Broadcasting Bill: discussion

SUMMARY
The meeting involved a discussion of clauses 14 – 29 of the Broadcasting Bill with the aim of thrashing out interpretation issues.

DETAILED MINUTES
The meeting started with a decision to continue the clause by clause analysis of the Broadcasting Bill.

The first problem raised was the term "financial director" in clause 14. Mr Moeti felt that this term was restrictive in its nature, Mr Mjwara responded saying that whether the word "director" or "officer" was used, it would make no difference and that the intention was not to limit the functions of the person put in the position of financial director.

The next issue was that of the use of the words "may" and "must" in clause 17(2). Mr Moeti said that a discretion and an obligation were being given with regarded to the annual statements at the same time which did not make sense. The response to this was that for certain purpose annual statements have to be drawn up, but there will also be occasions when the Minister may require these statements for other purposes, in which case he may then request them.

Mr De Klerk was then asked why the auditor has been given the task of recovering certain amounts in clause 23(8) and why he would be paid extra for performing this task, and why could the corporation not recover these amounts itself? Mr De Klerk responded to the first question saying that he thought it was a Company’s Act restriction. Mr Mjwara responded further by saying that the issues around the auditor can be dealt with by looking at clause 23 (5) – the auditor by making his discovery with regard to recovering money has to cause certain action to be taken to recover the money. He is paid extra because he has more to do when he actually comes across a mistake.

Another member disagreed, saying that this is all part of the auditor’s job anyway whether he finds mistakes or not. It was noted that the auditor needs to be paid for incidental expenses he may incur when doing his job.

The relevance of clause 24(3) was questioned. Mr Mjwara indicated that the clause ensures that current employees of the SABC do not lose any benefits due to them when the new Company comes into existence. Basically it is a protective measure taken on behalf of the employees of the SABC.

A discussion around clause 27 ensued because clause 27 seems to set up a general framework for broadcasters and as a holder of a broadcasting license, it seems one would have to do what clause 27 states. Ms Smuts (DP) said that it did not seem as if one framework will be able to accommodate all types of broadcasting. She also said that the framework in clause 27 seemed to be a determination to serve all regions, but that she did not think it was going to work. The response to this was that the intention is to reach all regions and that obviously the approach to reach regions which cannot afford a commercially–based broadcaster will differ from the approach taken to reach "well-off" regions.

Clause 27(4) obtaining a free-to-air license was then discussed: one will have to prove the viability of one’s station before the IBA will issue it. Ms Smuts said this provision was classic of public broadcasting impositions, that it was unfair and also very ambitious. She wanted to know how soon the independent sector would be producing good TV programmes before viewership was lost. Mr De Klerk replied that it was felt that there is vast potential for good productions. Mr Smuts said that not all stakeholders feel that their interests have been taken on board, but this would be discussed at a later date. Mr Mjwara said that viewers, broadcasters and producers’ interests need to be balanced and this raises obligations, but the key issue is : how much should be set aside when training producers.

However, he said one must realise that an attempt is being made to ensure the growth of local productions. Mr Green voiced concern for the IBA’s financial situation and whether the IBA will actually have the funds to conduct the inquiries mentioned in clause 28. Mr Mjwara responded saying that the IBA will prioritise issues and every two years the IBA will state what issues it will be dealing with. The IBA has a schedule for itself and has issues to deal with, but is not obligated to deal with everything all at once.

Moeti wanted a definition of "immediately" in clause 28(2) and it was given to mean "as soon as possible"

Clause 4: Community Broadcasting was then discussed. Many members voiced their disbelief at the provisions of clause 29 and were uncertain about its function Mr Green stated that no definition of community broadcasting appears in the Bill. He also raised a concern about the "board" in 29(3), wanting to know whether the board has to be representative of every religious denomination because this is what would be of "community". Dr Mulder also wanted to know whether it would be possible to get a commercial-based licence if denied a community-based licence due to the fact that what was being broadcast was not community orientated. He also wanted to know whether the aim of this section was to close down Christian radio stations. The answer to this last question was that this was not the case and that the Bill is actually more inclusive of all interests and that there is no policy statement from government which deals with Christian radio stations.

Mr De Klerk said that the aim of this section is to put community broadcasting in its proper perspective: he said that community broadcasting is the broadcasting of very local issues and concerns with diversity in the local community: and he said diversity is catered for either in programming terms or by sharing the frequencies. The frequency–sharing concept raised eyebrows and a frequency plan was requested although Mr Mjwara said some frequencies are already being shared without creating any problems. Dr Mulder said the IBA is being idealistic and that SA needs to be sensitive to diversity and that we need a public community radio which will take all interests into consideration.

Mr De Klerk said the framework of this Bill will establish community broadcasting. He used CCfm as an example saying that it is community-interest based and that it only flourishes once it practiced what the e bill prescribes. Mr Green asked whether broadcasting would now have to be done in a secular context rather than religious. Mr De Klerk said that religious broadcasting will grow because the need for it in community broadcasting is strong and that provisions of the Bill allow for this. Section 29 will be discussed further at the next meeting on Tuesday 01 September.