MDDA SUBMISSION
Summary of NAB position
The NAB is supportive of an initiative to support and subsidise community radio. A separate initiative could be started for the print media.
To be effective, that sort of initiative would not have to take the form of the MDDA as described in the discussion paper – it should rather have a substantially reduced mandate, a substantially reduced budget and does not have to be a statutory body.
Why it should have a substantially reduced mandate:
- it is stepping on the mandate of the independent regulator,
- the regulator is best placed to address many of the issues raised in the discussion paper e.g. licensing new services,
- need to avoid duplication,
- it is stepping on the mandate of self-regulatory bodies,
- it is duplicating work being done in the training arena etc.
- Why it should have a substantially reduced budget:
- compare the budget of the broadcasting division of ICASA with the agencies proposed budget,
- the envisaged number of community stations is too high,
- it proposes to meet all stations costs but should rather subsidise some costs to encourage sustainability.
- Why it should not be a statutory body:
- independence concerns,
- there are other agencies where it could have a home.
- Even if the agency just funds community radio, there would still need to be an analysis of the success of other funding initiatives and interventions on diversity. There would also need to be a business plan laying out clear deliverables.
- The industry should not fund the MDDA:
- industry is already paying a number of levies,
- it would be an additional tax on broadcasters,
- broadcasters currently make a number of contributions quantitative and qualitative.
- It will affect decisions of investors on the broadcasting sector
- An alternative funding mechanism could be to divert a portion of the existing ICASA licence fees.
- An industry / government working group would be an effective way of taking this matter forward.