Broadcasting Bill: discussion on Clauses 29 - 37

The Chairperson announced that members of the public were due to arrive to discuss Clause 29 so he suggested the committee continue with Chapter 7 whilst waiting for them.

Regarding Chapter 7 Signal Distribution and Multi-Channel Distribution, Mr Kekana (ANC) wanted to know the meaning of multi-channel distribution (Clause 32) and an example of companies who exercise this kind of distribution. Where these companies licenced? Why or why not?

His second question was about policy directives on satellite transmission, were there plans to clarify policies about satellites.

In answer to the first question, Mr Mjwara of the Department said the multi-channel distributors distribute more than just one channel and use satellites. They use many signals instead of one. There are companies exercising this kind of distribution like Orbicom, Sentech etc. and they had licences as distributors but their signals were not licenced by IBA.

According to the IBA Act, the IBA had to conduct hearings to determine terms and conditions of licencing but could not due to other pressing issues they are involved with so it was necessary to introduce this policy as a follow-up.

Another committee member wanted to know the relationship between broadcasting and telecommunication and the role of the department in either of the two or both.

In response it was said that Telkom was involved in broadcasting under the Telkom Act. If Telkom fell under broadcasting they would have to get a licence from the IBA

The chairperson suggested discussion of clause 34 on Frequency Spectrum Directorate since responses given to questions had dealt with Clauses 30 - 33.

Mr Kekana asked why the department felt they had to be involved in this and what exactly was a Frequency Spectrum Directorate? Why should it be under the department and not under IBA or SATRA?

Mr Green (ACDP) asked the meaning of ‘redrafting the set of functions’.

Mr Marsh (ANC) asked about the financial implications of setting up the above-mentioned Directorate.

A department official said that it was necessary to have a structure to regulate frequency distribution especially since there are many other organisations and structures that use frequencies such as maritime agencies, Defence etc. He said there are also other structures like health services who want to use frequency so the department needs to look at a way of organising and distributing the frequency spectrum.

He continued that the Directorate was a policy arm and has a policy function. It would not divide frequencies, this function would remain within the IBA and SATRA. IBA would still alllocate frequencies and manage the usage of band thus nothing would change. He said the pricing of spectrum needed to be discussed.

Mr Green asked how the department would ensure the impartiality of the Directorate especially since the Directorate would be involved with the department.

Mr Mjwara replied that the department had no interest in distribution of frequency spectrum and was impartial. He added that about R10m would be needed to set up the Directorate.

Mr Marsh asked how many people would be serving on this structure. The answer was that there were not any certain figures at the moment but the estimated number was fifteen.

Mr Kekana said that there was still a lot of uncertainty about regulations and research needed to be done to avoid serious mistakes that would be difficult to correct like the ones that were committed during the apartheid era. He asked how the frequency would be set aside for maintenance of community broadcasting.

Dr Mulder (FF) said that a guideline differing between commercial and community broadcasting is needed. He asked who was going to decide on frequency distribution.

Mr Mjwara said the Directorate would confine itself on overall research, it would not make such decisions. He said the present policy ensured that there was space for community broadcasting and that community broadcasting frequency was set aside for the community.

Mr Kekana commented that in the RDP there was a community and individual recognition and right to utilise media. This policy extended the policy of the RDP and should be welcomed by all.

Mr Green wanted to know the size of the Advisory Body and how representative it would be. Mr Kekana asked how would the Advisory Body be funded and suggested that community broadcasters should be included in the Advisory Body.

The chairperson asked how the department was going to cooperate with the Ministry of Arts and Culture. Mr De Klerk (a departmental official) said that the department would make sure that other groups and stakeholders would be involved. The Minister would decide on the number of board members.

Mr Mjwara said that there was coordination at the level of the National Film and Video Foundation which was under the Department of Arts and Culture. There was also coordination at a policy level and there would be further discussions between the two departments. Mr De Klerk said that funding was a primary function of the body.

Mr Kekana commented that there should be plans in place for the community development trust and the input of the community should be ensured.

Mr Marsh raised his concern about the nature of the body. Mr De Klerk said that the body would be full time, ongoing, highly organised and represented. Mr Mjwara said that R5m would be set aside for the community sector and the development of talent. He said a school of broadcasting was needed where community broadcasters would be trained.

Mr Kekana asked how much would it take to implement clause 35. Mr Mjwara replied that they had to ensure that South Africa participated in the world market and that South African productions were broadcast. Measures to ensure the screening of SA productions would be set by government. Half a billion annually was needed to ensure local production. He said there was no definite figure on how much this clause would cost.

Mr De Klerk said that there was no chance that all of this money would come from government. Funding should come from the entire spectrum of broadcasting and not only from government.

Mr Swanepoel (NP) wanted to know how much it would cost to develop a broadcasting school. He also wanted to know whether it was necessary to set up such a school rather than approaching universities and technikons to introduce media courses. He also asked if there was policy on this issue.

Mr Mjwara said that there was policy on broadcasting schools. He said that there was presently no institution for broadcasting and broadcasters learnt on the job. He said that in such a school, broadcasters could develop many skills which they could not get at a university or technikon.

Mr Swanepoel wanted to know the government’s involvement in such a school. Mr Mjwara said there would be a collaborative approach as far as the school was concerned. The school would be a government entity but partnership between government, the industry and others would be ensured. He announced that there would be a national conference in four months' time concerning the planning for the school and on the question of representation and other issues.

Mr Bikitsha (NP) asked why costs could not be cut by making use of universities rather than starting a new school. Mr De Klerk replied that there would be close collaboration with other institutions. The broadcasting school would cost the government a minimal amount.
Mr De Klerk’s response also answered a question from Mr Kekana on the meaning of ‘smart partnerships’. Mr Mjwara added that there was a limit on what these institutions could do in terms of skills development. It might save government a lot of money and resources to start the school rather than using universities and technikons where one would have to buy expensive equipment and upgrade that equipment over a certain period of time.

There were no questions on clause 36.

Regarding clause 37, Dr Mulder of the Freedom Front said he was concerned about this clause as it gave wide powers to the Minister. Mr Mjwara said that there was no aim whatsoever of giving powers to the Minister which he was not supposed to be given.

The chairperson announced that the members of public had arrived and they would return to clause 29. The chairperson said that this clause had caused an uproar in the country due to its wording.

Rev J Thomas from Cape Community Radio and his colleagues were introduced and the chairperson asked the department to repeat what they had said earlier: that the clause was not aimed at ending religious broadcasting.

The spokesperson from the department said that they were trying to make an all-inclusive definition of community radio. He said that now they were clarifying the Bill to ensure that all opinions were taken on board.

The chairperson asked Mr Mjwara to summarise the general feeling around clause 29.
Mr Mjwara stated that what was needed to be done was to clarify definitions so that no one would see himself/herself as excluded. He said that the IBA allocated frequency according to priority after priorities within a sector had been determined. He said a clear definition for ‘geographically founded' community service was also needed.

Mr De Klerk said the aim of the Bill was to provide for all communities. He said one did that by drawing a geographic boundary where community of interest could be provided.

Rev Thomas from Cape Community FM said he was very grateful for the cordial spirit of the negotiations. He believed that agreements reached would make all people concerned happy. He presented a submission with proposed amendments of certain clauses. He said they had felt that there was a deliberate attempt to target religious stations. He requested that the amendments be made.

An expert on frequency Mr Van der Waald said he would return with a proposal for the committee since he had not prepared anything yet.

Mr Mjwara thanked the committee and all the other stakeholders for being responsible throughout the debate.

The chairperson announced that they would continue with the bill on Wednesday (02/09/98) at 09h00. He said that meeting would deal with schedules and then public hearings would be held the following week.

Rev Thomas said there was going to be a march at 10h00 on the 02/09/98 and further discussions about the Bill would continue after the march.

The meeting was adjourned.