Broadcasting Act amendment: way forward; interim SABC board member appointment; North West oversight committee report

Meeting report

Way forward on the amendment of the Broadcasting Act, No 4 of 1999
The Chairperson noted that during the Minister of Communications 2013 Budget Speech, the Minister had referred to the need to amend the Broadcasting Act. What the Committee had done thus far, was to ask the Parliamentary Legal Services to comment on the route to be followed. There was some confusion about the matter, seeing that some people assumed that the Committee had already taken a decision to amend the Act. Legal Services had made certain recommendations, but the Committee had not yet decided to amend the Act. The opposition could have cause to feel betrayed, because there was never a committee decision to amend. What the Committee had done up to that point had been to explore possibilities. Ms Shinn (DA) had noted that the Act gave a process to appoint an interim South African Broadcasting Corporation board. The Committee had experimented and explored, but had not yet taken a decision to amend.

Ms A Muthambi (ANC) also referred to the announcement by the Minister in the budget speech. However, the deadline date for Bills to be certified for tabling in Parliament had been 7 June 2013 [for passing by the end of the year], which meant that amendment bills could not be submitted in the current term.

Ms M Shinn (DA) said that the amendment could be viewed as unnecessary and dangerous. There could be the perception that the SABC was a state controlled broadcaster. If a new board could be in place within three months, it could show that there was the ability to appoint people of calibre.

Mr A Steyn (DA) asked if the Committee could prepare an appointment schedule.

Ms J Kilian (COPE) agreed that the Committee had to know what had to be done, and by when. The shortcomings of the Act were serious. Hard work would be needed to correct it. Her party felt that the appointment of the permanent SABC board had to proceed. People of note would be attracted. The Committee had a bad track record with the appointment of boards. Her party would participate with enthusiasm, but past experience made her cautious. The Act stated that the appointment body was the President, and the maximum term was five years. She asked if a board could be appointed for a shorter term, until the necessary changes to legislation had been made, and weaknesses had been eliminated.

The Chairperson told Ms Kilian that the President could decide on the length of the period. It could be shorter than five years. Any period was acceptable, as long as it was not longer than five years.

Ms S Tsebe (ANC) said that she agreed that changes had to continue. The appointment of a new board would not solve the legal challenge. The Committee could make recommendations, even if the Fifth Parliament would have to deal with the matter. It was necessary to appoint a permanent, but challenges also had to be pointed out. Gaps had to be closed in the Act, whether that be done by the Fourth or the Fifth Parliament.

The Chairperson agreed that the challenges had to be highlighted, as a record for the next Parliament.

The Chairperson told Mr Steyn that an appointment schedule would consist of getting advertisements up and running during the recess period. Public hearings could be held in the first week after the recess. It had to be checked whether the SABC had a digital studio. A shortlist could be awaited by the second week, before further testing. Vetting of applicants could take time. A period of three to four days for interviews, had to be requested.

Ms Shinn asked what other issues would be tackled in the following term. There would be a short space of time. She asked about committee weeks in September.

The Chairperson said that the Electronic Communications Amendment Bill and ICASA Amendment Bill were with the Committee, waiting for tagging. A shorter way had to be looked for. Approval had to be obtained, and then there had to be public comment. Approval could be obtained this week. Time for public comment could not be shortened. There should be a programme out before the parliamentary recess starting 21 June.

Ms L Van der Merwe (IFP) said that if possible, the vetting process could start as soon as CVs had been received. The vetting had previously hampered the process.

Ms Kilian referred to the Post Bank Amendment Act. She had not heard of major problems with that. It had to be determined where the Committee was on the matter. She asked if it had been submitted to Parliament. Concerning vetting, the Committee had to learn about weaknesses in the nomination process. She was concerned about fiduciary responsibilities that people would have. In terms of the Public Finance Management Act, the SABC Board was accountable as a board. It was time to put every individual through a schedule of questions, or to have them complete a written form in which it states that there was nothing that prevented the individual from assuming fiduciary responsibility. The experience with the ICASA Board had proved that there had to be careful checking.

Ms R Lesoma (ANC) remarked that the matter could be closed, as there already was a road map. Applicants had to be notified about vetting beforehand. She agreed with Ms Kilian that security clearance had to be understood. It had to be raised with the Security cluster. Collective responsibility in terms of the PFMA was not stressed adequately in the Act, which was one of the shortcomings to be pointed out in the recommendations. Responsibility had to be built into the Act. The Committee was not really appointing the board. It would not do for the Committee to give itself powers it did not have.

Mr Steyn suggested that the Committee get together by Thursday 20 June to expedite amendment of these amendment bills. Various bills had been advertised.

The Chairperson said that issues would be attended to. Advertisements had to go out as soon as possible. Mr Steyn’s suggestion that various bills be advertised together to save costs, had to be looked into.

Appointment of an interim SABC board member
The Chairperson introduced the item and commented on the fact that Members were reluctant to proceed with the discussion.

Ms van der Merwe said that a process had been opened to appoint a member. She asked how important it was it to replace a member of the interim board.

The Chairperson told her that the Committee had a legal obligation to do so.

Ms Lesoma remarked that the reluctance to discuss the matter showed that Members were not ready yet. She proposed that names had to be submitted on by 19 June (Wednesday) or the day thereafter.

The Chairperson said that if names could not be submitted by today, it had to be done the day after.

Ms Muthambi said that she wished to align herself with the recommendation by Ms Lesoma.

Ms Shinn commented that Ms Muthambi had had a name ready two weeks before. Ms van der Merwe also had two names. The DA would not submit a name.

Ms Kilian said that COPE did not want to submit names, but she had two names in store which might surprise everyone. She insisted that it was not feasible to appoint a person without SABC experience. The person appointed had to hit the floor running.

Ms Muthambi suggested that the Committee convene on the following day.

The Chairperson commented on the fact that two parties were not keen to submit names.

Ms van der Merwe said that the last time the appointment had been discussed, it had been said that a person with legal experience was needed. The IFP could not commend anyone with SABC experience.

Ms Kilian agreed that the Committee had to meet the following day.

The Chairperson concluded that the Committee would meet on the following day. [Note: this meeting was later cancelled and the next meeting will be in the following parliamentary session in July].

Committee Report on oversight visit to North West Province from 6 to 8 June 2012
The draft report was read through and considered for adoption. There were no substantive amendments suggested. There were two formulations that were confusing, and had to be cleared up.

Mr Steyn referred to a sentence that read “ management should address the issue of people sleeping over at the Post Office” (point 8.5). He said that the sentence made it sound as if people were sleeping inside.

Ms Muthambi explained that people were queuing early for service, and ended up sleeping on the premises.

Mr Steyn said that it sounded like they slept inside and possibly paid rental.

Ms Tsebe suggested that it be rephrased, but that “sleeping” had to stay in, as that was a fact.

Ms Muthambi suggested that the sentence be rephrased to read that management had to address the issue of long queues.

Mr Steyn referred to a sentence (point 13.4) that read: “…the building is extremely big with the hub utilising two floors and the lift between floors slows the process; “. He asked for clarity about what was being said.

The Chairperson told Mr Steyn that the size of the building was not important. The real problem was that time was lost during maintenance work on the lift. It should be rephrased to refer only to the fact that lift maintenance was slowing things down.

The report was adopted with amendments.

Consideration and adoption of minutes of 11 June 2013
These minutes were read through and adopted.

The Chairperson adjourned the meeting.