Broadcasting Amendment Bill: hearings

Meeting report

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

Chairperson:

Broadcast Amendment Bill [B34-2002]
SABC Powerpoint Presentation
SABC Submission
South African Catholic Bishops Conference Submission
Freedom of Expression Institute Presentation
Challenge Productions Submission
Deafsa Submission
Hearings programme (Appendix 2)

SUMMARY
Morning session
The SABC focused on the corporate governance of the SABC, including the role of the Board, and the effects of both the proposed split into two separate entities and the requirement of Ministerial approval. The recognition of PBS and PCBS was outlined, as well as the extent to which the independence of the SABC is ensured in the Bill, with regard to Ministerial approval and the conversion of the SABC. The Constitutional problems posed by the Bill were discussed, especially the proposed Sections 6, 10, 11 and 32A.

The discussion on the presentation dealt with the implementation of the digital broadcast services with regard to the necessary infrastructure, technology and costs. Clarity was requested regarding the costs of implementing regional television services and the extent to which these services increase exposure to all official languages. The requirement that the Minister approve the SABC's editorial policy was considered unconstitutional, as it violates both Sections 16 and 192 of the Constitution. It was questioned whether the Bill actually increases access to broadcast services and to all languages.

The Freedom of Expression Institute contended that there is a need to resolve the question of the independence of the SABC in a way that promotes language diversity, and there is no international evidence to suggest that Ministerial approval of editorial policy is needed.

The discussion on this presentation raised concern with the model proposed by the FXI as it still only increases access to broadcast services to urban South Africans only, and does therefore not assist those South Africans who need it most. The current shortcomings in the television license mechanism was also discussed.

The South African Catholic Bishops Conference welcomed the recognition of the need for spiritual enrichment in the Bill. The SACBC is of the opinion that Ministerial approval of editorial content should be done away with, as this is properly a function of the Board and not the political head.

The discussion on this presentation included a consideration of whether censorship should be introduced to do away with the current state of moral degeneration, and clarity was sought on the relationship between the SACBC and community radio stations.

Afternoon session
Challenge Productions, Dtv and Deafsa presented their submissions to the committee. All three groups are fighting for recognition of the 4 million deaf people in this country and for sign language to be included in the Broadcasting Amendment Bill as a language. They are also campaigning for more exposure on television and for captioning to be extensively used on South African television.

MINUTES
SABC Submission
Ms Barbara Masekela, Acting Chairperson of the SABC Board, stated that this is an important exercise for the SABC. It addresses this Committee today to share with Members the very complex responsibility of the SABC. It is hoped that this would enable a better appreciation of just how much the SABC wants to bring excellence to broadcasting, the problems currently facing the SABC and its commitment to fulfilling its Constitutional mandate whatever happens. The SABC has studied, reviewed and discussed the Bill over a lengthy period of time and is still engaging in constant discussions on it, in order to identify areas in which it could be improved. All relevant stakeholders are included in this process to ensure that the SABC is "not out of line". The members of the SABC Board cover a broad spectrum which brings a diversity of consultation and expertise to issues facing the SABC.

Mr Peter Matlare, Group CEO, referred to Slides 3 and 4 of the presentation and stated that the SABC's financial report which was tabled in Parliament demonstrates that change taking place within the SABC, and also indicates that there is no crisis. The SABC is in a state of perpetual change and this is not only occurring at the SABC but in broadcasting and the media industry as a whole, and this change has directly impacted the manner in which the SABC delivers its mandate. The role to be played by a broadcaster in developing and developed countries is completely different and the SABC is especially proud of the efforts it has made to advance the education of South Africans, especially in the rural and less developed areas.

There has to be clarity regarding the transformational role to be played by the SABC, and to date it has expanded the number of radio listeners by five million and has provided access to at least one million viewers who have not had access to such services before. The SABC wants to eradicate South Africa's problem with not providing any access to television or radio services. Stability is needed to ensure that the SABC properly performs these roles. These changes must bring financial viability and sustainability in terms of the SABC's delivery of its public mandate, and here all stakeholders have to be engaged on this matter, and the SABC has to put its resources into what has been termed "performing assets".

Furthermore, legislation must facilitate SABC delivery and cannot be allowed to impede it. Mr Chris Loxton, SABC legal counsel, will now address the Committee on the legal responses to the proposed Bill.

Mr Loxton stated that Mr Matthew Chaskalson, SABC legal advisor, would deal with the Constitutional difficulties presented by the Bill. The SABC shares the concerns of this Committee and the public regarding delivery, and he stated that he will now deal with the obstacles which the present formulae present to that delivery and also propose ways around them.

Slide 6 is entitled "Corporate Governance: Introduction" and this is one of the most important aspects for the SABC with regard to reaching its objectives. It does present both operational and structural difficulties.

With regard to Slide 7 entitled "Corporate Governance: Role and Structure of Board of Directors" it should be noted that the legislation initially recognised the true role of the Board, which is the controlling mind of the SABC, and is accountable for its policies and both its success and failures. Should it be split into two management boards, this would create confusion with regard to who precisely is responsible for corporate governance. A novel structure could be created and this would undermine effective delivery by the SABC, because confusion will be created regarding who is responsible.

The following slide indicates that this split will create a cumbersome three-tiered management structure and will also undermine the role and functioning of the Board, which cuts across the existing systems that ensure delivery. It would also result in a replication of powers and duties of the Board, and this will create conflict.

Slide 9 is entitled "Corporate Governance: Executive Committee" and provides that the SABC must be able to set the size of the executive committee. Slides 10 to 12 deal with "Ministerial Approval" and provides that Items 11 and 15 of Schedule 2 now require the approval of the Minster of Communications (the Minister) to be obtained every time the PCBS uses PBS. This is "just unworkable" because thousands of such market-related transactions occur each day, and if these Items were approved micro-management would stifle the management of the SABC.

Furthermore, the Bill does not provide any guidelines here nor does it stipulate what would happen should the Minister refuse to give approval, and this would result undermining the independence of the SABC and its ability to deliver.

Slides 13 to 15 are entitled "Independence of the SABC" and provide that the proposed Section 6(2) expressly recognises freedom of expression, but it will be omitted from the Bill. That section is intended to support the proposed Sections 6(3) to (5). Yet of special concern is the obligation it places on the Board to submit its policies to the Minister for approval because the Minister is the political head of the Department of Communications (the Department), and she cannot be allowed to decide what falls within the "national interest" as provided in the proposed Section 6(3). Slide 14 lists the substantial difficulties which this presents and of special importance is its effect on the credibility of the SABC, because a public broadcaster needs credibility to be able to function independently and without independence the SABC will not be able to fulfill its mandate.

The "Conversion of the SABC" is dealt with in Slides 16 to 18 and these provide that the legislation makes it clear that the intention is to facilitate a simple conversion process from a State enterprise to a public entity. It appears that no change of rights is intended and it is proposed that a "deemed conversion" should be employed here, as it is used in a number of statutes and has a proven track record. A deemed conversion does not entail the transfer of contracts, rights and obligations but instead simply changes the body from a juristic entity to a corporate entity under the Companies Act of 1973. The advantages inherent in this model are listed on Slide 17.

Slides 19 to 22 deal with the "Re-organisation of the SABC: Relationship Between PBS and PCBS", which is probably the most important conversion issue because it raises both commercial and legal considerations. The first three points listed on Slide 19 reflect the SABC's understanding of what lies at the heart of the matter, and Slide 20 contains the difficulties with the relationship between PBS and PCBS caused by the proposed split into two separate entities. This split would merely create a fictional accounting procedure aimed at dividing the SABC revenue and assets to ensure PBS receives a proper and appropriate share of the public funds.

Point 3 on Slide 21 suggests the Board be required to state in its annual financial statements that all such transactions have taken place at fair value, as this will then tie in with the corporate governance aspect discussed earlier as well as the corporate structure in terms of the Companies Act.

The "Regional TV Services" are dealt with on Slide 23 of the presentation, and is another very substantive provision. The proposed Section 32A presents fundamental difficulties that appear to involve substantial funding issues, yet the SABC has not had sight of any feasibility studies that have been conducted in this regard. It is thus not clear whether this will be done by the subsidiaries of the SABC, what the nature of these subsidiaries might be, how the funding flow from the subsidiaries to the holding company would operate, what would happen should these subsidiaries fail to make a profit or, should they not plan to make a profit, the relevant corporate governance and insolvency issues that would apply. This aspect therefore needs much more thought.

The establishment of a "Database of TV Sets Sold" as dealt with in Slide 24 will need substantial resources. Slide 25 deals with "TV Licence Fee Allocation" and this also creates a problem with the narrow context in which this operates, although it is also an important matter. It is suggested that licence fee should fund PBS and "all related administration and functions".

The main concern with regard to "Other Major Legal Concerns" in Slide 32 is the "lessor", and here the SABC has developed a model aimed at facilitating the collection of TV licence fees. This model provides that the lessor, such as Teljoy, would then be responsible for collecting the fees, and these would then be forwarded to the SABC.

Slide 33 deals with "Drafting and Other Legal Issues" and is simply a list of notes made by the Bill's drafting committee and, as stated earlier, the government of the SABC is a central issue. One fundamental difficulty with the Bill is that it proceeds from the basis that it operates in a vacuum, whereas there are instead a number of provisions and arrangements already in place that have been carefully thought out to deal effectively with transparency, accountability and the delivery of the SABC. The shareholders of the SABC also produce an annual review which enable them to evaluate whether it has fulfilled its mandate. Should the Bill be promulgated in its current form it would cut across these mechanisms.

Mr Chaskalson informed Members that the Constitutional difficulties created by the Bill are captured on Slides 26 to 30 of the presentation. Slide 26 sets out the relevant provisions of the Constitution that are affected here, and it also affects Section 192, which is not as well known as Section 16. Section 192 provides that the government cannot control the manner in which ICASA regulates the broadcasting industry, nor can Parliament itself interfere here.

The first Constitutional issue in the Bill is the proposed Section 32A, as dealt with on Slide 27. The SABC unequivocally supports the objective stated at the end of that slide, but it is clear that a major restructuring process is necessary in Section 32A to implement it. It has to be ensured that any plan for restructuring has to be done in accordance with the Constitution, or otherwise such plans and provisions will simply be knocked down by the Constitutional Court two years down the line. Slide 28 lists all the regulatory questions which the Constitution stipulates Parliament cannot decide, as those matters fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of ICASA. Thus Section 32A is likely to be struck down as it is unconstitutional, and it would also do more damage to any efforts to ensure language diversity.

The second Constitutional issue is provided on Slide 29 of the presentation and deals with Ministerial control of SABC policies. Should these be made subject to approval by the Minister it would be a clear infringement of the right to freedom of expression, because the matter will be decided by the political head. Therefore the proposed Sections 6(4), 10(3)(c) and 11(2)(c) of the Bill are all unconstitutional, and should Parliament wish to establish a mechanism to hold the SABC accountable it must design other mechanisms which are in line with the Constitution. Slide 30 recommends the deletion of the proposed Section 6 from the Bill.

Mr Matlare stated that there can thus be no doubt that the current configuration of SABC assets in television do not allow it to fully serve the language requirements of the nation, nor does it allow the SABC to fulfill its mandate. For this reason it is contended that financially viable mechanisms need to be put in place to ensure delivery in these areas. Furthermore, with regard to the policies of the SABC and the approval process, the Board is adequately charged with the responsibility of developing these policies and they must deal with a value framework within which all the business of the SABC is conducted, ranging from the management structures to the individual journalists. The Board does meet regularly with both the Minister and its stakeholders to share views on how such a framework may be established, and this Committee is also involved.

The Minister also has to become actively involved in properly detailing the assets of the SABC from the old company to the new corporation to ensure that they are not over- or undervalued. It also has to be ensured that proper professional mechanisms are in place to ensure this process is undertaken properly prior to the handing over.

Discussion
Ms M Smuts (DP) stated that Section 192 of the Constitution is a topic of ancient contestation in this Committee since 1997 when the previous broadcaster was being dealt with, and response is requested from the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) on the question to be posed because one of the difficulties appears to be that the Department itself is not sure what digital services refers to. When this Committee processed the Telecommunications Act it dealt with multimedia services and the introduction of this facility was objected to, with the result that the Department then withdraw its proposal for its introduction. It thus appears that the Department still does not know the precise meaning of those services yet it is once again proposing its introduction via this Bill in the form of digital broadcast services, but it cannot be entertained here either if its precise meaning has still not been determined. A proposal from the Department is thus needed on this meaning.

Ms Smuts stated that she agrees with Mr Chaskalson that the proposed Section 32A in unconstitutional as it violates Section 192 of the Constitution. Can the SABC, and this is an unfair question to pose but it will assist matters, provide this Committee with an indication of the costs likely to be needed to introduce these digital terrestrial services. Is it a subscription service, because surely the intention would be to make this commercial technology affordable to South Africans.

Mr Matlare replied that the SABC is not prepared to speculate on these figures because it is a very important funding issue, and the SABC has to apply its mind to this matter.

Ms Smuts stated that it was last reported that the programming costs for local programmes stand at R12 000 per minute, and what would the costs then be if the plan is to broadcast these in the officials languages for twelve hours in every day?

Mr Robin Nicholson, SABC CFO, added that this was not part of the intention of the SABC at the time, and he is thus not able to provide any useful information in this regard.

Ms S Vos (IFP) referred to a statement made earlier by Ms Masekela that the SABC has done a significant amount of work on the Bill and it is clear from the presentation that the SABC has applied its mind to the Bill. What concerns have been raised by the Department during their consultations, and what proposals have been rejected, if there has been interaction over a period of time. Furthermore, in which areas of the Bill has the SABC expressed concerns and communicated these to the Department, and did it object to these?

Mr Matlare responded that the Department has met with the SABC over a period of time on the Bill and possible amendments, and there were both areas of agreement and disagreement. It would thus be wrong to suggest that there has been no interaction, because there has been.

Ms Vos asked what the capacity and governance of these regional services would be, because during the briefing delivered yesterday the Director-General of the Department stated that it has conducted much research, and he stated that this research has since been submitted to Cabinet.

Mr Matlare replied that this depends on the nature of the structure, and the board can develop various kinds of governance policy in terms of its financial, accounting and reporting functions. The SABC may well need to be more flexible in its approach to these. Some policies are under review and are being reinforced.

Mr Phadagi (ANC) stated that he wished to emphasise the regional stations and contended that it has been eight years since the new dispensation has been introduced, yet there are South African languages that are still not heard on television at all. Instead languages and programmes from foreign countries are broadcast. The public does from time to time ask Members of Parliament why their language is not broadcast on television, and it appears that the SABC does not really consider it a priority to balance the use of all eleven official South African languages.

The majority of the programming is in English, but if these programmes in this language were to be take off the air there would be an uproar from the English language viewers. Most of the languages are sidelined in the rural areas, and there does therefore not seem to be any urgency to address this issue. Does the SABC agree with the Department that the Bill will adequately cater for all official languages, and what is the cost effect of introducing these different languages?

Mr S Abram (UDM) noted the assertion by Mr Chaskalson that the Bill, should it be passed in its current form, would be struck down on the grounds of unconstitutionality. On the one hand one has access to a number of official languages, and the Constitution creates certain obligations that some or other form of regional service should be created to accommodate these. Yet the proposed Section 32A(2) now makes it obligatory for those regional services to broadcast programmes primarily in the official languages listed in that provision.

The Committee has heard the problem currently facing the SABC regarding insufficient capacity to properly carry out this Constitutional mandate, and how does the SABC plan to satisfy conflicting constitutional demands as well as the general mandate of the people to oversee the broadcaster in order to ensure that the different languages are respected and that services are rendered.

Mr Matlare responded to these questions by stating that this matter was looked at considerably during the Gemini process and evaluated the extent to which the Board addressed this matter, and why it is important host a workshop aimed at increase the accessing of programmes in different languages. The aim is to deal with languages in an equitable way, but the SABC also has to balance this priority with the funding capacity. The SABC is therefore not shirking its responsibility her but is only acknowledging the complexities in granting greater access to languages, especially those that are not represented. The Board will report back to this Committee after the workshop, and it will then be able to propose technical options to improve delivery here, as well as the costs involved and other options.

Mr V Gore (DP) asked for clarity regarding the cost implications of implementing the regional television services.

Mr Matlare responded that a large amount of R2b was at the time a true indication of the cost of rolling out the infrastructure of the regional television services. Yet this amount is no longer accurate and, while the exact figure has not yet been decided, Members are assured that it s an amount necessary to ensure delivery.

The Chair agreed with Ms Smuts that Section 192 of the Constitution has been discussed by this Committee for the last six years or so, but this is only the first time it is being discussed with a Senior Counsel and Members have to take advantage of this. Should the Constitutional Court consider the offending provisions in the Bill as outlined by Mr Chaskalson, it would be guided primarily by the founding provisions of the Constitution which underlines the recognition of indigenous languages and then stipulate the necessary practical steps to be taken. If the State is of the view, in the offending clauses, that the language issue is not sufficiently addressed in the Bill and should the state then decide that, in addition to the existing three public broadcast channels, two additional channels have to be introduced to ensure the language problem is resolved, there does not seem to be anything wrong with such a decision.

Legal counsel has suggested that those provisions are unconstitutional, but they have not really stated what it is about that decision that renders the provisions unconstitutional. The SABC is suggesting that the State cannot make such decisions, but even if this decision is to be made by ICASA there are no guidelines in place to direct ICASA in making such a decision. There must therefore be some level of engagement with ICASA and the Minister. This Bill is thus saying that there is a real need to address this deficit, because South Africans are not all enjoying their basic right to be communicated to in their own language.

The Bill provides for three categories of broadcaster but it is not clear who would give direction to ICASA to implement policies of the government, which is itself elected by the South African public in terms of the Constitution. There is a precedent that Parliament itself has differed from the IBA Act when that legislation requested that the number of SABC channels be reduced to two, and Parliament then insisted on retaining three channels because the SABC cannot cater for the language needs of the nation even with two channels. In this Bill again Parliament is once again recognising that three channels are not enough, and thus proposed the introduction of two additional channels via the proposed Section 32A of the Bill. What is wrong with this?

The Pan South African Language Board (PSALB) informed this Committee during its presentation delivered yesterday that it has been trying to consult the SABC on this matter but with no positive results, despite the fact that PSALB has been established by the Constitution to deal precisely with increasing exposure to all South African languages. Should that board decide to institute legal proceedings against the SABC they would be successful in the Constitutional Court as they are being unfairly discriminated against here, because currently 80% of the population do not speak English as their first language, whereas the SABC is primarily an English broadcaster. Furthermore, the SABC itself has not changed much since 1994 and has only changed the faces of those who speak English, and this is not equality in languages.

Mr Matlare replied that the SABC firmly believes that the current number of channels does not allow it to deliver on its Constitutional mandate and therefore, as stated earlier by Mr Chaskalson, the SABC is not against delivering better language services to the public.

Mr Chaskalson added that he endorses what the Chair has said regarding the process and principles involved, and there is a Constitutional obligation on the State generally to provide equitable broadcasting in the South African languages. This is a Constitutional problem because it infringes the Constitutional right to equality, and the question here is whether Parliament and the executive have the Constitutional power to solve this. Mr Chaskalson stated that he is of the opinion that this primarily the responsibility of ICASA to fix this matter as provided by Section 192 of the Constitution, and even Parliament does not have the power to tell ICASA what to do here and it is therefore independent from both Parliament and the executive by virtue of Section 192.

There are two ways in which this matter can be dealt with. The first is that the Minister could exercise the power granted to her under Section 13(a) of the IBA and instruct ICASA to conduct an inquiry into the issue, and to then proceed on the basis of the ICASA finding. The second is ICASA can be tasked to address this matter and the respondent in the Constitutional Court case here would not be Parliament here but ICASA itself, but Parliament's powers in this instance are limited to appropriating the necessary funds and it would then instruct ICASA to do what it is not allowed to do by virtue of Section 192 of the Constitution.

The Chair contended that Section 192 provides that "national legislation must" establish a body such as ICASA, and thus any attempts to direct ICASA would infringe on its independence guaranteed in Section 192. The SABC legal team is requested to submit proposals to this Committee "to get out of this" problem.

Mr Green (ACDP) referred to the proposed Sections 6(3) to (5) of the Bill and stated that he is concerned with the independence of the SABC here, and Slide 14 of the presentation listed the difficulties created here. With regard particularly to the proposed Section 6(5), during her presentation yesterday the Minister referred to the situation with the irresponsible journalist, and the SABC is requested to provide Members with examples of such irresponsible journalists over the past eight years.

Mr Matlare replied that it would be wrong for the Board to speculate here but it is responsible for ensuring policy and procedures are in place to determine that all the programmes are accurate and fair. It has been found that proper training of journalists is essential here, and this Committee has been taken through the SABC's competency programme and skills development programme aimed at ensuring it has well-trained and quality news gatherers and broadcasters. In those areas in which the SABC has not succeeded it believes that further training is needed as part of an ongoing training initiative, and this will take some passage of time.

Prof Derrick Swartz, Non-Executive SABC Board Member, added that a constant concern is measures aimed at improving the quality of news broadcast by the SABC, and processes are being identified that craft the editorial policy to allow the journalist him-/herself to decide on how the story should be presented. It is not the duty of the Board to dictate how this is to be done, and the emphasis here is to articulate a framework that will allow a prudential judgement to be made in this regard. A process of workshops will be held on this issue, and the standards of journalism can thus be improved without any interference from the Board.

Ms N Mtsweni (ANC) stated that Ms Masekela said that the number of television viewers has been increased by one million, and requested the SABC to break this amount down to the actual percentages per language.

Mr Matlare replied he does not have the precise figures, but these range from 700 000 new television viewers in some areas to only 230 000 in others. The SABC is presently engaged in negotiations with Sentech to provide television broadcast services to an additional two million people by the end of 2002 or by June 2003, because Sentech first has to establish the necessary infrastructure.

Ms Mtsweni stated she actually requested the percentage of television programming currently being delivered in all official languages.

Mr Nicholson replied that this information is available on page 23 of the SABC 2001/2002 Annual Report.

Ms Mtweni stated that this information does not help the Committee.

The Chair requested the SABC to provide a breakdown of those figures per language.
Ms Mtsweni stated that Adv Loxton said during his portion of the presentation that the SABC "only cares about the number of licences sold" and is not concerned with the number of television sets sold. Could he please clarify this statement?

Adv Loxton responded that the proposed Section 27(1) provides that one individual holder of a television licence could now have any number of television sets, and it is thus proposed that Section 27(1) should be revisited to provide that each television set then has to be licenced. The proposed Section 27(6)(e) requires a database of all sales to be established, but all this information will not necessarily be available to the SABC at all. In order to achieve this a whole new information gathering system has to be devised, and this would involve considerable resources and also information that may not be useful to the SABC.

Ms Vos asked the SABC to provide the figures for the running of Channel 2, for example.

Mr Nicholson replied that this cost currently stands at between R400 000 and R500 000.

The Chair asked the SABC to explain why it decided to remove those programmes aimed at dealing with the regional irregularities. Did the SABC receive any funds from the State for broadcasting such programmes and, if so, are these funds still forthcoming? What was the problem with these programmes? The Chair stated that he believes that the right to broadcast must be regarded as important as the right to food and shelter, and therefore a sort of front has to be formed to argue for allocations.

Mr Solly Mokoetle, SABC Chief Operating Officer, replied that these were removed from air because of scheduling difficulties and funding.

Ms I Mutsila (ANC) requested a breakdown of the percentage of local content programmes being broadcast per official language.

Mr Nicholson replied that this information is available on pages 31 to 33 of the 2001/2002 Annual Report.

Freedom of Expression Institute (FXI) submission
The presentation was conducted by Mr Console Tieane and Ms Jane Duncan. The FXI contends that the tension set up during the debates in the Portfolio Committee between language equality and independence is a false one, and there is a need to find a way of resolving the independence question in a way that promotes language diversity. With regard to the independence question, there is no evidence from international models, such as in Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom, as cited by the Minister, that the Minister should be required to approve editorial and programming policies. This constitutes a violation of the editorial independence of the SABC.

The FXI thus proposes that the approval powers of the Minister be removed and that statutory mechanisms of public access to the SABC Board be created by the Portfolio Committee. Furthermore, The Portfolio Committee should conduct a five year review of the Charter via a process of public meetings, but that the whole cross-subsidisation model on which the Broadcast Act is based needs to be reviewed because it is clearly not working.

Discussion
Ms Smuts stated that a case has been made for the funding of the Board, and clarity is needed with regard to who exactly holds the purse strings here.

Ms Duncan replied that there are various sources of funding that could be employed, and one such source is public funding either via appropriation by Parliament or by linking this to the tax system. The Constitutional Court has recognised that financial independence is a crucial aspect of the public broadcaster, and this seems to be the way to go.

Mr L Lekgoro (ANC) referred to the statement made during the presentation that, contrary to the figures provided by the SABC, there has actually been a decrease in radio listeners and asked how exactly these figures are arrived at, especially as the SABC stated that those listeners have never been reached before.

Mr Tieane responded that these statistics have not been compiled by the FXI but have been compiled by the SARF. These are definite decreases and PBS especially have lost many listeners, and these are primarily listeners in the rural areas, women, the elderly and the lees advantaged.

Mr Lekgoro suggested that the FXI submit a paper on accountability of the SABC, as it seems to have conducted significant research.

Mr J Durandt (NNP) referred to the statement that there is no need to split the SABC into two separate entities, but discussions with the SABC regarding language equality have been conducted since 1997 and they have always said that they do not have sufficient funds to remedy this. Where would it get the funds from now? Could the SABC fulfill its mandate with the aid of public funding and current technology?

Ms Mutsila asked the FXI to clarify its statement that the current licensing is regressive.

Ms Duncan responded that whatever the funding arrangement it has to be considered with regard to the increases and decreases in viewership, and the licensing fee must be borne on mind as well. This amount currently stands at R208 per year and, unlike income tax calculations, it is not levied in terms of the individual's personal annual income. Thus, in response to the question posed by Ms Mutsila, the method of calculating the license fee is thus regressive.

Mr R Pieterse (ANC) stated that if one compares the standard of programming on SABC and E-Tv one will realise that the latter "is hot". The presentation makes complete sense, and he can therefore not understand why the FXI and the Department do not consult each other, especially in drafting the Bill.

Mr Tieane replied that the FXI began evaluating the accountability of the SABC before the Bill was introduced. The SABC was approached but no meeting has yet materialised.

Ms Duncan added that in November 2000 suggested a conference aimed to engage the SABC in a joint project regarding its restructuring, because the FXI had serious concerns with the model it had chosen, and was of the opinion that the model would not work. The FXI tried to engage the Board for many months but the SABC never replied, and the FXI has now decided to go ahead by itself. An SABC stocktaking conference was held and significant progress was made, yet the SABC itself was not there.

The Chair stated that the reality of the matter is that if the SABC were to follow the route suggested by the FXI, those South Africans living in the urban areas will be organised as the privileged group. This is essentially civil society, and thus the claim that these concerns are being raised on behalf of the public is exaggerated. The model proposed by the FXI is not the kind that would limit the reach of the SABC and the current matter, especially in terms of language equality, is not so much about access to radio and the goals of unlimited access, but rather that many South Africans are being left behind here, especially those in the rural areas. There is thus a discrepancy with regard to access.

Language rights are so fundamental and, while the model proposed by the FXI is not weak, it does only give access to urban areas and therefore still continues to marginalise the majority of South Africans.

Mr Tieane replied that the FXI does not profess to have all the answers but instead presents models used the world over where public broadcasters have a measure of accountability, yet none of these models are perfect.

South African Catholic Bishops Council submission
The Council was represented by Rev. Peter-John Pearson and Ms Felicity Harrison, SACBC researcher. Rev Pearson stated that the SACBC is primarily concerned with the manner in which religion, the SABC editorial policy and the funding of PBS is handled in the Bill.

With regard to religion, the SACBC welcomes the fact that the Bill makes explicit reference to religion, religious background, and spiritual enrichment. It makes spiritual enrichment one of the central objects of the SABC, along with information, education and entertainment in clause 9 of the Bill, and it recognizes that the religious needs of the population must be met in clause 3 of the Bill. The SACBC therefore believes that these, and other references, have the potential to assist greatly in answering recent calls by the government for the moral renewal of our society, and is confident that the faith community will co-operate fully with the SABC in this respect.

As far as the SABC editorial policy is concerned, if the Minister has reason to believe that editorial policy is not meeting the prescribed standards of accuracy, impartiality and fairness, as required by Clause 11, the correct course would be for her to approach the Board of the SABC. It is the view of the SACBC that it is the task of the legitimately constituted Board, rather than a political authority, to exercise oversight and control of these policies. Accordingly, Clauses 11 and 12 should be amended to remove the requirement of ministerial approval of policies. Similarly, Clause 6(4), which provides for ministerial approval of reporting policy, should also be deleted.

As regards PBS funding, the SACBC is aware that concerns have been expressed that this split may result in the public service arm being deprived of adequate funding, given that the commercial arm would be more likely to attract advertising revenue. This Committee is thus urged to monitor the consequences of the split, and to help ensure that public service broadcasting remains on a sound financial footing.

Discussion
Ms M Magazi (ANC) stated that Rev Pearson has said that the SACBC is opposed to certain sections of the Bill because it allows political interference. Yet there is one person that controls all Catholics, and does the SACBC think that the present government has as much control via other institutions over which it is not supposed to exercise control? Furthermore, the SACBC feels threatened by the involvement of the Minister in editorial policy because of South Africa's history and the previous media environment in which the government was actively involved in the SABC. Yet if those times are to be compared to the present, it will become evident that there is now a big difference in the way the SABC is managed and operates.

Rev Pearson responded that it is precisely because the SACBC respects that office that it does not want it to be contaminated by accusations of political interference. In fact, such political influence is no necessary and what is needed is confidence that editorial policy will be exercised judiciously. The SACBC is thus not threatened by this nor does it view it as a contradiction, but rather as a means of enhancing the situation.

Mr Durandt agreed with the SACBC on the current state of moral degeneration, and asked whether censorship is needed here.

Rev Pearson replied that moral regeneration is not only the responsibility of political office but all the people of the nation have to come together to take up the moral custodianship of the nation, and must also take up the responsibility for building and constructing society even further. The SACBC recognises the need for increased measures of discernment here, and it therefore not the sole responsibility of political office.

The Chair stated that the SACBC is involved with many Community Radio Stations and a large proportion of these are Christian stations, and the SACBC is thus asked to explain the extent to which it shares a relationship with these radio stations. This is important because the whole question of moral regeneration is not just the responsibility of broadcasting.

Rev Pearson responded that the SACBC does have unequal access here. The SACBC has been asked to participate in various radio programmes but it does not have a fixed relationship with one particular station.

There were no further questions or comments and the meeting was adjourned.

Dtv (Deaf television)
Dtv was represented by Ms Louise van Niekerk and Canice Morgan.

Ms Morgan opened by saying that sign language can and should be used on television. Dtv feels that the Broadcasting Amendment Bill reflects the identity and diverse nature of South Africa. She pointed out that at present there is only one 30 minute program on SABC on Sundays at 12:30pm when nobody watches. Dtv feels that it is impossible to cater for the different target groups in only one 30 minute program. They feel that it is impossible to reflect the identity range of their target audience. The Bill makes provision for accessible information according to race, gender and so on. Dtv wants at least one program each for their different target groups using sign language.

Ms Morgan said that Dtv applauds the SABC for including the one deaf program in their educational programming. She stressed the need for the deaf to access information. Dtv wants to add deaf children and deaf presenters to all educational programming.

Ms Morgan told the committee that one in three deaf people are illiterate. The only access they have to news is the five-minute news broadcasts at 18:00 every day. Because of small television screens facial expressions get lost which is integral to sign language. Dtv wants all newscasts to have subtitles except for breaking news where sign language interpreters can be used.

Ms Louise van Niekerk then gave the committee an overview of the projects Dtv is involved in. She championed the SABC for their support for the one program. Dtv is regarded as world leaders in deaf television and is assisting other countries with the expertise gained from their ground-breaking work. She used the only deaf soap opera in the world (Young and Speechless) as an example of the progress they had made. The coverage of the Special Olympics by Dtv was bought by other countries because of its high quality.

Challenge Productions
Mr Mike Westcott and Mr Rashaad Carlsen presented the submission (see document). They added the following benefits of captioning to their submission:
- Access to information for the deaf community
- Providing an opportunity to learn new languages
- The technology can be used in schools and universities
- It will lead to job creation

DeafSA
Mr Bruno Druchen, the chairperson of Deafsa, presented the submission (see executive summary of submission below).

Discussion
Ms Vos (IFP) applauded the submissions made by all three groups. She asked if these views had been presented to the Department of Communications.

Mr Druchen replied that Deafsa had raised their concerns with the Department of Communications and the Department of Health. They unfortunately had not received any response. Deafsa had written letters to the department to try and organise a meeting. All their efforts had been unsuccessful.

Ms Mtsweni (ANC) congratulated the groups on their submissions. She added that she hopes that the Committee will be able to accommodate their views.

Mr Pieterse (ANC) said that the lack of exposure of deaf people is a disgrace. He wondered whether it would be possible to establish a language quota for sign language.

Mr Westcott (Challenge Productions) added that the public at large do not know that people with disabilities exist. There is a lack of information and exposure. South Africans need to be sensitized about people with disabilities and their marginalisation must stop.

The Chairperson thanked the three groups for their submissions and added that the Committee had learned a lot.

Appendix:
DeafSA: THE DEAF AND TELEVISION

Improving Media Access for Deaf people

The access for Deaf people to the information broadcasted on television requires specifically designed technical facilities and procedures in order to give access to information. These facilities and procedures might vary from captioning/subtitling, the use of South African Sign Language Interpreters or a Deaf presenter using South African Sign Language. The Deaf Community has no access to the largest part of information broadcasted on television due to the complete lack or insufficiency of specific arrangements; legal standards and policies aimed at enabling access.

For many Deaf people, Sign Language is the only accessible means of communication. The communicational difficulties encountered by Deaf people is comparatively greater in South Africa, a country where South African Sign Language did not enjoy legal recognition until recent times, and today still not being used in some schools for the Deaf as a medium of instruction. As a consequence, some Deaf people are able to communicate only at a very low level. This forms a serious impediment in their access to information, in developing their relationships and their full integration into the life of the community.

Current legislation does not provide any guaranteed broadcasting space for representation of the interests and problems of Deaf people within the media, although only one subtitled programme on a five minute news broadcast on SABC 3 and etv, with a Sign Language Interpreter everyday of the week, is merely not enough. There are no requirements to television stations in order to make their programmes accessible to the Deaf. Exclusion from access to information of a particular group with specific needs is both a cause and an effect of the economic, social and political marginality of that group. Deaf people find themselves at the edge of society not just as a result of their exclusion from access to information, but also in relation to other essential aspects of their life: education, employment, social safety and access to culture. The lack of access to important sources of information is only aggravating their situation.

There are several possible options open for improving access for the Deaf to visual media: more provision of SASL programmes, longer news bulletins with SASL Interpreters and captioning/subtitling will limit these barriers.

Deafness is actually a widespread social phenomenon. There is an irrefutable reality where society unfortunately continues to set endless obstacles to Deaf people's natural desire to be treated on an equal level. To Deaf people, living in our society implies being daily confronted with oral communication a condition in which the Deaf are seriously penalised.

In addition to this, more barriers are created by the numerous means of communication used by hearing people - television is one of them. This instrument and means of mass communication per excellence still represents a serious communication barrier despite the exciting subtitling service which however is far from meeting Deaf people's legitimate expectations as it currently accounts for only 5% of all television programmes. They want to be able to choose the programmes; they like in full autonomy without feeling obliged to select only the subtitled ones.

More provision of SASL programmes, longer news bulletins with SASL Interpreters and captioning/subtitling will limit these barriers.

Appendix 2:
PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS
PROGRAMME HEARINGS: 16 TO 20 SEPTEMBER 2002

16 SEPTEMBER 2002

BROADCASTING AMENDMENT BILL [B34-2002]

DATE : MONDAY, 16 SEPTEMBER 2002
VENUE : M46, GROUND FLOOR, MARKS BUILDING

09:00 Registration and Tea

09:15-09:30 Introductory remarks by Chairperson

9:30-11:30 Department of Communications

11:30- 12:30 Pan South African Language Board

12:30-13:30 LUNCH BREAK

13:30-14:00 Tshivenda NLB: Prof NA Milubi

14:30-15:00 SiSwati NLB - Dr PN Lubisi

15:00-15:15 TEA BREAK

15:15-15:45 IsiZulu NLB - Ms Ntombenhle Nkosi

15:45-16:15 Ndebele: Skhosana

16:15-16:45 SA Sign Language NLB

DATE: TUESDAY, 17 SEPTEMBER 2002
VENUE: GOOD HOPE CHAMBER, GOOD HOPE BLDG

09:00-11:00 SABC

11:00-11:15 TEA

11:15-12:00 Freedom of Expression

12:00-12:45 Southern African Catholic Bishop'sConference - Felicity Harrison

12:45-13:45 LUNCH BREAK

13:45-14:30 New Productions Company (Dtv "visual in sign language"
Louise van Niekerk, Canice Morgan (need interpreter)

14:30-15:15 Challenge Productions (Submission 1)
Mike Westcott

TEA BREAK

15:30-15:45 Deafsa



DATE: WEDNESDAY, 18 SEPTEMBER 2002
VENUE: Good Hope Chamber

09:00-09:45 Media Monitoring Group,

09:45-11:45 ICASA

11:45-12:30 Media Institute of SA - Patrick Dooms

12:30-13:30 LUNCH BREAK

13:30-14:15 COSATU

14:15-15:00 Tabema


DATE: FRIDAY, 20 SEPTEMBER 2002
VENUE: M46, GROUND FLOOR, MARKS BUILDING

09:00-09:45 MultiChoice / Mnet

09:45-10:30 Orbicom

10:30-10:45 TEA BREAK

10:45-11:30 Sentech

11:30-12:15 Telkom

12:15-13:00 Versfeld & Nkosi

13:00-14:00 LUNCH BREAK

14:00-14:45 National Community Radio Forum

14:45-15:30 South African National Editors Forum

15:30-15:45 TEA BREAK

15:45-16:30 National Association of Broadcasters

Enquiries:
Rita Schaafsma Chantal Paulse
Tel: 021-403-3742 021-403-3874
Fax: 021-403-2725
E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]