The draft Public Service Broadcasting Bill needs more work, apart from its numerous grammatical errors, various concerned groups said during public hearings on the legislation in Midrand on Monday.
They also want the Bill to only focus on the crisis-stricken SABC.
The Centre for Constitutional Rights said drafters of the Bill had misconstrued the public broadcaster’s function and its role in the dissemination of knowledge.
The Bill, which was released for public comment last October, aims to repeal the Broadcasting Act 0f 1999, to align the broadcasting system with the country’s development goals.
M-Net and MultiChoice joined other concerned parties in calling for the draft bill to only focus on the crisis-stricken SABC.
The companies said the national broadcaster was in need of relief, and that issues in the draft legislation needed to be narrowed down.
Director of regulatory affairs at M-Net Karen Willenberg said the Electronic Communications Act was the key statute dealing with the licensing and regulation of the electronic communications sector.
“In its focus and purpose, the Bill must find its place alongside existing legislation. It should only be dealing with issues of public broadcasting which require regulations over and above what is provided for in the Electronic Communications Act.” M-Net and MultiChoice also highlighted the need for a strong financial model at the SABC.
“Fast-track” the Bill
Last week, newly appointed Communications Minister Roy Padayachie said he would “fast-track” the finalisation of the Bill, to deal with poor corporate governance and funding problems at the state broadcaster.
However, a civil society coalition said the bill contained fundamental flaws that could not be rectified by speeding up its finalisation.
Among others, the Bill intends to give the minister, what some have called “far-fetched” powers, like authority over the SABC’s finances and power to issue directives to its board.
In terms of the current Broadcasting Act of 1999, the minister is unable to interfere in the current crisis at the SABC and has no role in the appointment of executive members of the board.
The new Bill also calls for the scrapping of TV licences and for the amendment of the Income Tax Act to ensure that up to 1% of personal income tax is set aside for public broadcasting.
Multichoice said the proposed 1% income tax funding was huge.
It proposed a public production levy of R250 to be collected by Sars during the tax submission period.
However broadcaster e.tv said an alternative to funding should not further burden the public and that there should be appropriation from Parliament.
Mixed funding model
The SABC currently has a mixed funding model. Figures from the 2009 financial year show that 64,3% of its revenue came from advertising, 18,2% from TV licences and 2,2% from government grants.
Multichoice said because the SABC was a public broadcaster, it was there for the public good.
“It must be funded from state revenue, like education and health,” said regulatory affairs manager Aynon Doyle.
Rhodes University’s journalism professor Guy Berger said the SABC was competing with other stations instead of focusing on its core business, being a public broadcaster.
Board member at the Media Development and Diversity Agency Siviwe Minyi said the SABC’s editorial policy must be subject to approval by the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (Icasa) and not the minister, as proposed in the draft Bill.
“Regulatory responsibility must remain with Icasa and not ministers.” He also asked the communications department look into the draft Bill’s grammar.
The South African Screen Federation’s Feizel Mamdoo highlighted the need for a proper policy review process thorough research and investigating various other options.
Icasa and the Media Institute of Southern Africa, who had been expected to make oral submissions, did not appear.
Hearings would continue on Tuesday, with the Save Our SABC group among those expected to make presentations. — Sapa