Critical Consumer Pat Sidley
THABO MBEKI, the deputy president, raises some important issues as he tramples on some dearly held principles. But, perhaps, in the debate which follows in the wake of his desire for the government to colonise our airwaves to get its message across, he may take stock of what this critical consumer has found in trying to get information out of his government with the intention of getting the government’s message to consumers.
Most local journalists, and many foreign ones, have had similar experiences, but this, the last Critical Consumer column, will dwell on what a consumer columnist has found over the years.
It was, of course, a nightmare to get real information out of the last government. It made a habit (and elevated it to a principle during the State of Emergency) of denying journalists information. The Department of Health, in the bad old days, was one which demanded, before giving information out on Aids, evidence of one’s being “registered” with the Bureau for Information. I was not registered (this being an area of protest among journalists), and the information was not given out. That episode arose out of an edict issued to all government departments that they should not give information to journalists who were not employees of the mainstream press (which excluded such organs as The Weekly Mail or New Nation) or who were not foreign correspondents with work permits.
So the end of that dreadful era heralded much hope for a new age of freer information.
>From the perspective of this column it meant a wonderful new thought: consumers may actually be able to have access, through the media, to meaningful information on which to base their choices, to inform their votes, to decide whether to pay bills to loan sharks, to avoid certain practices, and so on.
To a limited extent, this has been the case. But it’s very limited, indeed.
Some departments have opened up. Getting information out of the Competition Board has been a pleasure. Getting it out of the people who decide on tariffs has not been a pleasure. In fact, I’ve had no useful information out of them, ever.
Some departments play a game the Nats knew well and practised on their party- faithful journalists: getting journalists who endorse their politics to trust that they won’t behave like politicians.
Shortly before the Budget announcement, I called the Department of Finance (several times) to obtain more information on several stories which had been written and spoken about. It was, I thought, clear that the Budget would cut expenditure to Gauteng and the Western Cape in health and education. Since these are departments where most money is spent on employees, did this mean people would lose their jobs?
On the way to this query, I tried the RDP office several times. The people who finally took the call (Deputy Director General Dr Bernard Fanaroff failed to return at least three calls) were hard pushed to give any information about what was widely known, let alone explain anything
Eventually Deputy Finance Minister Alec Irwin tried answering the questions and told me that he could not tell me what was in the Budget, could not tell me what to write and what not to write, but that I would risk looking pretty silly if I wrote this stuff, as the Budget was designed to cope with such problems. I trusted this information and failed to write that story.
These words of reassurance rang dreadfully hollow after the announcements of the cuts by the provinces concerned, and there were few in the affected departments (who had also heard those words) who were reassured that their cut budgets will result in manna from heaven and not in job
There were, incidentally, no measures announced (that the ordinary consumer could discern) which allayed the fears in those two provinces.
But back to the Department of Health, where consumers had a rough time ascertaining what exactly the future might hold in the changes ahead. Decisions were being made in their name and for their benefit — but behind closed doors.
The department appointed about 11 committees, which were all secret and conducted their meetings in secret, some being so secret that high-ups in the department itself did not know they had been appointed. The media liaison people, through whom all information had previously been filtered, were not fully briefed either.
These committees were to report to the minister on important areas of the nation’s health (teeth, women’s health, finances etc) so that she had expert information, with which she could plan her new role.
It came to a head when a plan to impose a National Health Insurance system without the necessary openness and consultation emerged.
Reluctantly, while admitting that the press had placed it under pressure, the department opened up, allowed access to the reports of the committees and announced the formation of a committee to investigate the financing of any possible national health plans.
That committee in turn promised openness, transparency and regular information about its progress and dealings.
One should not forget they were dealing with issues that would affect every consumer’s health and the way in which we all pay for it. Does it get closer to the bone than
It was not to be. The open sessions in which stakeholders gave evidence formed a very small part of the deliberations. The rest were — surprise, surprise — held behind closed doors, with orders to all members of the committee that only the two co-chairs could give (extremely limited) information to the media.
Which is why the public at this moment does not know what the main issues are, how they are being resolved (or if they are being resolved) who is saying what and what stakeholders have most and least influence.
The media liaison people are as much in the dark as the media they are intended to inform.
It is, however, the media which come in for heavy criticism for trying to ferret out the information from people who apparently believe that they are the custodians of all that is good and healthy for us consumers, and they don’t need our help sorting out what’s best for us.
As it happens, I think this department of health matches that description more than any other has — but why should anybody take my word for it? What they want is hard information on which to base their own choices.
So, Mr Mbeki, while I and some of my colleagues have respect (certainly more than we were able to have in the past) for the endeavours and intentions of this new government, we don’t have the information to back these good feelings up.
So here is the final piece of advice from this last critical consumer column:
* See to it that the public, who are all consumers, have an enshrined and useful right to information about their
* Then see to it that these noble intentions are actually acted upon by departments, many of whom are simply scared of real openness.
* Create channels by which this information can actually be acquired and train the media liaison people, while briefing them fully, so that they both understand the process and know how to impart the elements of it
* Don’t think you’re alone in this: The Consumers Association of the UK compiled questions to several government departments in the UK to get information it believed was within the rights of any citizen and consumer to have. Many behaved just as badly. But don’t give up the fight to improve and don’t believe that propoganda will solve our hunger for information. Only real openness and transparency with real facts will do that.
And advice to consumers: Demand the information. It’s your right, whether the government acknowledges it or not.