This report look at the scope and
implications of the policy framework process on broadcasting launched by
the Minister of Posts, Telecommunications and Broadcasting, Mr Jay Naidoo,
on 4 August 1997.
According to the broadcasting policy manager in the Telecommunications and Broadcasting Ministry, there are a number of laws governing the broadcasting industry in South Africa. These laws included the Radio Act of 1952, the Post Office Act of 1958 amended in 1993, Broadcasting Amendment Act of 1982, the Former State Broadcasting Reorganisation Act of 1996, the Independent Broadcasting Act of 1995, and the Broadcasting Act of 1997. Some of these laws were outdated, like the Radio Act of 1952, the Broadcasting Amendment Act of 1982, and the Post Office Act of 1958, while others did not provide a framework to deal with certain policy issues.
Issues such as funding for the public
broadcaster and the privatisation of parts of the public broadcasting
body were not covered by any policy framework. The latter issue came to
light in the course of the sale of six SABC radio stations last year when
the government refused to give the money from the sales to the SABC. The
new policy will have to deal with this issue also.
Technological developments, especially
the convergence of technologies between broadcasting and telecommunications,
demanded a policy framework that would guide the relationship between these
two sectors. Without a policy guideline on these matters there might be
conflicts over turf. There were also other technological advances in broadcasting
such as satellite, cable, and Internet broadcasting which, if not dealt
with in a formal policy, might lead to anarchy in the broadcasting industry.
The process was initiated because
while there was regulation of the broadcasting industry, there was no national
policy framework. This meant that most of the decisions on broadcasting,
except those relating to regulation of the industry, were being made without
clear policy guidelines.
The technical task team will include
experts from countries such as Australia, Germany, Canada as well as representatives
from the International Telecommunications Union. The technical task team
will be made up of people of diverse backgrounds such as legal experts,
engineers, and others. The reason for enlisting the services of foreign
experts, argued source in the ministry of Telecommunications and Broadcasting,
was that while there are people with expertise when it comes to broadcasting
issues, there is still a serious lack of technical expertise in broadcasting
in South Africa. Another reason is that the foreign experts will
be from countries that already have passed the transitional stage and a
lot can be learnt from their experiences. It is not clear yet what the
brief of this task team will be but it is expected that it will work
with existing structures such as Universal Service Agency whose role is
to raise public awareness of the role of telecommunications in development
and advise minister Naidoo on ways to bring universal access to information
and service to all South Africans.
The stakeholders’ committee will
be made up of the department of Communications, the South African Telecommunications
Regulatory Authority(SATRA), the IBA, trade unions in the media and
broadcasting industries, interested civil society organisations, academia,
advertising companies, broadcasting equipment manufacturers, community
broadcasters, and the Development Bank of Southern Africa(DBSA).
This committee will be chaired by the University of the North vice-chancellor,
Professor Njabulo Ndebele. The main role of the committee will be to provide
the minister with sectoral advice on some aspects of broadcasting throughout
the policy formulation process.
A welcome feature of the new
process is that it seeks a three tier relationship in broadcasting with
government responsible for policy and regulation being the responsibility
of an independent body, such as the IBA. The final tier will be the licensees,
who must comply with government’s policy and regulations as enforced by
the regulatory bodies, IBA and SATRA. However with the merger of the two
bodies there remains the concern that currently the IBA Act provides for
limited co-operation between the IBA and SATRA in the management of the
frequency spectrum, including the broadcasting services frequency bands.
The cooperation would also extend to the determination of which frequency
spectrum should be used for broadcasting. Glen Marques, executive director
of the National Association of Broadcasters, argued earlier this year that
they needed guarantees that the merged regulator would "be a properly independent
body"(Business Day, 19 February ‘97). Despite these concerns Marques said
the merger made sense since it would provide opportunities to rationalise
the infrastructure. Broadcasting industry sources said the merger would
be in line with a greater convergence between broadcasting, telecommunications
and information technology.
The process would also look at foreign participation and black empowerment in ownership of the broadcasting media. The issue of media ownership in South Africa is a very important issue because by diversifying media ownership there is a potential to increase the reflection of the views of a wider society in the media. The IBA Act deal with the issue of media ownership in the broadcasting industry and the specific impact of the envisaged policy on the IBA’s role is not yet clear.
The media in South Africa is largely in the hands of whites despite recent acquisitions of shares by black owned commercial groups. The tension arising from this issue was highlighted when President Nelson Mandela accused the media of being run by embittered conservative whites. In broadcasting, the issue with respect to foreign ownership was highlighted by the controversy surrounding the granting of the Radio Jacaranda licence to Newshelf 71 late last year. Naledi Investment Consortium which also made bid for the licence, successfully took the IBA to court. Among its argument was that Newshelf 71 is partly owned by a foreign company, Europe Development International(EDI), which had a 21% equity in it. EDI also had shares in Primedia, which controls a number of commercial radio stations in the country two of which are in Gauteng. Therefore they argued that by granting Newshelf 71 a licence it would have given EDI more than a 20% share in the broadcasting industry in contravention of the IBA Act which stipulate that one or more foreign persons shall not, whether directly or indirectly exercise control over a private broadcasting licensee exceeding 20% in total. Newshelf 71 and Naledi had since joined ranks and are now co-owners of Radio Jacaranda.
The new policy will also focus on the establishment of human resources development, school of journalism and the promotion of journalism in fields such as investigative journalism and technology reporting. It will also look at competition in the signal distribution sector, a policy for satellite, terrestrial and Internet communication as well as the effects of competition on the public broadcaster. How this is going to be dealt with, however, is not clear. Will it mean that the government is going to protect the public broadcaster from competition? The SABC is currently involved in a dispute with the IBA over its interim decision to amend pay TV M-Net’s licence. The SABC is arguing that the IBA Act does not empower the regulatory body to amend M-Net licence conditions. Firstly, the SABC is arguing that the IBA does not have the jurisdiction to amend M-Net’s licence. The SABC further contends that the IBA as regulator cannot amend M-Net licence conditions because it can only do so to ensure "fair competition" between licensees. Since M-Net is the only private television broadcaster, the SABC is arguing that there can be no fair competition if its licence conditions are amended, especially in the light of the fact that a free-to-air television station will be licenced very soon. On the other hand it is believed by industry sources that M-Net is not all that happy to have its licence amended. The reason being that M-Net does not want the origins of its licence, mired in the corrupt apartheid political patronage of 13 years ago, to become part of the public debate. Section 52 of the IBA Act does not expressly prevent the IBA from amending M-Net licence conditions.
The Independent Producers Organisation(IPO) came out in support of the SABC’s objections to the IBA’s actions and further argued that M-Net should be forced to sell off its second channel, the Community Service Network(CSN), because the Act proclaims: "one station, one licence"(Mail&Guardian,08-14 August 1997, p10). It is not clear whether it is legally possible to force the M-Net to sell off its second channel.
The Minister acknowledged that the new process would lead to the amendment of the IBA Act because this Act was born out of political compromises at the multiparty negotiations before the elections and a new broadcasting policy would need a new Act. There would also be a look at a new legislation on broadcasting standards and the development and promotion of local content. Issues of language and local content programming have been on the spotlight for some time now but section 53(1) of the IBA Act make provision for broadcasters to broadcast local music and locally produced material.
The new policy process is important
in a number of ways. Firstly, it looks set to deal with all issues on broadcasting.
Secondly, central to this process is the important issue of consultation
which will ensure that all stakeholders have a say in the final policy.
And finally the issue of community media and the government’s support for
this sector is going to be dealt with. The policy is also going to look
at the issue of human resources and capacity building in the broadcasting
industry. If anything, the policy presents credible commitment for
completing the process started in the early 1990's to transform the broadcasting
industry in South Africa.