After the Bell: Get the popcorn! Another GNU ruckus, this time about the SABC

One of the fabulous things about the Government of National Unity (GNU) is that you never quite know how things are going to turn out when there is a battle between its members because really, they are making up the rules as they go along. In some senses, the very name is a misnomer because there is so little actual “unity”. If one is of a very cynical mind – perish the thought – one might ask how much actual “government” there is in this process too.

The latest battle is with Communications and Digital Technologies Minister Solly Malatsi, over his decision to withdraw the contentious SABC Bill from Parliament. This was immediately met by a statement by the chair of Parliament’s communications and digital technologies committee, Khusela Diko, who expressed “grave concern” about the move. Malatsi is from the DA. Obvs. And Diko is from the ANC. Obvs.

So there are two crucial questions here. First, was Malatsi right to withdraw the Bill? And, second, to what extent is it the sole discretion of a minister to present or withdraw legislation?

Importantly, it must be said this Bill has been in the legislative digestion process for 16 years. I am not making that up. Sixteen years is the time it takes for someone to start and finish school (hopefully). Sixteen years is longer than the lifetime of the average cat. Sixteen years is the time it takes for an oak tree to mature. See what I mean by “government” being more a conceptual activity rather than actual activity? 

So obviously, in this context, it took a certain amount of gonadular courage to pull the legislation. Malatsi argues that the legislation does not adequately address the most important element regarding the SABC’s sustainability – a credible funding model. 

There is also a very odd quirk in the legislation because it gives the minister the power to appoint the board. Organisations such as the SA National Editors’ Forum claim that allowing a politician from one political party unfettered discretion to appoint the board diminishes the independence of the body. 

Consequently, this is an odd case of opening the stable door long after that horse has left the paddock. Even before this measure was introduced, the SABC’s political bias was legendary. Imagine how much worse it would be if a bunch of party functionaries were appointed to the board. There were other editorial independence questions, too, about the new legislation. 

But the overall consequence is that Malatsi is pulling legislation that would have increased his powers, which to my mind is a pretty remarkable thing to do. Overall, it does strengthen his case. And you have to say, given that the SABC itself is not crazy about the legislation, Malatsi’s decision does have some heft.

So what about Diko’s response? Diko argues that given the difficulties ahead for the SABC, it’s crucial to keep the show on the road. “The challenges facing the SABC require a considered and urgent response, not trigger-happy action, which serves no purpose but to frustrate and disrupt processes already under way. To withdraw the Bill at this stage means to delay the implementation of crucial reforms necessary to save yet another crucial and strategic public institution,” she said. 

The decision will “sound the death knell” for the SABC, she said, obviously trying hard not to sound overly dramatic.

How true is that? At a loose glance, I would say, not even vaguely close. The SABC’s problem, as many have pointed out before (not least the SABC itself), is that the government is placing requirements on the organisation but failing to provide funding to cover the costs. This is what is called an “unfunded mandate”.

So, now there will be to-ing and fro-ing about what is a mandate and what is not. The SABC calculates that it has a public mandate that costs the organisation about R1.7-billion and of that, R800-million is not funded. 

But Diko is not entirely wrong, IMHO. 

The legislation would allow the SABC to increase its income through a “pay for content” model. All the public commentary organisations are worked up about this idea because the SABC is supposed to be a “public broadcaster” and not one of those horrible, crass commercial things that everybody actually likes.

Once again, that horse bolted long ago. The SABC has a revenue of just under R5-billion and it is making an operating loss of around R200-million. This is much better than the loss of R800-million it recorded last year. But the point is: of that R5-billion in income, R3.7-billion comes from advertising. This is a thoroughly commercial organisation already and not recognising that fact doesn’t help the organisation, it hurts it.

Of course, it has a legitimate public mandate, but given that its licence fees have disintegrated over the years and its government grant is pretty small – around R700-million – it’s subsidising at least some of its public mandate work from its commercial operations. 

What the numbers also illustrate, though, is that Diko’s claim that the organisation is on its last legs financially is wrong. The SABC has tried to pull back its costs, but to my mind, there is plenty of room to do more. The only comparison we have here is the other free-to-air TV station, eTV, which seems to regularly make some R300-million in profit year after year off a turnover of about R3-billion – and this with a staff complement representing a fraction of the 2,300 people who work for the SABC. 

I think Malatsi could solve this problem easily if he made a few sensible changes to the legislation and resubmitted it for public scrutiny in a week or so. 

What about the larger question of whether a minister has sole discretion to present, or withdraw, legislation? As I understand it, constitutionally, this is a bit of a grey area. All legislation should go before Cabinet; I remember a politician telling me once that if you value your position, it would be a big mistake to not do so.

But, as we have seen over time, SA’s ministries are a bit like fiefdoms. Ministers tend to rule the roost and you can tell that is so because an entire sector can just wither if the minister in charge is useless. Hello, SA’s mining ministers.

Anyway, it will be instructive to see how this spat works out. DM