

Mr van der Berg said originally the reporting function onus seemed to be placed on the Language Unit within each national department, national public entity and national public enterprise. However the amendment of clause 9(2) seemed to place the onus on the national public department, national public entity and national public enterprise as a whole and no longer on the language unit. It appeared that the obligation had become more comprehensive in that it rested on the Department as a whole. He asked for clarity on that.

Ms Carin Booyse, Deputy Chief State Law Advisor: Office of the State Law Advisor, replied this was correct. The reporting function now lay with the national public department, national public entity and national public enterprise. It was no longer the language unit that was responsible for submitting the reports.

Mr van der Berg wanted to clarify that the national body would have to use the language unit within it to help to formulate the report. Thus there was still some onus on the language units. That was how he understood in the new wording.

Ms Booyse replied that clause 8 on the functions of the language unit, needed to be read in conjunction with clause 9. There was a combination between clause 8 and clause 9.

Mr van der Berg said that it was important to tackle this issue as the Bill provided a huge role for the Pan South African Language Board (PanSALB). Even in the definitions there was a reference to the organisation. It was troubling as all present knew that, at the moment, PanSALB found itself in hot water. It was not impossible that the Ministry would find a new function for PanSALB and this would require an amendment of the PanSALB Act. How would this affect the provisions of this Bill. He did not want to create imaginary problems, however he thought it best to be sure of what the effect could be.

The Chairperson said she understood the issue with PanSALB. She however appealed to Members to not pre-empt issues that concerned PanSALB. She requested that the exercise of reviewing amendments go on without being confused by the current situation of PanSALB. PanSALB had its own mandate and the Committee knew what was currently happening – but it was important not to confuse the two.

Adv Anthea Gordon, Parliamentary Legal Advisor, said that the process going forward with the Bill was a formal A-List would come before the Committee. There was usually a draft B version as well to satisfy the members. At the meeting where this was presented, the Bill would be formally adopted.

Mr van der Berg said that there had been an accusation on the 29 May 2012 within the National Assembly that Parliament had been passing poor legislation. He wanted to be assured by the legal experts that the Bill that was being passed, when it came to court and was referred to by members of the legal profession, that the Committee’s reputation would not be harmed. He also wanted assurance that it would not be lacking from legal technical point of view. He asked if the legal team could give assurance this was a good Act.

Ms Morutoa said she was a bit lost. This had been a parliamentary process the Committee had gone through and that was the reason why there were legal advisors. The Committee had gone through public hearings. She did not understood how someone determined what was good legislation and what was not, because each and every law had flaws later on. If the Committee was to sit and pre-empt everything that could happen with the Bill, it would be sitting with the Bill a very long time. The Committee was on the right track.

The Chairperson agreed. The fact that things had taken so long and due process followed meant there was no way that Parliament could pass ‘bad legislation’. Parliament ensured that adopted Bills were not challenged in court – and that there was an agreement with those who were opposed to them. She felt she the Committee had come to the end of the exercise.

Ms Moss said that the A-list had been adopted at the meeting but she hoped that when members went away they would not renege on what had been agreed on. This would send out mixed signals. Public representatives should not send out mixed signals as this would cause problems. It had been a long road with this Bill.

The Chairperson said this was a good statement. Political parties had their own media statements and it was important that whatever was sent out was a united statement. However the Committee could not tell political parties what to say. This Committee, unlike others, was a nation building committee.

Mr van der Berg said he had peace of mind about the Use of Offical Languages Bill which had been worked on for such a long time. It had been a real struggle, and there had been anger in the past, especially about clause 4. However once this hurdle had been cleared, there had been no more hard feelings. The DA had fought not only for Afrikaans but also for all South African languages in general. It was important for the country to strive for unity and look for a common centre around which we could gather and unite. The working of the Committee had been an example of the kind of cooperation that was needed in South Africa. The Committee did not want a divide and he appealed to the ANC to also react in that spirit. This was so that there was cooperation. The exercise was not about scoring political points but achieving unity. He could assure the Committee there would be no negative media statements from himself or from his DA colleague. He hoped that everyone could go forward and that the Bill would be implemented. If there were happy people who could communicate thanks to this Bill, then the Committee had achieved what it had wanted to do.

Mr Ntshiquela said he liked the last comments. Throughout the processing of the Bill, there had been nothing disturbing except the issues surrounding clause 4. These had been discussed and agreed on. However the Committee had then dispersed and when it had reconvened at a later date, slight changes had been made. Members of the Committee knew what had caused that change. He had spoken on the issue at the time and had decided that there was a need to go forward. He wanted to emphasise that this had been allowed to go on, however, further on it would not be allowed to continue. He urged the Committee to go out in this good spirit.

The Chairperson said that in nation building there must be certain compromises and not all were happy with clause 4. We needed to learn from Mandela that even when you were not happy about something there was a need to compromise in the name of nation building.

The amendments were formally agreed upon.

Engagement with SA Roadies Association (SARA) and Department on funding challenges
The Chairperson said she wanted to clarify that the South African Roadies Association (SARA) was a Non Profit Organisation (NPO) and was not an entity of the department nor a government entity recognized by Treasury. The Chairperson said SARA had taken her to the media and the Committee had been taken to the Public Protector. She had followed procedure and so things needed to be clarified. An NPO was not able to demand that the Department give them money. The issue was that an NPO could be funded but there was not an obligation to fund them. She needed to clarify that there were many cultural organisations that had not received money. To her understanding, SARA had not received any funding from the Department. She was stating all this as Members did not understand why they were here for this presentation. She felt being a public representative, she should allow them to present. One thing she had not liked about Mr Freddy Nyathela, President of the South African Roadies Association, was that he would call her on her personal number and insult her. She had raised the issue with the Minister saying that she would demand respect. Mr Nyathela had demanded money from all the MECs especially the one from Gauteng. The Committee wanted to understand what was going on. She had brought this to Parliament so her name could be cleared as she could not even respond to the media. She wanted the issues to be clarified here as her understanding was Parliament dealt with public entities but this did not limit whom they could see. There were rules of Parliament. The Committee did not give out money. Their role was to monitor the Department. There were so many organisations that did good work but they were not entitled to funding. This needed to be clarified.

SA Roadies Association (SARA) presentation
Mr Nyathela said that SARA was a non-profit making organisation that was dedicated to the empowerment of the youth. It allowed them to acquire technical and production skills so that they were able to become sound and lighting technicians, audiovisual technicians, stage mangers and video technicians amongst other things. The presentation covered SARA in brief, a brief review of the relationship between SARA and the Department, a review of the Department and SARA’s funding 2004-2011, issues pertaining to the Public Protector and the Portfolio Committee and also the way forward.

Mr Nyathela said there were enormous opportunities in terms of job creation for the youth within the sector. This sector had however been a white only terrain and that was why SARA had been formed in 1992. This had been so the black youth could be empowered to acquire technical and production skills. Black people in the past had been relegated to be performers, actors, dancers and create crafts. He argued how the technical and production side, which commanded the power, had remained a white only affair. This was why one found that even in 2012 more than 99% of equipment hire companies were white owned. Black people were relegated to being porters. They were not given the opportunity to operate the professional equipment. He said that since SARA’s beginning, 80% of its support had come from outside the country. If it had not been for the international links and relationships SARA had made such as with France and Germany, there would not be around 70% of the black youth currently participating, working or even running companies within the technical production side of the sector.

It had been sad and hurtful that SARA had asked for assistance from the government for help with the empowerment of their youth and had not received it. As a country South Africa was short of skills and that was why whenever there were major events, most of the technicians were from abroad. They had provided the light and video equipment as well as technicians and there had been no skills transfer for the youth. The same thing happened with government events. Youths were leaving the country to get on-the-job training in places such as Denmark and Norway – however they did not receive those opportunities within their own country; not even within events funded by the government. For example, within June, there were a great number of events set for Youth Month but the youth would not be given the opportunity to even do on-the-job training at those events. The people who still benefited on the technical side were still white people. He argued that black youth were still confined to being equipment porters as if a black child would not be able to operate a lighting mixing console or be an audio visual technician. This had been done purposefully with the apartheid system. SARA was thus here to ask for the support of the members of the Committee. What SARA was doing was not for their own personal benefit but to further the interests of the youth, the industry and the country. However it had been a struggle to get support. Recently SARA had been to see the Public Protector and it had been agreed at the hearing that SARA was to submit its funding proposal as soon as possible and then by the end of April, SARA would be given support. Now at the end of May nothing had come in. There had been many promises.

The Chairperson asked Mr Nyathela if he was done.

Mr Nyathela replied he was closing with his last point. He said millions had been given to promoters for events and even DJs. R2.3 million had been given to DJs for a conference. However it was difficult for the Department to give SARA money.

The Chairperson interrupted and asked who had been given R2 million.

Mr Nyathela replied the DJs for the upcoming conference of the DJs.

The Chairperson stated there should be clarification as this was all being recorded. Whatever was said would be recorded. She wanted to clarify a few things. In South Africa the youth were the priority of the country. As an NPO, the Committee appreciated your work but it did not give one the right to demand money from the Department. There were many organisations seeking money especially in rural areas. It was thus not a ‘must’ that SARA be given money. This matter had been brought to the Committee because the country was under transformation. There were areas in which there was racism and nothing was being done for black people. However one of the issues about the presentation was there were no financial records. What had been done with the money given by the Department? Where were the financial records? There was a need for the Committee to know this information.

The Chairperson told Mr Nyathela that there was the need to be diplomatic and principled. He had been writing to the President and the Public Protector and all of this had come back to her. The Public Protector was there to protect one when rights had been violated. It could not decide for the Department who was to be given money or not. According to the rules and Constitution, SARA was an NPO and not an entity of government. Those who could appeal about funding were the entities of government. The Committee appreciated your work, however the Committee was a little confused. She gave the floor to the Mr Sibusiso Xaba, Director General of the Department of Arts and Culture, to clarify some of the issues.

Department of Arts and Culture comments on South African Roadies Association
Mr Xaba said he wanted to state that he did not believe that this was the right use of the Committee’s time to discuss such issues. There were conflict resolution measures which existed within government. It was an abuse of the Committee to use it as a conflict resolution measure between organisation and department.

Mr Xaba said that the Department appreciated the work that SARA did. He had seen some of the work they had done and they did need to be commended for that. The Department gave funding to various organisations for various reasons. The funding depended on two things. One was that there was the funding received from the fiscus to achieve certain objectives. The Department came to the Committee and presented a plan on what it planned to do. That was the first thing funding was based on. The second was it was based on availability. What was being discussed was not the lack of funding but that SARA had not gotten what they asked for. He did not think it was appropriate to be having the conversation for the reason that he did not know an organisation that approached with a certain figure and got that figure. The Department funded what they could afford to fund. That was the overall principle and that principle was made clear and accepted by the Public Protector. This was why he thought this was a problematic discussion. Mr Xaba said he would speak about the funding given to SARA over the years.

The Chairperson stated that this was what she had been waiting for as it had been stated that no money had been given to SARA. This was what the letters and journalists had said. This was what had also been told to the Speaker. The Chairperson said she knew the Committee’s time was being wasted. She was also clearing her name as it was almost as if she was seen to be the one who gave money. It was not the Committee that gave money. She needed this to be clarified.

Mr Xaba gave the breakdown of the financials (see page 4 of DAC document). He added that the National Arts Council had given SARA over half a million over the last five years. He had learned this from the NAC CEO after making enquiries. He did not feel there needed to be a discussion as to whether SARA was being supported or not.

Mr Xaba outlined the results of the meeting with the Public Protector. It had been agreed that SARA would submit a report and a financial audited statement. This had been to release the money retained until a financial report had been given on funds that had already been awarded to SARA in 2011/2012. It had also agreed that they would continue to engage each other regarding future funding henceforth and all communication from SARA was to be directed to Mr Glenn Masokoane, Director: Cultural Development at Department of Arts and Culture. Unfortunately Mr Masokoane was out of the country and was unable to attend the meeting (page 8 of DAC document).

Mr Xaba said he did not see anything in the arrangement that said the Department was to give money to SARA by April. He said there was a need to talk factually and truthfully and be fair in the engagement. There was the ability to engage on whether it had been sufficient or not – but there was a need to be factual.

Discussion
The Chairperson said one of the issues she wanted to raise was that the Committee could not ‘double dip’ as the money that was in the National Arts Council was the one that was in the Department. The Committee could also not be blackmailed by people saying a black child was not being helped. The Committee was the one who fought for transformation. Even the white people in the Committee fought for the development of black people. This is what had been happening in the Committee and Parliament. The Committee did not have a problem but she felt members sought clarity.

Ms Moss said the presentation received from the Department on the 29 May 2012 and the one being given by SARA now showed that something was ‘fishy’. Proper answers were not being given to the Committee. She felt that the issue needed to be solved so that SARA and the Department could know where they stood with one another and the Committee could also know. She had gone through the report and there were things she was not comfortable with. The Department could not upgrade a building that did not belong to the Department. It was a building that belonged to SARA; the Department could therefore not release the money to assist with infrastructure. There were a lot of answers needed, but there was no time right now as the Bill discussion had taken up their time.

Mr Ntshiqela said they were here to clear the name of the Committee and the Chairperson. It was clear from Mr Xaba’s comments that nothing wrong had been done by the Committee or the Department. SARA could only come here to present a plan along with the Department and it was important for them to table their audited statements so that the Committee could know how they had used the funds received from the Department. The Committee also needed to see SARA’s organogram.

Mr S Ntapane (UDM) asked what SARA’s definition of ‘black’ and what criteria did they use for admission.

Mr Ntapane said that the Department had confirmed that SARA was doing a good job and when they did a strategic plan, they should sit down with SARA.

Mr Ntapane said to SARA that accusations caused attitudes. What they were doing was a good cause. If they had grievances and complaints, they needed to find a way of showing them or they would tarnish the good work they had done with ‘attitudes’.

Ms F Mushwana (ANC) said that SARA had not been honest according to the documents presented. They had said they had not received funding but there was a document here stating that every year they had received money. When one requested money, one needed to give a specific amount. One could not say they needed between R1- 3000. The way they had asked for money raised concerns. When she looked at the way forward, one saw figures that spanned between R50 million and R400 million. There was a need to be specific. If one came with such a vast difference, if she were the Department, she would not hand out funding. She did see they had been given funding and she did not think it was best to sit and talk about things that were not necessarily true. She also said that the nation could not be divided. Mr Nyathela had spoken of blacks and whites. There was a need to be united. When one looked at the youth, they did not see black you or white youth, they just saw youth. She asked Mr Nyathela “not to take us back”.

Ms H Van Schalkwyk (DA) said that if a donation was given to SARA, from what project would it be taken? There was not an unlimited budget.

Mr van der Berg said this Committee looked to unite people in South Africa and he did not think that SARA’s attitude was a good one to come with. This Committee sought to bring about a united South Africa with the same future.

Mr van der Berg said that he was from a broadcasting background. He said that a lot of things had happened since 1992 and maybe SARA was stuck there. He did not think that it was fair to the Chairperson and Department to come with all these allegations.

Ms Morutoa said Mr Nyathela needed to deal with his attitude and the way he expressed himself. The Committee had never had such a presentation. She also wondered why this had come to the Committee, however the Chairperson had said they wanted to clear her name. The fact that this was a NPO made the whole situation more confusing, as even if this had been an entity of government, this should have come from the Department. She was not sure how this was meant to be dealt with. She had seen the record and SARA had been given money from 1997 to 2012. This could not be allowed. She was even surprised that the Public Protector had overlooked some of the things. What was the Public Protector protecting in this case? She felt some organisations needed to understand that Parliament was open to the public but there were procedures concerning who could account to Parliament. What had happened was a narration and it was vague. There was a need for specific accounting. To give such vague accounting was irresponsible. She felt the Committee was being abused.

The Chairperson said the Department was a national department. She was not going to defend the Department if they were doing something wrong. She also wanted to say that the Department was the least funded of all the departments. When one started an NPO, yes, one would want government assistance but one needed to account for one’s own expenses.

Mr Mtutuzeli Matshoba, Chairperson of the SARA Board, said he always played the role of being a referee between SARA and other stakeholders, especially the Department. He had been involved with SARA since its beginning in 1992. It was necessary for him to accompany in order to observe. The impression he had gotten was by the time the meeting had started, there were already two camps. The Chairperson had been upset about what had occurred before and the meeting had generated into a defence of the Department which he was not personally accusing of anything. He had worked closely with the Department in other aspects. The issue was not being dealt with by castigating one another. He did agree with the notion raised that SARA needed to change their attitudes. He wanted to clarify that SARA had provided audited statements throughout their existence, copies of which were actually with the Department. He also wanted to clarify, inasmuch as SARA had engaged with the current Department representatives, the problems dated back further than that. The major problem that caused SARA to be constantly at loggerheads with the Department was what had been mentioned, namely, that promises and undertakings were made promising SARA that the Department would help. SARA did understand that the Committee was not meant to discuss this and also that funds were limited. However there had been undertakings that the Department had reneged on. What was being said in a nutshell was as an observer. This seemed to be about the Committee asking SARA, ‘who were you guys to come here and say these things’.

The Chairperson interrupted saying that she would stop Mr Matshoba there as he was now accusing the Committee. She had said that the Committee was open to anyone and last week they had allowed an artist to come and present. Perhaps Mr Matshoba was not aware of the accusations and actions of Mr Nyathela. She had once ended a phone call as he had insulted her. She had refused to let him talk to her in that manner. She then addressed Mr Nyathela saying ‘emails I get from you…’. When he tried to interject she told him that he must not answer. She went on to say that she had gotten calls from journalists and could not be accused of “not giving Mr Nyathela money”. She said the reason those present were sitting here was because Mr Nyathela said that the Department had never given SARA money. The Committee now wanted to ask the Department why Mr Nyathela had not been given any money. Organisations who had come to the Committee had been helped. They had been advised at times not to go to the Department and been given alternative funding sources.

The Chairperson stated she was a young person and whenever entities came to present, one of the things she asked was what had been done for the youth? What she took issue with was the attitude that SARA had come with. The Committee were responsible citizens and public representatives. When one came to Parliament, meetings were recorded so the Committee could not be accused of things later. SARA had said in letters that the Department had “promised”. When she asked where were the documents in which SARA had been promised money she did not get them. SARA had accused ministers and other people on these issues. Perhaps Mr Matshoba had not been aware of the behaviour that had happened. According to law she was not supposed to call SARA to this meeting, she was supposed to ignore them. However she had because she was a responsible citizen elected by the people and she needed to listen to the people.

Mr Matshoba replied that there was a need to create positive karma between SARA and the Department. Once this was resolved, perhaps there would be the ability to move forward. He felt that the atmosphere was tense in the meeting and he understood this, as it had been created over time. He promised that SARA would go and attempt to resolve the attitude problem. He agreed that it was not right to be slinging mud at one another as it was not taking anyone forward.

The Chairperson said she would like the Department to meet SARA with Mr Matshoba as from her understanding, Mr Matshoba was not aware of some of the things that had happened. She believed when someone wanted something, they talked to representatives within the constituencies and did not just write to the President. One went to senior people when they were not getting helped. She did not understand why the Public Protector had been involved as no rights had been violated. One could not write to the Speaker of Parliament, the Chief Whip or House Chair. Letters had been going around and at some stage people were asking if Mr Nyathela was normal. She was not insulting anyone, she was merely stating what had been happening. If one wanted a mutual understanding with the Department, one needed to understand that the Department could also assist in going to other avenues such as the National Youth Development Agency (NYDA). There were many organisations that were able to help with funding. The attitude one had was important. The Committee would never run away from the fact that they were transforming society. They knew that there were still people in the country who were backward and closing doors on other races. The Committee would never close the door to our own African people, especially black people. The Committee had broken rules allowing SARA to come. There were many ways to meet Members of Parliament. For example, one could even find them outside the Portfolio Committee meetings. The Chairperson had however said they could come and address the Committee.

Mr Nyathela said he wanted to apologise for hurting people by mentioning issues about black and white. He had merely been telling how things were in the sector. He also wanted to clarify that they had never said that they had not received support from the Department. If there were documents, then SARA would like to receive those documents. They had never said they had never totally received support from the Department.

The Chairperson said she would sit with Mr Xaba and see how much the Department could give this year. She said the pair would sit down and see how they could assist as some of the issues could not be solved within this meeting. She had wanted to clear her name and also see why the Department was not giving SARA money. She again wanted to make it clear that NPOs were not entitled to money from the government. However, as an NPO, there was no need to suffer.

Mr van der Berg said he would love to have the telephone number of SARA as he was a Gauteng MP. He would visit the building and see what was going on. SARA said they had a lot of technical equipment and he would look at this equipment and the building. He was not sure when, but he would pitch up at the building and see what was going on. He would then come back and report to the Portfolio Committee. He invited the Chairperson to accompany him. He would then put the information on the table and the Committee could make their decision.

The Chairperson said that it was OK to visit SARA. Although she would sit down with the Department, it was also important for SARA to sit down with the Department and find ways to perhaps even create an empire and have SARA in other provinces. One of the questions that the Committee had wanted to ask, was had the SARA vision been only focused on Gauteng or was it broader? If they planned it to be broader, then other MECs were going to be brought on board. However if the attitude remained as it was, then the Committee would be unable to assist. The Chairperson did not want to be implicated. She apologised to the Committee for the outburst.

The meeting was adjourned