Heritage South Africa; National Network for Arts & Culture South Africa; Challenge Productions; the Path; Iziko Museums of Cape

Ms M A A Njobe (ANC)

Documents
Architectural Heritage SA submission (Appendix 1)
National Network for Arts and Culture South Africa submission (Appendix 2)
Challenge Productions submission (Appendix 3)
Iziko S A Museum submission (Apppendix 4)

SUMMARY
Iziko museums of South Africa; Architectural Heritage SA; National Network for Arts and Culture South Africa Challenge Productions; The Path; and Iziko Museums of Cape Town presented their submissions on the budget.

MINUTES
Iziko Museums of Cape Town
Professor H C Bredekamp and Ms Faiza Salie opened the proceedings with a presentation of their organisation and the financial statements. Prof Bredekamp informed the Committee on Iziko's transformation into an major institution over the last three years. Iziko currently oversees fifteen amalgamated museums and sites to 'empower and inspire all people'. He outlined Iziko's Program Purpose and Measurable Objectives, and gave feedback on Human Resource issues, education, and the nature of collections held by the museums. A point emphasised on the collections held was the security of said collections, which is of fundamental importance.

Ms Salie presented a brief overview of the financial reports enclosed, and included a section on staff turnover. No specific points were highlighted in this financial presentation.

DiscussionMr M F Cassiem (IFP) congratulated Iziko on an increase of 83% on the previous year in income, and stressed the importance of expanding the amount of people visiting museums. He asked whether the organisation had on its staff a 'business genius', in order to drive the business side of Iziko, and to look at marketing the organisation towards self-sufficiency.

Prof Bredekamp conceded that Iziko was not a business, but should operate as such. He agreed that the thinking should move from a civil service attitude into that of a business attitude.

Ms A Van Wyk (UDM) expressed a concern for the 'old' appearance of exhibits, and wanted to know if any sort of upgrade was possible. Ms Van Wyk also mentioned the staff that had resigned or been terminated in the last quarter, and if these people were going to be replaced.

Prof Bredekamp agreed that much needed upgrading, and reported that Iziko was still awaiting Department of Arts and Culture's response on R6 million requested for this end.

Ms Salie commented on staff replacements, that it was Iziko's plan to replace these staff from April of this year, and that training programmes were in place to multi-skill staff into other positions.

Mr Cassiem asked if instead of closing on weekends, museums could close on Mondays or Tuesdays for necessary maintenance. He stated that as much of the museum visitors were potentially working people, weekends were the only times they were able to visit our museums.

Prof Bredekamp reported the information that all Iziko Museums were closed only on Good Friday and Christmas Day, and that the National Gallery was was open all year round.

Ms Van Wyk expressed concern that the Company Gardens, where a number of important museums were located, were neglected and unsafe. Iziko could not expect people to go to museums in an area deemed unsafe, and in a poor state of repair.

Prof Bredekamp answered that this was out of his control, and had indeed been in contact with the Department of Public Works in this regard. To date he has had no reply.

Mr Cassiem suggested that the committee request a written report on the state of the Company Gardens, and the interaction with Public Works, by Iziko in order to facilitate some kind of reply in the regard.

Ms Njobe closed the presentation by asking Department of Arts and Culture representative, Mr Andile Xaba, to comment on the R6 million requested by Iziko. Ms Njobe also asked why salaries for Iziko staff were so high, compared to other elements of the Budget.

Ms Salie answered that in the last ten years, allocation of subsidies had not increased. Because staff salaries needed to increase each year, this had cut more and more into the budget.

Mr Xaba, representative present for the Department of Arts and Culture, mentioned that the Minister had indeed tried to motivate for this funding. He could not answer any further than that, save to say that perhaps a board should be set up to evaluate the proposal, to best facilitate the process.

Architectural Heritage SA
Mr Boets Smuts, Chairperson of Heritage SA (formerly Simon Van der Stel Foundation) highlighted the main priority of a nation-wide survey of historical sites, with a view to listing certain sites with the South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA). SAHRA currently had 15000 sites on their database.

Mr Smuts cited 43 years of experience in this field, with many of the active members being architects. Heritage SA consists of eleven affiliated member organisations or trusts which support and encourage the appreciation and conservation of our rich and varied heritage.

Mr Smuts also reported how pleased Heritage SA was to see the substantial financial provision given to SAHRA. It was evidence that the state fully supported and realised the notion of conservation of our heritage.

One major concern that was raised was that SAHRA did not have the power to issue permits for the evaluation and restoration of proposed heritage sites. This power rested with the provinces, although only one, KwaZulu-Natal and the possibility of the Western Cape in April 2003, had any set procedures and protocols for this.

DiscussionMs Van Wyk (UDM) asked if indigenous building styles were being looked at, especially in rural areas, and whether Heritage SA saw their potential as an advisor to the Department of Housing. This was in light of Ms Van Wyk's opinion that low-cost housing now being erected showed no thought or consideration towards the culture or heritage of the country, and expressed the thought that 'today's houses were tomorrows heritage'.

Mr Smuts replied that affiliated groups were all over the country, and that rural homes and styles were indeed surveyed. He drew the committees attention to the proposed logo for Heritage SA, which showed a Karoo straw-built hut. In answer to Ms Van Wyk's second question, Heritage SA had been involved in certain design projects, but since the erection of these houses was obviously an economical issue, it was essentially out of their hands.

Ms NM Tsheole (ANC) asked if rural villages, especially the homesteads of traditional authorities, were being included in surveys.

Mr Smuts said that Heritage SA was very excited about rural projects. He mentioned the growing international demand for Ndebele tile, and noted the amount of international tourists coming to view these rural sites.

Chief BP Biyela (IFP) wished to know which provinces or areas would be included in the initial survey project.

Mr Smuts answered that the pilot project would be rolled out in Tulbach, Polokwane, Graaf-Reiniet, Calvinia, Kimberley, the Karoo and Stellenbosch.

Ms Njobe asked what Heritage SA would like in regards to the permit problem, that SAHRA was not legally able to issue permits for the restoration or alteration of sites over 60 years old. What interaction with SAHRA would be necessary, and is Heritage SA proposing a bill amendment?

Mr Smuts required the legal responsibility to issue permits to be the auspice of the provinces not SAHRA. He reiterated that only KwaZulu-Natal currently had this power, though it was expected that the Western Cape would follow suite in April 2003. Heritage SA had started negotiations with SAHRA to assist in the survey, and suggested that some sort of interim legal matter should be drawn up to bring the permit problem to a head.

In closing, certain members made comments. Ms Van Wyk suggested the huge symbolic implications in the revamp of District Six. She says that it was done to much success in post-World War 2 Europe, where many cities were restored after bombing. Ms Theole wondered whether Heritage SA could sell services to the corporate sectors, and suggested they put together formal marketing and fund raising proposals. Mr Cassiem suggested that the committee write a letter to SAHRA, asking whether the provinces had been given their mandates, and asked for a report of any serious problems that exised, especially in the act. The reply to the committee should be in writing.

National Network for Arts and Culture South Africa
Mr Mike van Graan presented on behalf of NACSA, their findings and opinions on the Arts and Culture budget. Mr van Graan expressed a delight in the increases in the budget for the Department, by 43%, or R277 200 000.

Mr van Graan read NACSA's report to the committee, including sections on general comments of the budget, culture and language, cultural development and international relations. No specific points were raised, or arduously highlighted, during the reading of the presentation. One point, however, was briefly illustrated further. NACSA felt that the budget allocations for 2004 were 'woefully' inadequate, seeing as how it was the celebration of ten years of democracy in South Africa. Clearly, many theatre groups and companies were planning events around this theme, and funding should be looked at to make this as grand an international spectacle as possible.

DiscussionMs A Van Wyk expressed a concern for the livelihood of many actors, playwrights, and many others involved in the performing arts. She felt that due to the transformation of the Performing Arts Council, many of these people had lost their jobs. Promotions in schools were no longer being undertaken, the volume of plays were dwindling, and audiences were not being drawn in. With regards to the film industry, why were South African actors not being duly recognised? The infrastructure in the industry was being well used, but outside actors were still being used for many productions.

Mr van Graan replied that with the introduction of a new Minister, Deputy Minister and Director-General, he hoped to see much renewed interest in this arena. Indeed, many playhouses, as Gazetted, were receiving dwindling funds, this would continue over the next 3 years. With regard to the film industry, Mr van Graan reported that many people funding local films required recognisable names to make them more marketable to overseas audiences. He conceded that plans needed to be drawn to market our local actors to these audiences.

The Path
Ms P Wicomb presented her submission to the committee with a brief introduction to herself, and her work, before outlining the key areas.

Ms Wicomb is a teacher, currently busy with a M.Ed degree through the US Education Department. Her main focus is the designing and implementing of a program that would enable participants to find their unique purpose in life, and to empower them in their daily lives.

Ms Wicomb described The Path as a new, innovative concept, that would help people to visualise their objectives, and cited it as an excellent tool in the fight against poverty, gangsterism and HIV/AIDS.

The program takes place over one hour, half-day, full-day or day and a half sessions. The focus is on the formulation of a personal mission statement, the developing of a vision statement, and the writing of an action plan based on that which participants had learned about themselves. It was aimed at companies and individuals, young and old.

Ms Wicomb's personal mission was to 'create, nurture and maintain an environment of growth, challenges and opportunities'.

DiscussionMs N Tsheole (ANC) asked how this program could be built into the Department of Arts and Culture. She suggested that Ms Wicomb would be better heard presenting to the committees of Education and Social Development, and also to the Moral Regeneration program in the office of the Deputy President. Ms Theole wished to know how Arts and Culture could use such a program, and how they would take it forward.

Ms Wicomb stated that she would like to use the program in the context of Arts and Culture to help future artists to identify and develop their gifts and talents.
Reverend L J Tolo (ANC) stated that future generations could play a concerted role in culture in this country. He wished to know whether Ms Wicomb was in a position to assemble youth to teach them about cultural issues.

Ms Wicomb declared that she was currently researching various religions, and had seen where conflicts within these can arise. She stated that we must look to what was common, what she shared, only then could start to work. Arts and Culture may help people to discover themselves. No actual answer was given to Reverend Tolo's question.

Department representative Mr Xaba closed the presentation by saying that they would need time to assess what kind of partnership could be out together. He conceded that many programs are already ongoing, especially with Moral Regeneration, and that he could not give Ms Wicomb a specific answer at that moment.

Challenge Productions
Mr Rashaad Carlsen, a member of Challenge Productions, presented their submission to the committee. He stated that Challenge Productions was very involved in deaf and blind issues, having two deaf members in the company. Mr Carlsen declared that provision be made in all Departments' budgets for assistance of disabled people. Although the Constitution and Bill of Rights adequately provides for disabled persons, no 'delivery' had yet been made.

He mentioned how many breakthroughs could be made in the arena of film and video making, fine art and sculpture, theatre, writing, music composition and recording, all by disabled people, if these people and NGO's had access to funds earmarked for them.

He raised a major concern, that in 2004 South Africa would no longer be regarded as an underdeveloped nation, and much international funding would be withdrawn, to be given to nations that 'needed it more'. This would put many NGO's in a difficult situation, no longer being able to rely on overseas funding. Many, Mr Carlsen believes, would simply fold.

DiscussionMs Njobe told Mr Carlsen that she had noted the salient points of his address, and that she would put it forward to the necessary people.

Mr Xaba said that other departments should be encouraged to put aside quota's in their budgets to these ends. He stated that the Minister of Arts and Culture periodically awards, monetarily, those in the Arts and Culture community for progress made in disability work.

The meeting was adjourned.

Appendix 1
SUBMISSION BY HERITAGE SA ABOUT THE DEPARTMENT OF ARTS AND CULTURE'S BUDGET: 19 MARCH 2003

INTRODUCTION
At the outset I would like to express my sincere appreciation for this opportunity to address the influential Portfolio Committee on Arts and Culture in my capacity as Chairman of Heritage SA (HSA). As far as I am aware, it is one of the few occasions at which an NGO concerned with the conservation of our architectural heritage has had the privilege to share its ideas and ideals with a parliamentary committee.

HERITAGE SA'S RÔLE IN HERITAGE CONSERVATION
It certainly is the first time that Heritage SA or its predecessor, the Simon van der Stel Foundation, has had the opportunity to address the portfolio committee. By way of introduction I would like to briefly outline Heritage SA's position in the heritage sector for those of you who are not familiar with its activities.

This Section 21 company was established in 1959 under the name of the Simon van der Stel Foundation to commemorate one of the early Cape governors. Its name was changed last year to Heritage SA to bring it in line with overseas trends and to make it more relevant and neutral in the new democratic South Africa. It is as such the oldest, best known and largest non-governmental organisation (NGO) concerned with heritage conservation. It consists of eleven affiliated member organisations or trusts which support and encourage the appreciation and conservation of our rich and varied three-dimensional heritage in an inclusive manner.

Amongst its hundreds of individual members (there are 374 members in the Cape Town branch alone), Heritage SA have many knowledgeable and experienced volunteers which together form a nation-wide infrastructure. They are passionate about promoting and preserving our cultural heritage for the benefit of all South Africans. Heritage SA is therefore well positioned to represent the private sector as a heritage partner.

GENERAL REMARKS ABOUT THE BUDGET
We regard our participation in the Department of Arts and Culture's budget vote as very special as it is the newly created Department's first budget for a full financial year. It is already clear from the increased budget figures that the separation of the previous Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology will lead to the growing importance of our collective cultural heritage. It can further contribute to a greater national awareness, appreciation and pride amongst all South Africans about our shared cultural values. We are after all one nation with many cultures.

Heritage SA also welcomes the budgetary provision for the proposed National Heritage Council. As an overarching statutory heritage organisation, this Council will assist in promoting a uniform strategy, norms and guidelines on arts and culture as a whole, as well as in preventing any duplication or misunderstandings. It will also greatly contribute to an overall perspective and a balanced evaluation of cultural activities and responsibilities (or sometimes the lack thereof) in our new nation.

THE SA HERITAGE RESOURCES AGENCY
As a heritage body whose main aim is the conservation of South Africa's unique three-dimensional historical and architectural legacies, Heritage SA is obviously pleased about the substantial financial provision in the Department's vote for the SA Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA).

The Minister and all the officials concerned must be congratulated with this institution's financial allocation which has in fact almost doubled over the past four years. It is evident that the State realises the importance of the conservation of our unique multi-dimensional and multi-cultured heritage in all its facets. This is essential in our current nation-building process.

The increased budget also comes at an opportune time with the imminent devolution of many of the heritage powers to the Provinces. In this devolution process, SAHRA will obviously face new challenges and have to adapt to new responsibilities and priorities. We trust that the provincial governments will folllow the Department's example with a sympathetic consideration for the funds needed for this important statutary responsibility.

PARTICIPATION BY HERITAGE SA IN A NATIONAL HERITAGE SURVEY
One of the major future responsibilities of SAHRA will be the establishment and management of an Inventory of the National Estate in terms of the National Heritage Resources Act of 1999. The Inventory will be based on comprehensive surveys of South Africa's rich and varied heritage in fields such as palaeontology, archaeology, antiques, immovable structures and sites. The so-called SA Heritage Resources Survey is in accordance with international trends. The Survey as a whole is obviously a monumental task which SAHRA can hardly undertake without all the possible outside assistance and expertise that it can get.

In view of Heritage SA's involvement, experience and expertise over almost 45 years in the conservation of South Africa's built heritage, we would like to establish ourselves as a valuable heritage partner in the Resources Survey. It is indeed the main current aim of our organisation to promote and assist in the co-ordination, facilitation and implementation of an inclusive country-wide survey of conservation-worthy buildings and other immovable structures and sites older than 60 years at national, provincial and local level. Constructive discussions have already been held between representatives of Heritage SA and SAHRA.

We are also offering our services to SAHRA to undertake contract work, consulting work or research work. If necessary, we can also serve as facilitator in recommending suitable professionals from the private sector for outsourcing. Because of the enormity of the undertaking, experts from NGO's can play a valuable part in the survey.

We feel strongly that any proposed partnership should be between the private sector and authorities at all three tiers of government, as well as with institutions such as SAHRA, the Provincial Governments, Universities, Technikons and tourism bodies. It should also be seen in conjunction with the State's increased emphasis on the PPP principle (Public Private Partnership).

Having taken the initiative about the national heritage survey as far as the private sector is concerned, Heritage SA regards it as a high priority to obtain donations and sponsorships from public companies and/or other benefactors. This partnership between capital and culture can play a major rôle to ensure sufficient funds for this monumental project, thereby complementing the State's contribution via SAHRA. Heritage SA is already initiating several pilot projects in four provinces.

WHY THIS SURVEY AND HERITAGE SA'S INVOLVEMENT?
Heritage SA has identified a number of important advantages of the survey. It includes the following:

The results of the survey will be incorporated as part of SAHRA's National Inventory, thereby serving as an additional legal measure to promote conservation and orderly physical development.

The inventory is essential for national, provincial and local authorities, apart from organisations, societies, professionals and owners of historical properties in the private sector. It is also relevant to tourism, the hotel and hospitality industry, as well as educational and cultural institutions, and as a planning tool.

A heritage survey will provide work opportunities for computer specialists, field workers, data collectors and tourist guides in the private sector, including persons from previously disadvantaged communities.

Heritage SA's proposed regular publications on localised areas or specific themes will promote interest in heritage conservation, tourism and research work, etc. It will also assist the three tiers of government with their statutory obligations in terms of the Heritage Resources Act.

Many professional conservationists working in their private capacity can contribute to the survey through their involvement in the surveys.

As a result of globalisation and the growing interest in South Africa's cultural diversity and heritage tourism, circumstances are favourable to obtain foreign capital for this project. In this respect a partnership between SAHRA and HSA can also be beneficial.

PRIORITIES
As part of its efforts to promote a national heritage survey, Heritage SA has identified a number of priorities in its business plan. The following are relevant aspects for the purposes of this submission:

The creation of a small administrative infrastructure to assist with the planning, co-ordination, facilitation and implementation of the survey.

A comprehensive marketing and publicity initiative to launch the project, as well as the subsequent action plan.

Emphasizing and promoting the educational, publicity and tourist value of heritage resources with the view to its conservation and controlled sustainable development.

The full utilization of modern technological aids, including computers, digital cameras, information videos, CD's and GIS co-ordinates.

The computerisation and legal implementation of all existing and future heritage surveys.

Heritage SA would therefore like to use this opportunity to publicly offer its full co-operation and assistance to the SA Heritage Resources Agency as a heritage partner representing the private sector to undertake the SA Heritage Resources Survey. We have similar ideas, ideals and aims in creating a better future for our past through this existing project. We feel too that we can actively and positively promote the heritage cause, thereby contributing, amongst others, to nation-building and an increasing appreciation of the three-dimensional heritage of all South Africans. We can indeed become one nation with many cultures, showing respect and apppreciation for each other's heritage.

MATTERS OF CONCERN FOR HERITAGE SA

As Chairman of Heritage SA I would like to take this opportunity to raise several concerns about heritage conservation as we experience it on a day-to-day basis, being a major mouthpiece for the general public in this field.

Undoubtedly our greatest concern is the present vacuum left by the fact that SAHRA is not legally in a position to issue permits for restoration work, alterations and additions to or demolitions of structures older than 60 years. On the other hand, the fact that heritage powers have not yet been devolved to eight of the nine provinces, have led to an untenable position causing structural changes or demolitons on a wide and fairly large scale. Heritage SA is frequently informed by its member organisations or members of the public concerning this destruction of our heritage, about which the authorities seem to be powerless at present.

Although we realise the intricate problems associated with this situation and that the devolution of heritage powers to the Provinces could be imminent, we understand that at the most two out of nine provincial governments will have the necessary authority in terms of the Heritage Resources Act to issue permits by April 2003. Heritage SA urges everyone concerned to find a solution for this major problem, otherwise our already threatened architectural heritage can suffer more damage and be even further reduced.

As SAHRA will be in existence for three years on 1 April, Heritage SA feels that apart from the devolution powers a few other outstanding issues should be dealt with by SAHRA's officials or through outsourcing as a matter of urgency.

The first of our concerns in this respect deals with the fact that apparently none of the former national monuments, which have become provincial heritage sites in terms of the new Heritage Sources Act, have as yet been legally re-classified or registered as national heritage sites. This position is clearly unsatisfactory. It can even become ridiculous if one considers that Table Mountain can probably become a World Heritage Site while it is still officially registered as a provincial heritage site in terms of current legislation.

Heritage SA also trusts that important issues such as policy formulation and the setting of norms and standards can be finalised and published soon. It is essential that bye-laws about these and other aspects of the new legislation be promulgated as early as possible to serve as guidelines for professionals, as well as the man in the street.

HERITAGE TOURISM
If one accepts the Public Private Partnership Principle, Heritage SA would like to make a further plea to integrate heritage management with heritage tourism. The latter concept is a fast growing one in the mushrooming South African tourist industry and can be beneficial to all. It further has the potential to create work opportunities for persons from previously disadvantaged communities who can act as local or community tourist guides. This is already happening increasingly in the Western Cape. In Stellenbosch there are, for example, community guides in Kayamandi. Incidentally, the Stellenbosch branch of Heritage SA made R3 000 available for a heritage survey of this township.

It is therefore recommended that all the relevant rôle players should investigate and discuss the potential of heritage tourism. It includes private initiatives in which HSA could hopefully assist. The growing interest amongst foreign tourists in South Africa's diverse cultures and their heritage undoubtedly necessitates further consideration.

THE FUTURE OF PWD'S HERITAGE ASSETS MANAGEMENT SUB-DIRECTORATE
Although the budget vote for the heritage sector in general and the SA Heritage Resources Agency in particular fills one with optimism for the future of our past, Heritage SA would finally like to raise a disturbing development which has come to its attention during the last week. We believe that as a result of current proposals which are being considered as part of the restructuring of the National Department of Public Works, the Sub-directorate: Heritage Assets Management could be absorbed in the general Directorate of Architectural Services.

This small Sub-directorate has become widely known for their excellent work and dedication in the maintenance, restoration and management of the large number of historical State properties and structures, which include almost 500 heritage sites (previously national monuments). Since its inception in 1996, this small staff unit has barely been able to meet its requirements as far as declared heritage sites in itself were concerned. This is apart from all the other conservation-worthy buidings belonging to the State.

South Africa indeed has a proud architectural heritage of public buildings which probably numbers many thousands of buildings. The fact that there are less than 500 declared heritage sites owned by the State does not at all represent the number of its conservation-worthy structures. One of several factors responsible for this imbalance, is the fact that it was until fairly recently State policy to only agree in exceptional cases and circumstances to the declaration of public buildings as national monuments.

Money was obviously of no concern when utilizing the best architects, other specialists and building materials for the erection of State buildings. The same applied to aspects such as the scale of public buildings. The quality, quantity or size of State buildings in any country is obviously not comparable with commercial buildings or stately homes.

Virtually all countries therefore have a responsibility for the conservation, maintenace or restoration of the unique architectural heritage entrusted to its care as trustees of a nation. Our Public Works Department has on the whole been a satisfactory trustee and valuable heritage manager in this respect. It is, however, felt that the current proposed absorbtion of the relevant Sub-directorate will be a retrograde step and counter-productive if the expertise and experience built up by the professional staff concerned is lost in the restructuring of the Department.

Heirtage SA would therefore respectfully but urgently urge the Department of Arts and Culture to take up this matter at Ministerial level with the Minister concerned.

Boets Smuts
Chairman: Heritage SA

Appendix 2
NATIONAL NETWORK FOR ARTS AND CULTURE SOUTH AFRICA (NACSA)
PRESENTATION ON THE 2003/4 BUDGET FOR ARTS AND CULTURE

INTRODUCTION

The Network for Arts and Culture South Africa (NACSA)

This presentation is made on behalf of the Interim Steering Committee of the Network for Arts and Culture South Africa (NACSA). NACSA, as an umbrella body representing all the various disciplines (heritage, film, performing arts, literature, visual arts, community arts centres, etc) will be launched formally on Saturday 7 June 2003 in Johannesburg. Its members are national and provincial representative organisations operating in these fields.

The Interim Steering Committee to work towards the launch of NACSA was formed on Saturday 16 November 2002. It arose out of the conference of the International Network for Cultural Diversity (INCD) in October 2002, where there was a general feeling that such a representative structure was necessary to represent the collective interests of the arts and culture on issues of common issues. No umbrella body representing the various disciplines has been in place since the dissolution of the National Arts Coalition in 1996 after the publication of the White Paper on Arts, Culture and Heritage.

Members of the Interim Steering Committee of NACSA are Andries Oliphant
(Chairperson and representing writers), Nise Malange (Community Arts Centres),
Basil Dube (Musicians Union of South Africa), Sue Sellschop (National Crafts
Council), Moleleki Ledimo (Visual Arts Network of South Africa), Estelle Jacobs
(Visual Arts Network of South Africa), Storm van Rensburg (Visual Arts Network
of South Africa), Japan Mthembu (Performing Arts Workers Equity), Rochelle
Keene (SA Museums Association), Khanyile Jezi (SA Museums Association),
David April (Performing Arts Network of SA),Tammy Ballantyne (PANSA), Mike
van Graan (PANSA), Mzwakhe Mdidimba (PANSA), Mike Dearham (Film
Resources Unit), Holly Luton-Nel (Community Arts Centres), Zayd Minty
(Community Arts Centres), Rosie Katz (Music Industry Development Initiative
Trust) and Peter Rorvick (Centre for Creative Arts).

Why we are here

While NACSA is not yet formally constituted, the Interim Steering Committee generally thought that it was important for NACSA to make a presentation, as the organisation will exist precisely to engage with public representatives, relevant government departments, funding agencies and other important stakeholders around issues that concern arts and culture.
We believe that it is important to have dialogue and to consult with each other in order to arrive at a better understanding of each other's points of view, so that decisions that are made about policy, budgets, strategic goals and priorities and implementation, generally reflect the agreements between the major stake holders.

Accordingly, we would like to thank the Portfolio Committee for this opportunity to make a presentation and to comment on the budget. As far as we are aware, it is the first time that such an opportunity has been presented to cultural institutions in such a transparent forum, and we thank you for this.

We also believe that as this is the first time that this has happened, we will collectively be able to learn from this experience. We understand from collegiate organisations that they are unable to be here for this hearing for a variety of reasons. These include
a. they simply did not know about it - the advertisement was in a rather obscure part of the newspapers
b. those who knew about it had too short a time to do the necessary analyses and to make the appropriate arrangements to be here
c. a degree of cynicism that such hearings will not really have any impact on this year's budget, so that there's little point in engaging in the expense of travelling to Cape Town if the outcomes are pre-determined
d. where presentations have been made in the past, there's been little response from the Portfolio Committee, even in the form of acknowledging receipt of such presentations.

However, we understand that this is the first time, and that it is part of a process to try to influence future budgets. There might also be room for some manoeuvre in this budget if sufficiently strong cases may be made for particular courses of action. But mostly, this is also to engage with the Portfolio Committee and to begin to establish a relationship with it and with the Department as NACSA, in order to arrive at what is best for the arts and culture sector and for our country.

GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE DAC BUDGET FOR 200314

1. We are pleased that the budget for arts and culture shows a healthy growth from last year, with an increase of R277 200 000 or 43%.
2. When part of the Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology, Arts and Culture as a percentage of the Department's budget showed a steady decline against the percentage of the budget allocated to Science and Technology from 1995 till 2001/2 when there was a slight increase for arts and culture and then a little more last year. This year, as a department in its own right, Arts and Culture has a budget that would account for 47% of the total budget if it were still part of a joint department, against the 53% for science and technology. This sends a positive signal, and confirms our view that the arts and culture sector can develop further with a Department that has stand-alone status, and where it can compete for resources on its own terms.
3. Unlike last year and previous years where cuts were made in some areas of the budget in order to fund other areas i.e. funds were recycled internally, all the areas that we are concerned about as NACSA, actually have real increases this year i.e. there is new funding coming into the sector.
4. The increased funding of R277 m comprises large items such as capital works for heritage institutions (R86m), Freedom Day celebrations (R4Om), the establishment of the National Heritage Council (R2Om), a large allocation to Freedom Park (R5Om) and additional amounts of RiOm and Rl2m to Cultural Industries and Poverty Relief respectively. The balance is made up of increases in transfer payments to cultural institutions such as theatres, museums, funding bodies and orchestras. Again, this sends out a positive signal that there IS funding for the arts and culture (unlike the common refrain that funding is not available); the ongoing challenge then is to make the case for increased funding to the sector by showing what the sector can do for the country in terms of its national priorities, and to argue for the value of the sector in its own right. Up till now, the voice of the sector has been absent, and NACSA hopes that it will be part of making the case for the future growth and sustainability of the sector, and forums such as this one, help significantly.
5. Budgets follow and reflect policy and strategic objectives. The White Paper on Arts, Culture and Heritage and the recommendations it made, are reflected in the budget. Perhaps for the first time since then, this budget reflects a degree of stability in the sector. However, since the days of the Arts and Culture Task Group that led to the White Paper, there has been little formal dialogue between the arts and culture constituency and the Department around issues of policy and strategic objectives. It is our view that now that settlement has arrived to some extent with regard to the funding of existing institutions, we need to enter into dialogue again to evaluate what has been achieved, to establish a vision that builds on what has been achieved, to set new strategic objectives for the next five years and to build capacity within the sector to realise these objectives. This will of course then influence future budgets. But more of that later.

Programme 2: Arts, Culture and Language in Society

1. Performing arts
Theatres