Public broadcasting engagement; with Deputy Minister

Meeting report

Ms Pinky Kekana, Deputy Minister of Communications, apologised in advance as she would be excusing herself from the meeting for a Cabinet meeting to be chaired by the President, but would try to return if time permitted.

The Chairperson agreed that she should leave when needed and not ignore Cabinet

Ms P Van Damme (DA) asked why the Minister was not in attendance.

Ms Kekana replied that she would check with Acting Director General (ADG) to confirm if the Minister had sent her apologies to the Committee.

The Chairperson noted that the Minister’s apology would be dealt with at a later time, but more importantly, he pointed out to Ms van Damme that the meeting would not be taking the approach of a regular Committee meeting where government entities appear before the Committee to account. The meeting would be focusing on information sharing, gaining an understanding of the happenings in the broadcasting sector and discussing the way forward on issues that arise. The Committee was glad that all those present could join in the roundtable discussion.

He mentioned that he would not confirm the absence of the Minister from the ADG. If a written apology existed, it should have been sent to the secretariat. He urged members not to convert the round table discussion to a formal committee meeting where some of accountability was required.

The Committee Secretary requested that each participant turn on their camera when speaking, as the meeting was being livestreamed on all Parliament social media platforms. He communicated the Minister’s apology which was received the previous night at 17h00.

The Chairperson acknowledged the Minister’s apology, after which he handed over to Ms Mashele to facilitate the discussion.

Ms Mashele Mashele, Film and Publication Board (FPB) Acting CEO, said she had been asked to facilitate this very important discussion, one she had been following, on how to reposition the SABC. This was a conversation that all stakeholders and institutions in the ICT sector should be having, particularly as the digital shift had now become a reality, focusing on repositioning and repurposing institutions, to ensure they adapt to the digital era. The focus was on the SABC as the public broadcaster adapting to this digital shift, as it had a critical developmental mandate.

Ms Mashele outlined the programme and noted that although the meeting was open to the public, only Members of Parliament would be allowed to engage with the submissions.

Media Development and Diversity Agency (MDDA) submission
Ms Zukiswa Potye, MDDA CEO, spoke to the MDDA constitutional mandate, as well as public broadcasting challenges and access to information for South Africans. As part of the MDDA mandate reference was made to encouraging historically diminished indigenous languages and supporting the 11 official languages. MDDA had to ensure the existence of a conducive environment for community media development and plurality of the voices.

MDDA’s funding model included a government grant but the biggest source of funding was from commercial broadcasters through the universal service access levy which MDDA received on an annual basis. A list of MDDA's current funders and amounts received was highlighted (see document) with the highest funding coming from Multichoice and SABC.

The regulations provided for how the budget was split with 60% of the budget allocated to broadcasters but the current percentage was 53% due to some deficit in the budget. The challenging areas were print and digital. The regulations stated print and digital should be getting 25%. However, the budget allocation was currently 6% due to the deficit in funding from the major print houses. Major print houses stopped funding the MDDA in 2014/15, and this led to the sector receiving only about R2.5 million from the fiscus. The institutions, organisations and groups supported by the MDDA were outlined (see document).

The reasons for MDDA’s support of community media were outlined. Its funding scheme comprised of direct grants to assist with salaries and stipends or funding through equipment and infrastructure. This way, MDDA supported government in creating jobs. It was for this reason that emphasis was placed on funding, especially for the volunteers. Volunteerism was a key characteristic of community media and this resulted in having numerous voices influencing the content and programmes. MDDA by law was not to influence the programmes broadcast in community media stations. MDDA also gave support through training and capacity building, as well as through the provision of emergency funding.

During lockdown, MDDA continues to support community broadcasters, through content production, training and capacity building, administration and capital expenditure and it provided details on these items. It currently supports an average of 157 of the 244 community radio stations present in South Africa.

The media landscape before 1994 was highly monopolised. The establishment of the MDDA was aimed at catering for community media in a structured manner, thereby ensuring plurality of voices, and the inclusion of highly marginalised people during apartheid in the management, control and operations of community media. The MDDA Act was promulgated in 2002 and operations started in 2003. The first MDDA project was funded in 2004; and as of 2020, there were 244 licenced radio stations, with eight million listeners; five community televisions stations and over 200 publishers. However, MDDA was the third-tier of the communication system in terms of community radio.

Community radio stations had spread across all provinces. However, some had lost their licences. The current number of licenced community radio stations per province was outlined. In total, 157 licenced radio stations were funded, out of which 12 licences were lost, leaving 145 funded.

As for the community television footprint, MDDA funded five stations, with one lost licence. MDDA was focusing on getting each province its own community television station. The Minister shared the same aspiration. The list of television stations available per province was noted.

Strategies for signal distribution support for community media were being developed to ensure cost effective ways to transmit, other than relying only on Sentech. Discussions had taken place with the Minister and Sentech on how to assist with community station debt reduction. The way the current model worked was MDDA issued a call for applications for signal distribution costs on an annual basis. Set criteria had to be met in taking ownership of debt. MDDA paid connection fees to prevent wastage of resources invested through expensive broadcast equipment and other operational costs, as these would go to waste if stations could not transmit. The plan to absorb setup costs had been communicated to Sentech.

It was common knowledge that the pandemic and lockdown would greatly affect community media. Therefore, the MDDA immediately established a Covid19 emergency relief fund for the sector in March the board approved R20 million disbursed in two phases. The first phase was to 115 radio stations and 116 publishers in small packages of R45 000 and each of the 231 projects were given R5 000 for PPE. The second phase launched on 25 May 2020 disbursed R50 000 to broadcasters and R20 000 to print. The funds were directed mainly at operations, including salaries, stipends, PPE. The third phase of R10 million to be approved by Board would be R80 000 per project for content production for broadcasters. This emergency relief was open to all 244 community media, not just MDDA beneficiaries. However, criteria had to be met. One of the criteria was to have a special licence to broadcast. A map was shown of first phase relief fund disbursement.

In terms of support to government messages, key messages received from government through adverts and posters were cascaded to the sector and in terms of engaging the community media, the Minister himself was heard in many radio stations, especially at the beginning of the lockdown. Sometimes, he would speak in eight community radio stations per day. This he did for weeks and months cascading government messages directly to the communities. MDDA had appealed for donations from organisations to support the sector in 2021/22 due to the impact of Covid19.

The general challenges persistent in community media were highlighted: high operating costs; requisite skills; poor content; unreliable audience research; poor governance and compliance; unregulated and poor coordination of government advertising; technological changes and innovation; regulation and policy. It was important for MPs to be aware of the challenges facing the sector.

Sustainability was in the spotlight, and these challenges continued to persist despite efforts of the MDDA to support the sector. It was for this reason that MDDA held a consultative conference on 13 and 14 August 2020 to address sustainability that would inform terms of reference for research on sustainability, so that a sustainability model could be developed for community media. The Minister and Deputy Minister in the Presidency were part of the conference. The plan was to consult widely on the terms of reference to ensure that no one was left behind. The MDDA would turning 2020 in 2023 and ensure some level of sustainability in the sector.

MDDA hoped that the sustainability model would be categorised into three different groups: those in a critical state, those that were partially sustained; and those that were sustainable to a large extent. For those in the critical state, there would be an embargo for them through resources and support. Nevertheless, the support for each group would tailor-made to the needs of the group.

As for lobbying and partnership moves for more funding, MDDA’s biggest funder (Multichoice) opened the door for collaboration through negotiation. A R40 million per annum contract was signed but due to the pandemic, Multichoice offered an additional R6 million and asked MDDA not to hesitate to ask for more funds should the need arise.

Ms Martina Della Togna, MDDA board member, added that the MDDA recognised that community and public broadcasting needed to have a very symbiotic relationship. The MDDA was just a funding and research agency but the impact of the role it played was much broader in the community media sector. Conversations had begun with broadcasters, in particular, the SABC, because of its mandate on content sharing, on how to add value; and how to unlock the economy of content production at a local level.

The challenges faced by SABC included building production capacity and strengthening local content as the public broadcaster with a national mandate and a regional spread through radio stations, community media radio stations, and digital media.

While the Committee was receiving these submissions, it was important to consider the economy and the ecosystem of broadcasting as a whole and look at how the SABC and the community media sector were intrinsically connected. This was something that MDDA’s current research process was going to amplify towards sustainability, shared content and the strengthening of platforms, as these constituted some of the challenges local broadcasters faced. The role of the public broadcaster and the role of community media in creating relevant local content in addressing the mandate towards public information was crucial.

Ms Mashele appreciated the detailed submission on the community media sector and its future. The three sectors compartmentalised by policy, regulations and structure were public broadcasting, private broadcasting and community media sectors. These three sectors had unique characteristics when they were envisioned. However, the move into the digital landscape saw those boundaries being increasingly blurred. The new buzz was about collaboration and working together to remove those boundaries. She referred to the MDDA partnership with Multichoice, stating there was a need to engage on how to encourage improved collaboration between these previously compartmentalised sectors. She thanked Ms Della Togna emphasising the importance of collaboration to ensure sustainability of the public broadcasting sector.

South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) submission
The team included SABC Chairperson, Mr Bongumusa Makhatini, Mr Madoda Mxawe, Group CEO; Ms Yolande van Biljon, CFO; Mr Ian Plaatijes, COO; and Mr Philly Moilwa, General Manager: Policy Regulatory Affairs, who presented.

SABC’s role in an ever-changing digital platform environment required a constant review of its mandate to ensure that it was protected, and the integrity and viability of the public broadcaster was taken care of. SABC was more concerned about creating and enabling a relevant policy and regulatory framework that ensured fair competition amongst players but ensured the sustainability of the public broadcaster. Engagements with the Portfolio Committee had commenced, and there was a need for continual engagement with the wider range and scope of key stakeholders on this critical exercise. This journey would require collective consideration and cooperation, because alone, SABC would not be able to do justice to ensuring the sustainability of public broadcasting.
The importance of public funding should be recognised to ensure long term existence, resilience and viability of the public broadcaster to enable the SABC to deliver on its comprehensive mandate, which was very important and had served millions of South Africans who rely on it for education, information and entertainment. The SABC welcomed this opportunity and invited all key stakeholders to work with it to ensure a recreation and repositioning of an SABC that could outlive everyone and would be able to survive for another 84 years.

In giving context to the broadcasting environment, the Broadcasting Act was almost 21 years. The Act intended to give the SABC a clear mandate but it was important to note that the current environment was a very fast-changing digital multiplatform environment. It was necessary to consider these changes and review the legislation and policies. The SABC was once the only main biggest broadcaster with limited or no alternative media platform and it was the go-to for media in terms of advertisers, and this informed the legislation at the time when such a huge mandate was imposed. However, the contradiction of this space in 1999 versus today could now be seen and a comparison drawn.

The current reality of the SABC was that it was highly regulated. The policies and regulations were highly archaic and needed serious review. The Electronic Communications Act (ECA) of 2005 facilitated the development of interoperable and interconnected electronic networks to create a technologically neutral licensing framework. Only the SABC is further subjected to the Broadcast Digital Migration Policy of 2008 which contradicts the ECA and restricts the SABC to only 84% digital terrestrial television (DTT) usage. The ICASA regulations similarly restrict the SABC to 95% of DTT usage. This uneconomical use of the much needed DTT infrastructure, but in areas where it is not feasible, is grossly anti-competitive. Competitors can reach a larger audience at lower distribution costs, greatly reduced barriers for entry and global and local OTT players are entering a less regulated environment. This was critical because in a fast-changing digital environment, no one wants to be platform-robbed.

An example could be seen in the telecommunications sector. There was a stage where the telecoms network operators would lock in a subscriber to a particular network on the device. But after some time, the regulator eased the restrictions and now anyone can buy any phone and insert a sim card from a desired network service provider without restriction. This same logic about technological and platform neutrality should be applied here – SABC was not supposed to be locked down to DTT or to any other platform in the delivery of its mandate. People should be able to connect anywhere, anytime, and access content across all platforms.

As of 2016, SABC had only a 46% share of public broadcasting in comparison to the 100% share it had after its establishment in 1976. The 2016 statistics reflected the current situation, and the numbers continue to fall. This showed how fast the environment had changed since the introduction of MNet, DSTV, eTV, Soweto TV and other stations; and internet service providers such as Netflix, ShowMax and others. The environment was changing on a daily basis and SABC was becoming more vulnerable. Yet, SABC was still measured as though it was still the biggest broadcaster with the largest market share.

The tension between its public service mandate and commercial mandate was raised. While the SABC could deliver on its mandate, the biggest challenge it faced was to generate revenue, and the hindrances around its audience numbers which could not be converted to commercial revenue. Due to the imbalance in funding the SABC, there was a need to ensure that whatever audience numbers it had could actually be converted to revenue. The big question would then become if audience was a sustainable way to measure SABC – with the misconstrued notion that SABC had bigger numbers, and so had a bigger revenue share. For example, SABC’s market share on radio did not necessarily translate into revenue share.

In terms of Section 10 of the Broadcasting Act, SABC was mandated to broadcast in all official languages. SABC had only three television channels which have to compete for revenue share and commercial deals. Besides, there was insufficient airtime to provide for 11 official languages on only three analogue TV channels. This buttressed the need for more platforms. SABC needed to be given leverage in using any other platform to ensure widespread accessibility. There was news and public affairs programming. Although, SABC had received commendation on its news channel, the question remained if the channel was accessible to all South Africans; why was this channel stuck on satellite; and what was happening with other platforms such as DTT? It was therefore, necessary to anticipate a changing environment and legislative change. It was expected that South Africans would fight against a channel that could not be accessed by all. However, the SABC was currently confined to only an analogue environment with DTT not giving the efficiency and rollout expected of it. A good example could be seen in the mandate on education programming. While the SABC acknowledged this was good mandate, the channel was not accessible to everyone it was anticipated to reach. The bigger question was how an enabling environment could be created for SABC to deliver on its mandate.

The next big mandate was the commissioning of the independent production sector. Since inception, the SABC had always been seen as a driver of local content, and as the liberator of the independent production sector to be able to go mainstream. Even today, it was still expected to be the driver. However, it would be impossible for this mandate to be realised considering the restrictions in the policy and regulatory space and on resources.

On its mandate for national sports programming, as well as delivery on developmental and minority sports, there were critical challenges as national sporting events were not all accessible to South Africans. The country was in a situation where these national sports were commercialised, and to access them, there were robust and competitive negotiations to access these. This was where the legislature could come in with legislation to enable SABC or other free-to-air stations to gain access to national sporting events so that South Africans would able to access this. A classic case was the World Cup Rugby Final. If the SABC had not gone out of its way to try to negotiate, South Africa would have missed an opportunity of a lifetime in terms of rugby history in this country.

Section 11 of the Broadcasting Act spoke to the SABC commercial mandate and it provided that the regulatory structures for SABC commercial broadcasting had to be dealt with equally like others. However, the difficulty SABC was experiencing was the inability to get a fair deal. For example, if the SABC wanted to acquire a commercial channel on DTT, it would have to go through a different process from other commercial broadcasters that applied for authorisation over the counter and got their channel. The SABC had to go through a public process, and by the time the channel was licenced, other independent stations would have perfected and launched the idea in the market. SABC demanded regulatory fairness in how its commercial wing was dealt with in terms of regulation as provided for in the legislation.

A critical point was the subsidy for public broadcasting. The challenge around its unfunded mandate was at the heart of the tension between public and commercial services, in the sense that while SABC was supposed to be a publicly funded public service broadcaster, it continued to find itself having to rely on 77% of its revenue from advertising, 15% from television licences, 5% from other activities, and only 3% from government. If this was compared with any other public broadcaster worldwide, it would prove that SABC was in fact operating effectively as a commercial broadcaster, while being expected to give a public service mandate. This was a contradiction because SABC was not supposed to be delivering to make money but was supposed to be delivering to the South African public to make an impact in terms of transformation and change. Revenue should be an enabler and, therefore, this should be augmented by subsidisation from the public purse. The SABC had to compete with other broadcasters for revenue and audiences, while at the same time deliver on its public service mandate.

Is the integrity and viability of SABC protected as provided for by the legislation? The provision in the ECA on the need for the SABC to be protected should be reflected upon, as it was sometimes misinterpreted deliberately by competitors, and those who do not want the SABC to be viable as it was supposed to be. The intention of this provision was to ensure that while SABC delivered on its extensive mandate that required extensive resources, the policies had to ensure at all times that the SABC was protected. Protection in this sense would mean that every regulation introduced would be measured against its impact on the SABC. The regulator would be expected to conduct an impact analysis to ensure that whatever player, regulation or policy was introduced would not negatively affect the SABC. This was to prevent what was now the norm of leaving the SABC unprotected in the ever-changing market and multichannel digital environment.

On challenges from a policy and regulatory point of view, the first was the division between public broadcasting service (PBS) and public commercial service (PCS), which was very archaic, irrelevant, and did not speak to the current market and position of the SABC. At the time this division was introduced 21 years ago, it was just a mechanism to monitor the commercial activities of the SABC. But this did not help in a competitive environment. From the audience’s point of view, no one watches television with the motive to see PBS or commercial channels. Audiences were only concerned about good content. Hence, the division was not helpful for SABC, especially because from inception, SABC was conceived as a unitary organisation, not as PBS and PCS; it was just one public broadcaster, and the same norm applied worldwide.

The other critical point in delivery of the SABC mandate was the lack of adequate platforms/channels to deliver content. With the presence of digital and direct-to-home (DTH) platforms, what is the motive for the restriction of the SABC to a particular environment, if the ECA’s intention was to introduce platform neutrality and to ensure interoperability of devices. This was very important because it may result in a situation where almost every platform had its own set-top box, which would be unreasonable. It was therefore necessary to consider the principle of interoperability of devices, which should be fixed through policy and legislation. The legislation should be in the public interest and the question to be answered was would it be in the public interest to have a setup box before subscribing to any content.

As SABC battled insufficient public funding, the SABC was looking to a future-proofed ICT / audio-visual policy, to assist in moving away from traditional broadcasting. This would help the SABC to reap the benefits of a digital environment.

The lack of competitive regulatory framework meant many unregulated players were coming into the market; players like the OTT as well as many other satellite players. Some did not even need a licence – they create their channel, go to a satellite player to put it there and compete with the SABC. The more than 200 channels found in some of the satellite players were in direct competition with the SABC but they were unlicenced.

The SABC requested exempted from compliance to section 52 of the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) on submission of corporate plans and quarterly reports to Parliament as this disclosure was a business risk in a highly competitive market. It is imperative that commercially sensitive information is excluded. The SABC meets monthly with Department and Treasury to share and discuss these details.

SABC acknowledged the relevance of its mandate but the mandate was overly stated. Some of the items could be grouped as high priority mandate and others as general mandate. Items categorised as high priority could include languages, universal access, local content, delivery on content for women, children and people with disabilities, youth, sports, education, news, and national events. After categorising the mandate into high priority and general, a commitment should be made to fund prioritised mandates, or immediately change the current inhibiting polices and regulations. International norm is that public broadcasters are publicly funded to strike a balance between public mandate and commercial imperatives and there is constant review of mandate and deliverables. If the SABC is expected to operate differently, then it must be supported by enabling polices and regulations. The summary of it was that SABC needed some form of flexibility and agility in its delivery on commercial activities, especially due to competition with other broadcasters.

On procurement, SABC pointed out that it was being asked to compete with everyone, but still battle with procurement requirements and regulations and the need to account for every move. The PFMA and Treasury regulations reflect the red tape SABC always had to through in making any simple deal. This reflected the irony of expecting SABC to be a commercial broadcaster, while going through a restrictive public service regulatory space environment. The new infrastructure and technological developments would benefit SABC and should be procured as a matter of urgency. However, these procurement obstacles would make it impossible for SABC to procure and implement before its competitors. If the SABC is expected to self-fund its operations via commercial activities, then it should be subjected to the same governance and oversight as a JSE listed entity like the SABC’s competitors.

Ms Mashele appreciated the insightful submission. Some of the concerns raised were not new; they were issues that had always been debated upon. However, the discussions to be had in year 2020 were completely different from those had pre-1994. She agreed that these discussions, particularly on the regulatory landscape and its impact on the competitiveness of the SABC, should be dealt with in detail during the engagement with the MPs.

Independent Producers Organisation (IPO) submission
Mr Rehad Desai, IPO chairperson, said IPO’s key aim was the plurality and diversity of voice which was a pillar of the SABC’s public broadcast mandate. This was part of the reason much of the work was outsourced in an attempt to turn the state broadcaster into a true public broadcaster.
IPO believed the SABC’s turnaround strategy was credible, comprehensive, and most importantly, it was finally being executed.

The independent producers created the majority of SABC’s programming. This was not done through some commercial imperative but was aimed at boosting the plurality and diversity of voice which was at the very core of seeing the public broadcaster as a cornerstone for South Africa’s developing democracy. The content aspect of the strategy was to ensure that more local content was put out there. This had been a struggle because of financial constraints.

IPO was in support of the SABC’s plan to increase its spend on content to inspire, inform and entertain audiences. Achieving those three objectives would be no easy task. However, doing all three across different genres will drive advertising revenue; SABC would be able to hold its audience share and in turn, would continue to meet its mandate goals.

IPO welcomed the plan to boost content, benchmark production costs to market rates and reward artists for their efforts more fairly. The cost per minute that went to the independent production sector had failed to keep up with inflation over the last ten years. Cost cutting was happening at the expense of artists, directors, producers, writers, actors and so on. To address this, IPO was of the opinion that the SABC had to address the elephant in the room, which was the out-of-control wage bill. eTV spent 11% of total expenses on its wage bill; M-Net spent 12% which now had a massive market share on their total expenses, and 37% was spent by the SABC on their wage bills. The SABC today was only spending 22% on content. There was certainly a need for clear interrogation of the wage bill.

An overview of permanent employee compensation as percentage of operating costs (OPEX) was provided. A ridiculous amount was being spent on OPEX, and an urgent solution was required to address this to empower the SABC. IPO believed that the approach of the Portfolio Committee was ‘eyes-off, hands-off’ on this issue. The wage bill was unsustainable given the competition’s cost structures. Unfortunately, the SABC was forced to compete with other commercial free to air entities. The turnaround plan made every effort to find other ways to raise revenue and cut costs, but with the pressures of planned losses of R1.5 billion this year, as well as the collapse of advertising due to COVID-19 cutbacks on spend, it was very clear that SABC had run out of options. Opponents of the Section 189 process believed that retrenchments should be a last resort. However, it was clear that retrenchments were no longer avoidable.

Saving jobs by stopping the Section 189 process would only save jobs at the SABC. This would not cover the multiple job losses in the private sector due to the multiple crises at the SABC over the last ten years. The creative sector suffered the most from these crises, as there had already been a bloodbath of jobs lost for those that produce the content and keep the SABC alive. In its heyday SABC was working with 200 independent production companies and the number is now down to 60, many of whom had only been able to keep their contracts in place by taking 100, 200, 300 episodes using economies of scale. This led to a concentration of work amongst fewer, bigger companies, and had resulted in massive undermining of the huge gains made by the SABC in working with more black creatives and companies.

There was a need to trim the middle management of the SABC. IPO believed that it was critical that content be prioritised to boost revenue, audiences and meet the mandate. If concerned for jobs, we must push for investment in content, which not only served the nation but helped the SABC become financially viable. Achieving a balance of education, inspiration and information would not be an easy feat. Producing the content balance in education, inspiration and information in an entertaining way would require experienced and qualified people that would ensure that content met key criteria. In the absence of this, the nation would continue to face a very dangerous downward spiral of the public broadcaster.

Mr Nimrod Geva, IPO Co-Chairperson, said what was observed over the last few years was the gross underinvestment in new content, which had led to smaller audiences, as people had begun choosing competitors and alternatives. Smaller audiences in turn have led to lower advertising revenue. This then forces the SABC to cut content budgets costs further and the vicious circle continues. IPO wants to break this circle with SABC embarking on a proper turnaround strategy.

Aside from revenue, cutting content budgets would reduce SABC’s ability to meet its important national and public mandated goals. It was now obvious why a developmental state and functional public broadcaster was vital for South Africa’s wellbeing, especially during the COVID crisis. There was less public services content on health, on debates and documentaries. Education content was particularly important now during school closures and the need for catch up on missed lessons. It was heart breaking that SABC was not in a position to do more on this. Less fresh content meant fewer people would be glued to their screens and more people would be going out and not social distancing. Good content was therefore, a public health benefit at this time.

The content budget cuts has had a major impact on artists. A graph was shown on how artists were being exploited. It showed that over the last 13 years, SABC staff had a 31.4% real increase while the price paid to the independent production sector per minute of televised content was 55% less. Lower production quality meant not only the artists suffering but the SABC and its audiences were losing out.

Mr Desai said the SABC must be given the independence allowed to it by legislation to complete the execution of the turnaround strategy to achieve sustainability of the SABC and the wider industry. The independence of the SABC in operational and other matters must be safeguarded. Parliament was therefore urged to support the SABC in achieving its turnaround plans. Calls for the dissolution of the board were highly irresponsible and added undue political pressure on the board. The public needed a stable board after years of chaos. It cannot be used as a political football. It was clear these people were motivated by a desire to stop the board complying with important Treasury conditions on the wage bill and the urgent need to stabilise the broadcaster financially, which would save jobs for all in the medium term. We cannot have a weak SABC when we have a very strong corporate sector. The questions is whether some people were interested in keeping the SABC weak and, if so, for what purpose.

Finally, it was well-known that the pandemic had ripped society apart, and was now creating big internal problems for the ruling party. Three million people had reportedly lost their jobs; many are still in recovery. There was a clear need for programming and debate on how to deal with this pandemic on a society level. If the words of the President were to be believed that communities and people themselves were the biggest resource we had in combating this pandemic, then there was a need to ensure the SABC was fit for purpose. According to the SABC, the anticipated adverse impact of the pandemic on revenue was estimated at R1.5 billion for this financial year. The IPO urged all interested parties to allow the broadcaster to survive this period, and to prevent further cuts to content budgets and consequent job losses in the content creation value chain.

Ms Mashele appreciated the submission and noted that indeed there could be no SABC without independent producers of local content. Local content was a key competitive driver, especially in the current market. Considering the private and commercial broadcasting sector, as well as OTT services, all content distributors were now looking at accumulating more local content to meet the demands of consumers.

SOS Support Public Broadcasting Coalition (SOS Coalition) submission
Ms Duduetsang Makuse, National Coordinator: SOS Coalition, introduced the organisation as a civil society organisation established in 2008 specifically to save the SABC from imminent collapse at the time. It was sad to see that even though a lot had been done since then, the Coalition was still trying to support the public broadcaster. The Coalition focused on strengthening the goals of the Constitution; campaigns for an SABC with institutional autonomy that was independent of commercial, government and political party interests; campaigns for SABC programming to be under-pinned by the principles of credibility, reliability, variety and balance across the spectrum; campaigns for a full range of South African voices and perspectives reflected by the public broadcaster; as well as campaigns for the SABC to lead the broadcasting sector on African language and local content.

The submission was aimed at sharing the principles SOS developed in trying to answer the question of moving the SABC into the future in a sustainable way. The first principle focused on a digital public service media ecosystem. The main point was to recognise that there had been a fundamental shift from traditional public service broadcasting (PSB), and even the concept of broadcasting itself had changed. We were in an integrated multi-platform media space and even though this might not be the daily reality for many South Africans, it was still important to highlight the fact that broadcasting could no longer be spoken of or perceived in just the traditional analogue term. SOS projected that being in a digital public media ecosystem, would require a continuation of the three tiers of broadcasting services, which were public, commercial and community media. Collapsing the three tiers at this stage would not be beneficial for the public, as there were developmental goals to be achieved as a nation and even for regions.

SOS opined that SABC had to be in a position to make all of its content available for free in this digital space. This should be done regardless of the size of its purse; a new budget line item should be created to finance its entertainment and information needs; and audiences should be able to access SABC channels freely. SOS projected the need for an integrated single regulator for this kind of ecosystem. The regulator would be responsible for looking into the entire integrated, interconnected ICT space, and the audio-visual content space because it was a converged environment. There should be no selection on the basis of platform, service, content, or infrastructure, when it comes to regulation. Instead, there was a need to consider other progressive ways to manage regulation in a more coherent way. There was space for public service media (PSM) content in the digital space. The move from analogue broadcasting platform spaces should not be the precursor for the dissolution of PSM, especially because of the function of PSM and the need it served at this point. There would be a need for information, particularly for the purposes of nation building. It was necessary to create a caveat to safeguard the space for PSM content.

On the principle of “independent, converged regulator”, SOS envisioned a single converged independent body free of commercial and political interference. It projected the strengthening of the Chapter 9 institution. It listed the specific inclusions to be added to Chapter 9 (see document).

Content regulation was another area of concern, as South Africa was already struggling with this, especially online content regulation. This was a concern because it was not always clear which way to go and it sometimes seemed as if there was over regulating or under regulating. The current content regulation regime, where regulation and co-regulation are technology-specific are now unworkable in the era of convergence. We need to develop a new co-regulatory scheme for audio and audio-visual content services across all platforms including broadcasting, internet and broadband, OTT and streaming services nor limited by who created the content or how the content was created. The goal should be that content was regulated in a way that would enable the public and other content producers to benefit the most from the potential that the internet and internet technologies offer while at the same time safeguarding the vulnerable; and protect the rights to privacy, freedom of expression, rights of children, and ensure that marginalised communities were given a space.

Funding for public broadcasting was not something easy for any nation even in well-developed economies. Every once in a while, there was a debate about whether the public broadcasting service was well funded, how it was being funded, and what the sources of funding were. There was no foreseeable timeframe for such discussions to cease, mostly because of the nature of the kind of programming that public service broadcasters were supposed to deliver. Nonetheless, South Africa in the past two decades had seen systemic failures of management, corporate governance collapses that had really entrenched problems that could be addressed in a pointed fashion. One of the things that should happen as fast as possible was funding the public service mandate from the public purse. This was not a popular view purely because of the economic state of the country. However, this was something that should have been done in the first place from two decades ago, when the SABC became the public broadcaster. Ways should be found to enact this as the principle, to ensure proper funding of the mandate linked to the public service mandate, and not just commercial programming.

There were fundamental market structure changes that the sector was yet to keep up with, and the SOS believed it was high time some significant changes were made. The only question was in which way and in which areas were the changes required. It outlined some suggestions which focused on the need for:
- SABC to adopt a mixed funding model to include advertising, sponsorships, licence fees;
- Parliamentary appropriations to effect a budget increase in line with the ruling party’s resolutions on funding the PSM, with funds focusing on education, news, health and developmental content;
- Local content fund to be established and financed to strengthen the bridge on how local content and public service content was created, as well as encourage local content producers;
- SABC segmentation into public and public-commercial divisions to be changed through policy and legislation. This would ease tensions around one division doing better than the other.
Once these had been put in place, the SABC would still have the responsibility to spend the majority of its funding on programming rather than management, salaries and other overheads.

SOS proposed pro-competition and pro-public broadcasting principles. The proposed principles were aimed at finding ways to make the SABC more enabling, open and more inclusive, as well as ensure growth and opportunity for all players and not just the entrenched players. The first set of proposals were directed at DSTV (see document). Its proposal for OTT technologies or streaming services such as Facebook, Google, Netflix and Amazon Prime focused on finding appropriate taxation mechanisms to help these players contribute to the South African economy and local content production sector, and to look for ways in which a more inclusive space could be created. The only drawback to the speedy adoption of these platforms was the unavailability of broadband everywhere. Once broadband becomes available all over, there would be a rapid adoption of what is seemingly middle class technologies and platforms. At that point it would be too late to demand that these streaming services start contributing to South Africa’s local development goals, local economy, and local production sectors.

There was a lot of talk about how digital migration was going to deliver the digital dividend and that obviously had its own associated benefits, specifically to the public. However, SOS was of the opinion that with the delays over the last ten to 15 years to adapt to technological and market changes, DTT might no longer be an option. The tragedy in this was that a lot had been invested in this, yet there were set-top boxes sitting in post office warehouses. There was a need to review the entire process. The market would not deliver DTT to the people; the state alone would not be able to deliver DTT to people, yet globally, everyone was in a digital environment. It would be a disservice to the public for the broadcasting sector to continue to play into this slow DTT process that goes nowhere. SOS therefore proposed a reappraisal of this migration and it proposed ways of achieving the necessary objectives (see document).

SOS reiterated separation of powers, specifically in terms of the role of Parliament's Portfolio Committee on Communications in exercising legislative and oversight roles over the SABC and holding it accountable. It reminded MPs of the need to implement the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee report of 2016/17. Three key issues to be dealt with immediately would result in a significant shift for the SABC as well as the whole broadcasting sector:
- a review of the funding model;
- amendment of the legislation;
- protection of the SABC from undue encroachment.
Addressing these would not only strengthen the SABC but Parliament’s oversight role. This would prevent further parliamentary inaction and corporate governance failures at the SABC. There was a need to normalise the relationship between the SABC and the PPCC as a collaborative one for the sake of the public interest.

On the powers of the Minister, SOS referred the Committee to the judgment in the case SOS Coalition and others v SABC and Others where it was clearly stated that “the effect of section 13(11) of the Broadcasting Act is to confer on the Board the exclusive power to control the affairs of the SABC”. This role was not about micromanaging the SABC’s decisions, neither was it about controlling the SABC’s functions. It was about providing support to the SABC so that it could meet its public interest mandate. This should be the focus. There was a need for the Minister to focus on policy making, and on getting the entire sector into the digital age in a holistic manner that carried people along, rather than focusing on deciding what the SABC must do next. The law allowed for the SABC to be held accountable by Parliament. On labour matters, there are clear processes in terms of the Labour Relations Act. The labour courts are there to deal with any tensions that might arise between the SABC, its staff and its unions. Those relationships had to be normalised. The politicising of every process had to be stopped.

In rounding off, SOS noted that there was a need for each entity and individual to focus on their different roles and respective responsibilities to give South Africans the public broadcaster they deserved. This was necessary to create a media system that was inclusive, digital, and allowed for growth and opportunity not just for the public, but for any player that wants to enter the sector.

Ms Mashele highlighted broadband and asked about the way forward for the reduction of data costs and the improvement of the regulation in the sector. She wondered if SABC would be able to deal with the competition and dislodge the Big-4 in the competitive advantage they currently had in the African market.

Ms Mashele urged NAB to contribute to the items it felt the legislators needed to look at. She recalled that the ECA Bill was referred to as the convergence legislation, but she wondered what could have been done better in formulating that legislation to prevent the current concerns the sector was grappling with.

National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) submission
Ms Nadia Bulbulia, NAB Executive Director, responded to the question posed saying that the sector is certainly not short of research analysis, benchmarking and cost modelling. What was lacking was the inability to make firm decisions that would take the entire industry forward in an environment that was increasingly disruptive and in which the broadcasting industry was competing with totally unregulated platforms and services. She then gave an overview of NAB, its membership and mission.

The NAB represented the three tiers of broadcasters in South Africa, and these tiers should be considered on a macro level. Every single tier of licenced broadcaster was competing for revenue and audience. Every single tier was impacted by unregulated content platforms and this had come through in all the previous submissions.

Chapter 9 of the ECA spelt out very clearly the mandate and the requirements of the regulator to create an enabling environment for a robust and sustainable industry to thrive. These sections were highlighted. At the end of the day, this was about content. ICASA’s Local Content Regulations (LCR) 2016 had set the requirements for local content for public, community and commercial broadcaster. It was therefore necessary to remember that the debate was really about relevant content; content that resonated, content that was compelling, and more importantly, content that would enable and empower all South African citizens to engage in the democracy, to be able to access useful information, education and entertainment. Section 192 of the Constitution aptly provided for this: “national legislation must establish an independent authority to regulate broadcasting in the public interest, and to ensure fairness and diversity of views broadly representing South African society”. The ICASA Act followed. The institutions responsible for content regulation duties were the Film and Publication Board, ICASA and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa (BCCSA). NAB had participated in all content related policies and regulatory processes including the Department of Communications' Public Broadcasting Colloquium in September 2018.

In the three-tier system, the funding model was critical. The debate on funding model was one that had continued for more than 20 years, mainly because funding model was a mixed one comprising of advertising, grants, sponsorships, subscriptions, and licence fees for the broadcaster. The aim of the model centred on audiences and the production of content that would drive audiences and, in effect, deliver that to advertisers.

NAB conducted a study on contributions to content between 2015-2018 that showed R2.32 billion was made in contributions by television broadcasters. Radio broadcasting contributions were R700 million between 2015-2018. Local content investment had increased from R4 billion between 2012-2014 to R7.5 billion between 2016-2018. It was important to recognise that the funding base was aimed at driving investment into good quality product in a diverse range of content. It should be recognised that the industry had been at the forefront of driving content development and creation.

Key principles of public broadcasting were highlighted (see document).

Speaking to public broadcasting principles, Ms Tholoana Ncheke, NAB Regulatory and Policy Manager, NAB was operating within a greater global environment. When discussing the South African broadcasting industry or public broadcaster, it was important to bear in mind some of the international instruments and protocols, some of which South Africa had acceded to. These were particularly relevant in giving guidance when reviewing the legislation and policy framework of the SABC. A lot of emphasis was placed on the need to ensure production of good quality, diverse local programming that would impact on audiences. The content should be educative, informative and relatable. This would be attainable only if adequate investment was made available for the public broadcaster to develop this particular type of content, and if sufficient infrastructure was provided to assist with innovation, especially in the fast-changing landscape of today.

The Broadcasting Act spelt out the mandate of the public broadcaster. SABC had multiple sources of revenue, but this had to be reviewed to ensure that SABC treated its viewers more as citizens and less as consumers. When reviewing funding, the SABC should be able to develop diverse content, not totally controlled by sponsorships.

In supporting the PBS mandate, SABC played a critical role in ensuring media plurality and inclusiveness such the content produced catered for and reflected the life of South Africans. Internationally, the public broadcaster continues to be a trusted source of news in the digital age, and is the preferred platform for access to local content, even with the rise of the digital age and citizen journalism. Consumers were turning more and more to broadcasting services content, and the news on the platforms due to its credibility, which was guided by principles such as the code of conduct administered by BCCSA. It was therefore important to support the public broadcaster. Funding needed to be adequately reviewed to ensure a responsive SABC, especially the decline in advertising revenue.

NAB had engaged in many forums where the public broadcaster was the subject of consideration and this was in line with the greater policy and regulatory review of the audio-visual framework. During the 2018 review of the public broadcaster, it was noted that the public broadcaster played a critical role in the building of a democratic ethos and human rights culture as espoused in the Constitution. The role of the public broadcaster was to ensure that those rights were realised. This would only be possible once there was adequate funding to enable the public broadcaster be responsive and innovative in content creation, and remain relevant in the fast-changing broadcasting landscape.

OTT content was rapidly growing in South Africa. Content was now being specifically created for Netflix, no longer for what used to be known as traditional television, with a greater consumer choice. OTT content was reliant on robust broadband for streaming services, and it proved the need to fix quite a number of things in the country, including broadband, power supply, other basic universal services, such as access and stability of networks. The impact of OTTs on licenced broadcasters had been felt on all levels. This had changed the television landscape in particular. It was therefore important that content created was relevant and could sustain audience share. Traditional broadcasters were now facing huge competition on all fronts. This was adding pressure to revenue streams and impacting on the sector’s ability to continue to invest. The steady growth on demand services had been noticed, and it was necessary to keep watching that growth, as it would impact on the way policy interventions would be made.

Reference was made to the ICT Policy Review in March 2015 and the recommendations of the review panel were highlighted (see document).

On the way forward, the White Paper on Audio-Visual Content / Broadcasting Policy Review White Paper expected to be published in 2020 would address content regulation, institutional arrangements and overall licensing of audio and audio-visual services. Traditional TV still remained the primary audio-visual platform, but OTTs were growing rapidly. This impacted on how regulated services would able to compete with unregulated services. Regulatory parity was at the forefront of the industry.

The advertising landscape had shifted dramatically. NAB had consistently lamented the fact that advertising revenues were going to huge multinationals. It was necessary to begin looking at ways in which the domestic marketing and advertising fraternity would reinvest in local content in South Africa and on South African platforms. These multi-platforms created huge competition, giving individual options for screen time and price.

As for radio, NAB observed that the industry relied on audience measurement currency surveys, but with the emergence of COVID19, it had been impossible to conduct door-to-door research. The method through which new methodologies and tools would be employed should be considered. Although many radio stations have begun online platforms and hosting streaming services, it was important to consider this in the light of the emergence of a different ecosystem, as well consider what the disruption meant for traditional ecosystems. Sustainability was absolutely critical, as consolidation and deregulation had been observed in other markets.

In concluding, NAB pointed out that it would be impossible to keep up with the pace of technology in its entirety, as new innovations would keep rising. However, it had become necessary to make bold, firm decisions in the interest of keeping the public broadcasting industry going.

Discussion
Ms Mashele appreciated the submission and confirmed that the OTT market was indeed growing at a rapid pace. The FPB was currently engaging with 17 OTT players, out of which seven were licenced. This spoke to the convergence issues raised by all presenters.

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) appreciated the engagement with the Committees of both Houses of Parliament which had the constitutional mandate to carry out oversight of the Department and its entities. Having listened and studied the submissions, her questions were directed to the MDDA. Considering the rental costs for community radio and television stations, has MDDA tried to lobby the support of the municipalities for low rental premises? If yes, was there a willingness on the part of municipalities to work with MDDA? During its meeting with the Select Committee in February, MDDA mentioned that it would fill the positions of Company Secretary and Risk Analyst. Have the positions been filled, and if not, why not? She asked if MDDA was missing its governance structure with a full complement of board directors. If yes, what are the challenges?

Ms Ngwenya asked the SABC if National Treasury and the Department were in agreement on the need for SABC to be exempted from compliance with Section 52 of the PFMA. She referred to the SABC’s mention that current policies and regulations were not helping SABC to deliver. She asked if the SABC had ever engaged the Department about reviewing the policies that were not friendly and, if yes, what the attitude of the Department was about this.

Ms P Van Damme (DA) appreciated the roundtable discussion, particularly the opportunity to hear insights from various civil society organisations. In her opinion, the Committee could not singlehandedly have answers to all the issues affecting the sector, hence, the importance of engaging with these organisations. It would be absolutely necessary for the Committee to look through the proposals raised in the submissions and come up with a new plan particularly for the SABC, as it could not continue operating in its current state.

SABC had requested additional funding from the COVID relief fund; losses were being projected; and now there were considerations of staff retrenchments, which the President had opposed. The reality was that in order not to retrench staff, more money would be needed. The Committee needed to sit to consider all inputs from the various organisations, particularly from SOS.

In response to the IPO, she said it was a very unfair characterisation to say that Parliament has been eyes-off, hands-off from the SABC. Perhaps this could be said of past Committees, but Parliament was a much safer space than it was three or four years ago. The impression IPO had of the Committee was therefore incorrect.

She reiterated the need for the Committee to hold yet another meeting to properly engage with the submissions, and reflect on a solution going forward. Some of the issues to be addressed would include amendments to be made to the Broadcasting Act; making it explicit that the final authority for the SABC lay with the Board; reconsideration of a new funding model as a matter of urgency; and the issues surrounding retrenchment plans. She urged the organisations to continue lobbying the Committee, as the MPs stood as representatives of South Africa and they needed to hear from these organisations on issues observed and what should be done. She thanked all the organisations for their hard work.

Mr C MacKenzie (DA) appreciated all the submissions which he found very interesting and informative. As an overall perception, stakeholders were very seized with the current operating model in terms of funding, audiences, content, instead of focusing on the future, and this seemed to be missing from a lot of the submissions. The broadcasting sector keeps chasing "nothingness" in the contemporary paradigm while broadcasting was evolving and internet technologies were so fast that it might become impossible to catch up.

While the submissions were ongoing, he had downloaded a number of internet radio apps and carried out searches for radio stations. He was pleased to find some South African stations, including the SABC and Classic FM. This proved South Africa had a global audience that would benefit through internet technology. However, he did not find any MDDA-funded stations. He asked what steps are being taken by MDDA to promote digitalisation of those radio services.

He referred to the position of the SABC on meeting the obligation to broadcast all official languages, while noting that this was a very important role. Community media played a very important role when it came to meeting that need. However, he wanted to know what steps were being taken by the MDDA to provide training and enhance digitalisation in the community media and radio space. Similarly for press publications, what steps were being taken to empower people who were running community media to be able to produce publications going forward, especially in terms of input cost that would make entities a lot more sustainable?

Clarity was sought on the mention of "an unregulated and poor coordination of government advertising". He was pleased to hear MDDA talk about Multichoice and refer to it positively for the inputs it is making in the sector. He asked how effectively the SABC was enforcing and collecting licence fees, and if there was any form of modelling to determine the percentage of licence fees paid. In funding for the broadcasting sector from the public purse… (his connection was lost due to load shedding).

Mr L Molala (ANC) appreciated the submissions that had been educative. However, he sought clarity on the acquired support of the broadcasting industry as a whole, while seconding Ms Van Damme on the need to sit down as a Committee with the entire submission for proper engagement and reflections. Nevertheless, he mentioned that there were no easy solutions to all the issues raised. He suggested that all submissions be put into a context of mixed-economy modelling, as the sector was largely dealing with plans to commercialise the larger part; the larger part being the public interest mandate on the one hand, and how to deal with the mandate in terms of legislation and policies. He pointed out that collaboration must find expression in discussions which focus not only on challenges without a consideration of how best those challenges can be mitigated. He agreed about the fast pace of technology and pointed out that South Africans should not be left behind.

On the high cost of rentals, Ms Potye noted that this was part of the challenges MDDA had identified. Partnerships and agreements on lobbying municipalities were in the pipeline. MDDA should be meeting with SALGA. It is a terrain it wants to tread very carefully, mainly because there should still be independence of the broadcasters in these municipalities.

The way MDDA has been dealing with this challenge was to pay for rent as part of its operational costs. MDDA would stop paying for rent when another solution to the challenge of rent comes up. This was because once stations defaulted on rental payment, they get kicked out and the very expensive equipment MDDA had invested in would be confiscated.

MDDA has appointed a permanent company secretary from 1 August 2020. The position of the Risk Specialist was still vacant, however, there was an agreement earlier this year with the Audit and Risk Committee that that function should be moved to Finance. The role was therefore currently being handled by a Finance Manager. MDDA had procured a service provider to look after its whistleblowing mechanism which does not happen internally. Once an opportune time to advertise arises, the risk specialist would make it known.

On whether stations struggled to establish legally constituted boards, Ms Potye pointed out that this was an area relating to compliance with broadcast licensing. When stations approach MDDA for funding, it confirms if the board of the station had been constituted legally through an AGM which must sit on an annual basis. Once funding is approved, MDDA would request a report from the regulators.

On what MDDA meant by ‘unregulated and poor coordination of government advertising’, Ms Potye was specifically referring to the 30% set aside to ensure synergy and cohesion in that space. It was discovered that the GCIS was not empowered by legislation, yet all government departments actually made use of the GCIS in media buying, particularly from community media. Therefore there was a need for this "arm" to be working as it formed part of the sustainability needed for the community media sector. Some form of policing was needed to compel government departments in particular to make sure that this branch worked.

On digitalisation of community media, Ms Della Togna replied that plans were in motion, emerging from the recent research conference hosted by MDDA from which extensive consultation and engagement with many organisations and community projects were carried out virtually. The challenge raised was the difficulty of finding community radio stations and publishers in online spaces because of the absence of a shared space. One of the projects MDDA was exploring was the development of an app which would be considered by the board in the next meeting. Definitely there were solutions available and the MDDA would be putting money into those kinds of solutions because of the common interest.

She noted that four new board members had joined the MDDA team and it had issued a media release on its website to announce this. A written report would be given to the Committee on 5 September with more details on the community media sector in the COVID-19 space.

She said that it had been useful to hear from other entities on the current challenges. There was a need to apply more systems-thinking in the way sectors worked, and it was encouraging to see the role Parliament played in bringing organisations together because of the existence of a framework.

On whether SABC had engaged the Department on current policies and regulations, Mr Moilwa replied in the affirmative, stating that various engagements have occurred on the audio-visual policy; submissions had been made, and engagement with the industry had taken place. Submissions had been made to the Department in the past on broadcasting policy and the SABC had continued to engage on those issues. The attitude had been positive and directed at the need for a policy review for the purpose of creating an enabling environment.

The Chairperson thanked Ms Mashele for facilitating the meeting. He agreed with Ms Van Damme and Mr Molala on the need to converge for a proper and robust engagement on the submissions. In the meantime, a clear point from the submissions was the need for collaboration across the sector to be able to deal with the challenges.

He made the suggestion of creating a channel for education, health, sports and a Parliament channel that most South Africans were unable to access, and asked if stakeholders were looking into this in a way that the departments concerned would be able to come on board in funding such a mandate in airing department programmes.

He urged those present not to leave the meeting with the impression that the Committee may not be supporting turnaround strategies. Instead, it should be put on record that the Committee was seized with the turnaround strategy including the discussions unfolding now about turnaround strategy. The real struggle was on how best to implement the strategy to reposition the SABC.

The Committee would need an opportunity to discuss specific matters with the broadcaster and relevant stakeholders in a way that finds solutions. Amongst stakeholders, it was really the role of the department that presided over the entities that was contributing to the inability of the SABC to fulfil its mandate – as seen from the submissions. It was in the interest of the Committee to ensure a working SABC.

The approach of the Committee thus far was to minimise political party agendas that may hinder Members from the fulfilment of their role as public representatives of the interests of South Africans. He thanked the presenters and the MPs.

The meeting was adjourned.