Broadcasting Amendment Bill: briefing & hearings

This premium content has been made freely available

Communications and Digital Technologies

16 September 2002
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.

Meeting report

COMMUNICATIONS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
16 September 2002
BROADCASTING AMENDMENT BILL: PUBLIC HEARINGS

Chairperson

: Mr N Kekana (ANC)

Relevant documents
 

Broadcast Amendment Bill [B34-2002]
Presentation by Department of Communications
Speech by Minister of Communications
Pan South African Language Board submission (available from the 24th)

SUMMARY
In her address, the Minister of Communications focused on the problem that most South Africans are not able to enjoy broadcasts in their own language despite the constitutional dispensation, and stated that the Bill is aimed at addressing precisely this. She said that the SABC has an important role to play in offering programmes that inform, uplift and entertain all South Africans and that showcase South Africa's cultural heritage and diverse artistic expression.

During the discussion on the Minister's statement, some members contended that the Bill cannot allow the Minister to be able to approve the editorial policy of the SABC, because this would violate the right to freedom of expression guaranteed in Section 16 of the Constitution as well as Section 192. Clarity was requested regarding the costs involved in implementing the two new regional television services and the capacity and funding of ICASA, and whether the SABC's existing technology cannot be used to improve exposure of the official languages at no extra cost. A balance has to be struck between allowing greater access to television without losing readers to other forms of media.

The presentation by the Department of Communications explained the context of the Bill, and detailed the provisions of each clause as well as the motivation for each.

The discussion on this presentation also raised concern about the extent to which the Bill gives exposure to the eleven official languages as well as the erosion of the SABC's editorial independence and integrity. Some maintained that allowing Ministerial approval over such policy relegates the SABC to a mouthpiece of the government which is unconstitutional. Clarity was also requested with regard to the technology used to implement the new regional television services and the costs involved.

The Pan South African Language Board with representatives from its SiSwati, isiZulu, Ndebele and TshiVenda Language Boards presented a submission on the Broadcasting Amendment Bill. They were very critical of the SABC's handling of language matters so far. They highlighted some of the problems they had encountered the past couple of years in dealing with the language issue. The importance of language equity in this country was emphasized and PANSALB conveyed its satisfaction that this issue has been brought to the table through the Amendment Bill. They stressed the plight of communities who do not have access to information in their own language.

MINUTES
Introduction by Committee Chair
The Chair welcomed both the Minister of Communications and the Director-General of the Department of Communications as well as the members of the telecommunications industry. He noted that for the first time public radio stations had been used to advertise the existence of the Bill before Parliament, and to invite comment. Of course the industry still dominated here and only one out of the total of sixteen submissions received had been from an individual. Naturally industry players have a vested interest in this matter, but public input was also needed. It is also useful for academics to write to the Committee, and they are assured that their views are taken seriously.

During the course of the public hearings, industry players will be presented. The Pan South African Language Board and other language interest groups have also been invited because language recognition is an important issue. Several such groups were invited to address this Committee but some chose not to attend, and the Committee struggled to get hold of some of these boards.

Statement by Minister of Communications
Minister Matsepe-Casaburri stated that this is an important piece of legislation that will assist South Africa to integrate more of its people in the economic, social and political spheres. Most South Africans do not enjoy the right to hear broadcasts in their own languages despite the Constitutional dispensation, and those affected most by this are those in the rural areas. The broadcasting system has to be made to play its role here and this includes featuring more local content, instead of being preoccupied with policies and positions in other countries.

The Bill aims to create a clear distinction between the functions and role of the SABC Board and those of the executive management, to make the SABC accountable via ensuring public funds are properly administered, monitoring the performance of management in accordance with their contractual obligations and to ensure that its method of operation withstands public scrutiny. The Bill thus aims to provide more diversity of service to all segments of the population and also seeks to facilitate the licensing of commercial pay operators without exception, and the choice of services for ordinary South Africans who cannot afford the current pay services.

The SABC, as a publicly owned institution, has to be held accountable to Parliament, and it should be a model of openness and accessibility. It has to offer programming that educates, informs, spiritually uplifts and entertains all South Africans, and commercial considerations should not prevent it from being a forum for democratic discussion. It has to showcase and celebrate South Africa's cultural heritage, its diverse artistic expression and ways of life.

Discussion
The Chair stated that Members should restrict themselves to general questions regarding the Bill, and the more detailed questions that necessitate a clause-by-clause analysis should be stored for discussion at a later stage.

Ms M Smuts (DP) stated that she would postpone asking specific questions on matters which the Minister has not dealt with in her presentation, and contended that the primary matters in the Bill are those of editorial policy and independence and those provisions which allows the Minister to approve the editorial policy. This significantly affects the manner in which free speech is ensured in the Bill.

The Minister replied that it is possible to have both editorial independence and integrity, and any reports that this is not the intention of the Bill are misplaced. The problem however is that the exact definitions of editorial independence and integrity has not yet been fixed, and it is therefore important for South Africa to engage this subject matter. It thus has to be determined how this will be done in practice because South Africa has inherited divisions, and how can such goals be achieved in view of this?

The Minister stated that she believes that "men and women do not look at the world through the same eyes" and the same applies to editors, and they therefore have to conduct all their affairs with integrity and independence. This also deals with relative independence, because it is related to the very nature of the particular matter. Should the SABC be mismanaging funds and are not using the SABC resources properly, for example, the Minister would have to intervene here, and this would apply equally to editors. Does holding the SABC to account for such mismanagement amount to interfering with its independence?

Policies are therefore needed to address such concerns and, as the present Chairperson of the SABC Board, this task lies with the Minister. She stated that she does want integrity and independence and it is the present government that struggled against the use of the SABC as a propaganda tool under the Apartheid regime. It is thus recognised that the South African government does not need to use the SABC in this way, nor is this the intention. The President himself has stated that there is no problem in this regard.

Ms S Vos (IFP) stated that the Bill provides that an extensive consultation process has been engaged in the drafting process, and this has included the National Treasury. Could the Committee be given an indication of the costs involved in setting up the regional television services with regard to its effect on the SABC, its capacity and the funding of ICASA?

Mr J Durandt (NNP) suggested that the Minister seems to be questioning the SABC's role as a broadcaster, and he believes them when they say they have not been able to deliver on their mandate because they do not have sufficient funds. It was also indicated that the State now provides 3% of the SABC funds, and are any plans underway to increase the SABC funding? Has it been considered that the existing technology currently at the SABC's disposal could be used optimally to increase the exposure of the eleven official languages without having to spend any extra resources.

The Minister replied that if South Africa were to move towards providing a serviced that is "right and, if this is not one that generates as much income, one then has to talk about having one government resource for the SABC. The Treasury was concerned that should the SABC need funds from the national fiscus it would then have to be held accountable for those funds, and the SABC cannot use these funds to cover up what it has itself not been able to make up in its commercial activities. The practical difficulty created here is how this can be achieved and this does not affect the SABC alone, but all broadly to recognise how the financial system works.

The language service area is difficult matter because, without the Triple Inquiry Report tabled in Parliament in 1995, no access for languages would have been achieved at all. It also has to be accepted that ours is a nation with many languages, but it has also granted South Africa an advantage in that an industry has been developed that uses indigenous languages that were not brought to the fore under the previous dispensation. The SABC therefore has to prepare itself for funding and how it would be held accountable for such funds, and the funding aspect has not yet been completely resolved.

The Minister replied to Ms Vos' question regarding the capacity of ICASA by stating that this is a matter that has confronted the Department for a long time and the nature of the capacity needed is nebulous, but the problem here does not lie with the funding but rather with actually having to implement the legal and technical requirements needed by the industry. The funding has to ensure that ICASA performs its tasks timeously, for example, ensuring that all the licenses that have not yet been issued are issued as soon as possible.

The outgoing ICASA members have submitted a report on these issues in an attempt to identify the problems it is currently facing, the progress it is making, and the extent to which this is seen as a lack of independence of ICASA. Efforts are also being made to arrive at means to assist ICASA without compromising its independence.

The Minister responded that the use of existing technology to improve the exposure of indigenous languages, as referred to by Mr Durandt, is always being reviewed, and how under-utilised technology can be used to address this matter. The Department is currently engaged in this process.

Mr R Pieterse (ANC) stated that greater geographical access to indigenous languages also has to be ensured, and South Africans were promised access to the Board in order to ensure exposure of their languages. The concern created here is that the Bill grants certain sectors of the country greater access to the Board to the detriment of those who are most in need of the SABC services, such as the educational programmes that teach them to read. The difficulty lies in striking a balance here between ensuring greater access without losing more readers to other media.

The Minister replied that this is a reality especially in those sectors of society which have high illiteracy rates. There is thus this contradiction in society but this problem must be solved, and this depends on how seriously one takes the lack of exposure given to indigenous cultures in South African society. It is generally assumed that one has to be literate in order to operate a computer, but why can computers not be used to bring about literacy? In fact, a group of students doing there Masters Degree in Software Engineering have been tasked with identifying a means to use computers to address this issue, and also to give greater exposure to indigenous languages. Efforts are thus being made to use technology to solve current problems.

There are also several ways in which the broadcasting industry itself can facilitate this process, such as encouraging children at primary school level to write their own stories. The industry thus has to inculcate the need for reading, as this will allow children to give expression to their culture. Yet adults, especially the grandparents, can also record this history on electronic devices, and there is nothing preventing the use of those stories on television and radio. The broadcast industry does not need to detract from reading, but should rather inculcated in reading.

Mr S Abram (UDM) referred to the statement made earlier by the Minister regarding the matter of independence, and stated that his view is that the Minister is Constitutionally charged and mandated to create an environment in accordance with the legislative programme through which the broadcast system operates. Independence can be granted but this is a relative term, very much like the former independent states which were considered independent only to then become dependent on Pretoria. The basic problem here relates to the independence regarding content, and the Bill provides that this is within the authority of the Minister. Yet she has in the past in her relationship with the SABC found it necessary to intervene, as was recently the case with the funding problems at the SABC.

The Minister responded that this does refer to independence of content but even this remains relative because, if the public broadcaster does not deliver, the cry out would come from this Committee. It has to be independence which is exercised responsibly and which rises to the challenges of the nation, and also provides the entertainment, education and news needed. This is the current problem facing the SABC, but its management is handling this well. There is no need for Ministerial intervention here because this will be done by the Board which represents the SABC shareholders, rather than management itself.

Briefing by Department of Communications
Mr Andile Ngcaba, Director-General (DG) of the Department, stated that he would not be spending time on those matters already discussed by the Minister. The presentation will instead provide the context in which the Bill has been cast, as well as the provisions and motivation of each clause (see document for full presentation).

Discussion
Mr V Gore (DP) requested clarity on how precisely the two new regional television services will be established, especially with regard to the technology to be used. This is of particular importance because it is a digital service, and the costs of such implementation also have to be provided.

The DG responded that it is evident that the world is going the digital route, and it does not therefore make sense to do any planning on the analogue platform. The country could be made totally digital or partially digital or analogue, and the latter would provide only one channel. The costs of implementing a digital system are the same as with the analogue system, yet the digital system creates eight additional channels with the same amount of labour required. There is therefore a difference in the technology itself, and there are benefits in implementing digital infrastructure whether it be in the terrestrial, satellite or microwave form.

Ms I Mutsila (ANC) stated that she supports the statement made that more local content programming is needed on television in the eleven official languages. The ANC has fought for the freedom of the SABC and therefore supports those clauses which ensure such freedom.

Mr J Durandt (NNP) stated that he might be wrong but the impression created by the presentation is that attempts are being made to amend the SABC "where it is not broken". The State currently funds 3% of the SABC budget and the rest it has to make up via its commercial activities, yet it is still unable to fulfil its mandate with regard to giving more exposure to indigenous languages. It is not clear why the decision was taken to introduce two new regional stations if the SABC presently has the technology to effect its mandate. It thus appears as though the SABC only needs additional funds to discharge its mandate, and nothing else will change. Is it not possible to use the SABC's existing technology here?

The DG responded that he was not sure whether it would be cheaper to import television programmes in view of the current Dollar-Rand rate, and it would probably be cheaper to produce such programmes locally. This also depends on the context.

It is important to note, with regard to the SABC funds, it would be useful for the SABC to indicate the different languages broadcast as well as the percentage of television coverage in those languages, so that this aspect of regional service television may be seen in context. Digital television does provide a very good platform to develop these issues, and this is an opportunity which this country cannot miss out on. A costing exercise would be useful to establish the costs to the SABC, in its current form, to develop local programming. The Bill is aimed at achieving equity here.

Ms Smuts stated that her concerns would concentrate on the Constitutional problems in the Bill, and these fall into three categories. The first deals with language and, as mentioned by the DG, the Constitution does require equal inclusion of all languages, yet the provisions in the Bill do not reflect this. The second relates to editorial independence and integrity, and the third deals with the creation by statute of a new service and the ways in which the operations of service are created by the Minister.

The first relates to Clauses 6 and 12, and the DG stated that the Department wants to reinsert the current clause in the Bill ensuring freedom of expression. Yet if this is the full extent to which the ANC is prepared to back down then it is no retreat at all because, whether that clause is included in the Bill or not, the SABC does have media freedom and can insist on exercising this. What follows the infringes Section 16 of the Constitution which guarantees media freedom, as well as Section 192 of the Constitution.

Clauses 6 and 12 allows the Minister to approve policies regarding the SABC's broadcast content, and in Clause 6 the policies governing both the Board and the individual journalists are made subject to the Minister, but this does not accord with the Constitution. During her speech the Minister questioned whether this amounts to interference, and the answer here is "yes it does". The government wants the SABC to be able to broadcast as it sees fit, provided the policies regulating that content are first approved by the Minister. This is a contradiction in terms and the Minister can therefore not be allowed to hold the Board or individual journalists accountable, and cannot even intervene in regulating news content. It is the very job of the journalists to exercise media freedom, and it is thus unconstitutional for the Minister to take it upon herself to approve of these policies.

The previous battle waged in this regard was in 1999 with regard to the Broadcasting Act itself, and there the discussion focused on the powers of the Minister and government as opposed to those of ICASA. It was then decided to amend Clause 13 of the IBA Act, and the powers and functions of ICASA were then set out point by point. Those discussions included the very matters of policy over which Minister wants to approval in this Bill via Clause 26, yet that law provides that this function can only be performed by ICASA.

Clause 26 proposes the insertion of a new Section 32A in the Broadcasting Act of 1999 (the Act), yet it is the task of ICASA to regulate and control broadcasting in the public interest. Furthermore, Clause 26(4) allows the Minister to decide to whom licence is granted, and it is elementary in a rights-based government that the Minister does not do this.

Ms Vos asked for an indication of the governance of the SABC, especially with regard to the independence of its Board.

The Minister replied that, with regard to the concerns raised with the approval of policies by herself, the intention when drafting the Bill as far back as April 2000 was to talk to the SABC about its new role, its social obligations and the development of policies that would guide its managers. The discussion has to include management, and the new people and the Board have spent a large amount of time on such management issues, and due to this recognition two years have been used to arrive at policy issues. The Board is expected to submit policies, as well as its management and programming commission and these policies would then be presented to the Minister, and it is therefore clear that it is not the Minister herself that drafts these policies.

These policies have to fit into the rules of the WTO, Intellectual Property Law Conventions, Internet Corporation for Assigned names and Numbers (ICANN) etc. It still remains to be decided who would be best placed to assist in this process, such as the Department of Arts, Science, Culture and Technology and the Department of Trade and Industry. Thus all these bodies first have to be consulted, and the State Law Advisors have to check for Constitutional scrutiny, and it is thus evident that the Minister herself does not intervene or control this process.

Any changes to be effected are not done by the Minister herself because ICASA is involved as well, and they would then issue policy. Thus the Minister does not draft the laws governing the SABC here, but rather ensures that they accord with all that is accepted. The decision was taken to remove the provision dealing with media freedom because it is already contained in the Constitution, and there is therefore no need to repeat the same thing in the Bill. Yet, despite this intention, the Department "got clobbered for that". The legislation cannot take from South Africans that which the Constitution already grants.

The DG added that it was proposed that these entities would become subsidiaries of the SABC itself in terms of the Companies Act of 1973. Their relationship with the SABC and the State with regard to their actual funding still has to be finalised. The licensing mechanisms, conditions and processes fall within the domain of ICASA, and the Minister is thus not involved here.

The Minister replied to the concerns raised by both Ms Vos and Ms Smuts regarding accountability by contending that the DP finds it important for the executive arm of government to be held accountable, but it is strange that it does not hold editors and journalists to the same standard. Should it happen that, because of the carelessness of a journalist who has not conducted proper research into his/her story the Rand were to fall, who would be held accountable here? Would it be the SABC? This kind of accountability is thus very problematic, and it was therefore decided that the SABC itself should be allowed to develop policies to determine how such accountability would be exercised.

This example is important because it indicates that the interests of the nation are sacrificed and it also presents tremendous economic interest etc. Accountability here has to be ensured here, and this then relates to accuracy in reporting. It therefore does not mean that the Minister must interfere in the work done by the SABC. In fact, in the United Kingdom the BBC dictates what can and cannot be broadcast, even though that legal system does not have a Bill of Rights. This thus indicates the problems on the ground. South Africa has to find a solution in this new democracy and it has to be built upon, yet there is as yet no certainty as to how this would be achieved.

Furthermore, it also has to be understood that South Africa is a country in which the large majority of the population cannot read and do not have access to facilities dealt with in the Bill. Unless there is a sense of being South African which includes others who are not as involved, then only can everyone work together to sort out these practical problems.

The Minister replied to Ms Smuts' contention that the SABC shares the view of the South African government by stating that she is not sure that the Bill in fact creates this impression, as the role of the SABC is to reflect the views of all, and a balance thus has to be struck between views. The government does devise policy and also delivers services, and it therefore necessary to hear what the public has to say about those services. Surely it is "fair play" to allow Ms Smuts to reply to reports about her, and the same has to be granted to government.

It also has to be remembered that this matter is concerned with accuracies in reporting and not with stating of opinions, and this is a practical problem that has to be dealt with. The greater that degree of responsibility and accountability ensured, the better the quality of broadcaster produced. This is the intention, and it the Bill is not aimed at making the SABC the mouthpiece of government.

Mr Pieterse stated that the legislation is aimed specifically at correcting certain inequalities, and is not aimed at satisfying any lobby group that may be close to a political party. Both the DG and the Minister failed to discuss the timeframes for implementation, and this is a problem because the rural communities are at the short end of the stick here. Should not the Public Private Partnerships (PPP) be employed to facilitate this process, and what progress has been made to date in this area?

The DG responded that a comprehensive business plan and strategy has been devised, and it has to be considered in terms of the MTEF before it is submitted to the National Treasury. All are in support of the business plan, business strategy and MTEF strategy which covers the infrastructure, rolling out, content etc. All these matters cannot be implemented at one, but will instead be introduced over time.

Ms Smuts stated that she accepted the explanation offered by the DG that regional services television would become subsidiaries of the SABC, but it then has to be explained whether this is the intention of government. This would remove many of the problems currently being experienced, but would not solve the costs problem.

The DG replied that this is the proposal even though it may not be reflected in the Clause 26 of the Bill as defined in the Companies Act of 1973.

The Chair reminded Members that this is only the first day of the public hearings on the Bill, and Members would have adequate time to discuss these matters further during both the informal and formal stages. Both the Minister and the DG have made their comments but it has to be stated that it is unacceptable that 70% of television broadcasts are in English, and this Committee will not compromise on this. Should that percentage of the country decide to sue the government for failing to give effect to their language rights, they would win the case, because the current state of affairs amounts to unfair discrimination on the grounds of language. The Constitution provides that the State must alleviate the status of indigenous languages, and it is very important to acknowledge this.

Furthermore, if the intention is to hold ICASA responsible for issuing licenses then the Bill has to tell them to do so, as was done in the Triple Inquiry Report. In that case attempts were being made to reduce the number of broadcast channels to only two channels and this Committee argued that this reduction would not make it possible for the SABC to meet its mandate, and in the end the three channels were retained. In the present matter it is clear that those three channels are not sufficient to enable the SABC to cater for all eleven official languages, and this matter has to be looked into.

Afternoon session:
Pan South African Language Board (PANSALB)
Prof Cynthia Marivate, CEO of the Pan South African Language Board (PANSALB), presented its submission to Parliament.

Prof Marivate started by noting that South Africa is a multilingual, multicultural society unified in its diversity. She then criticised those who use cost as an excuse not to incorporate all eleven official languages and especially the nine indigenous ones in broadcasting. She stressed that language means access to information and there needs to be an implementation plan for incorporating all languages. She added that the public broadcaster (SABC) is using cost and advertisers needs as an excuse not to change the status quo. PANSALB believes that multilingualism has to be implemented. Potential markets are waiting to be explored by reaching new communities.

She went on to explain how certain communities are marginalised because English is used in the bulk of programming. This favours some communities more than others. South Africa needs wider language exposure to empower communities and individuals with new information. She was hopeful that the state would set aside funds to cater for certain needs of communities which should include language issues.

Prof. Marivate offered PANSALB's assistance in drawing up a budget for a new language policy. She concluded that PANSALB welcomes the Amendment Bill and would like to be fully involved.

SiSwati Language Board
Dr Lubisi, representing the SiSwati Language Board, welcomed the concept of two broadcasting services. He argued that language is a sensitive issue and that many SiSwati do not have access to any news or information. They had complained to the SABC in 1995 for the first time and that nothing happened. He emphasized the importance of equitable treatment of all eleven official languages. He questioned the fact that people have to pay for TV licences but that there are no advertisements in SiSwati.

isiZulu Language Board
Ms. Ntombenhle Nkosi represented the Kwazulu-Natal Provincial Language Committee and the isiZulu Language Board. She was very disappointed that no move had been made to address the issue of all eleven official languages. She bemoaned the absence of translators. She also objected to her language group being called a disadvantaged group. She argued that the isiZulu are the majority language group in the country and that they want recognition in the Bill.

Ms. Nkosi questioned the quality of programming of the SABC and also enquired about their definition of education. She also said that the issue of monitoring the quality of programming is important.

Tshivenda Language Board
Prof Miluba represented the Tshivenda Language Board as well as the Limpopo Provincial Language Committee. He noted that most of the issues had been dealt with by Prof. Marivate. He added that the Bill has a tendency not to go into details which concerned him.

Ndebele Language Board
Prof. Skhosana represented the Ndebele Language Board and is the Chair of the Limpopo Language Board. He commented that the issue of the SABC and languages had been a concern for many for years. He felt that the Bill should identify a controlling body for the SABC and wondered if PANSALB had a role to play on this controlling body.

He argued that the SABC does not always follow the Act that governs it. For example, an Ndebele radio station was moved from being close to its listening community to very far away. He wanted the SABC to focus more on the African Renaissance and the theme of Africa for Africans.

Discussion
Ms Mtsweni (ANC) commented that the PANSALB has been trying since 1999 to schedule a meeting with the SABC. She wanted to know whether a meeting had ever taken place. She also reminded PANSALB that they were not alone in fighting this battle and that the ANC is doing its best.

Mr. Abram (UDM) asked if PANSALB is generally satisfied with the amendments.

Ms. Vos (IFP) pointed out that the IFP has long championed provincial public broadcasting. She asked PANSALB if they would want to see two different controlling boards for the two services.

Mr. Pieterse (ANC) noted that it is a global reality that English is the dominant language. He wondered if sign-language could also be included in the rollout. He asked if PANSALB thinks it is possible for the SABC in its present form to achieve equity. He enquired about the use of community radio stations for the smaller communities. Alluding to the Afrikaans monument in Paarl, he wondered if it could be turned into a national language monument.

Mr. Durandt (NNP) asked PANSALB what they would like to see in the SABC's language policy. He also mentioned the high cost of making local programming in comparison to buying overseas programmes. Further, what did PANSALB mean with language equity: is it confined to geographical areas or all over the country?

Ms. Smuts (DP) commented that translation services are very expensive - it is the second biggest cost factor in the European Parliament. She asked if it is possible to do the same for television as is being done for radio - have a channel for every language? She noted the high cost of making local programmes (as compared to buying programming from overseas) and asked PANSALB how this high cost is going to be covered. It sounded to her like the taxpayers would have to pay and it would cost billions. She then enquired whether conversion technology will be needed and what it would cost. She asked whether it is realistic to expect that communities can afford to pay for subscription (TV licences) and the conversion technology that could be needed. She argued that the new services should be part of the SABC and not state controlled as she was concerned that these services would be used for political propaganda.

The Chairperson then defended the government's intentions by saying that the ANC should not be interested in state controlled broadcasting. These services are not intended to be used for party propaganda.

Response
Ms. Nkosi argued that local programming cost the same for the different languages. The cost argument is lame and that the issue should be addressed. She added that PANSALB demands translator services.

Prof. Marivate commented that since 1997 she had tried to meet with the SABC. All their efforts were ignored until the SABC had a meeting with Thabema (an Afrikaans language group). This then led to a multi-language workshop where the only accepted languages were Afrikaans and English. As the PANSALB representative, she was kicked out of the meeting for insisting to speak in her own language.

Prof. Marivate had met with the new CEO of SABC in 2001. They had a good meeting with an implementation plan - of which nothing has come so far. PANSALB has lost faith in the SABC. She added that PANSALB was generally satisfied with the principles of the Amendment Bill.

Dr. Lubisi felt that the SABC had failed to achieve language equity and questioned whether it is able to. He also lambasted the media for being silent on this subject and accused the media of not wanting this change. He would like to see a partnership between PANSALB and the SABC on language policy for the SABC. He argued that buying foreign programming does not do justice to "our people". He added that South Africans need educating on their heritage and culture.

Prof. Marivate said that the major problem is the access. She said that news is a way of accessing jobs.

The Chairperson concluded by reminding everyone that South Africa is still a young democracy and that the pace of our expectation would not be reached. He added that PANSALB also has its faults. He felt that they should focus on addressing the issue of language. Only in 1999 was the Act changed that had been the cornerstone of broadcasting during Apartheid and that the issues surrounding language were going to take some time.


 

Audio

No related

Documents

No related documents

Present

  • 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.

Share this page: