New ‘weather bill’ sets off a stormy debate

Weather is generally a ‘hot’ topic but the new ‘weather bill’ has created a storm of debate at a time when South Africans are particularly sensitive to any action which threatens or compromises freedom of information, speech or expression.

Essentially the ‘Weather Service Amendment Bill’ makes it an offense, punishable by a fine of up to R10 million or 10 years imprisonment for persons found guilty of breaching the provisions of clause 30A of the bill which reads, “no person may (a) issue a severe weather or air pollution-related warning without the necessary written permission from the Weather Service;  (b) supply false or misleading information about the Weather Service; or(c) unlawfully, intentionally or negligently commit any act or omission which detrimentally affects or is likely to detrimentally affect the Weather Service.”

The Democratic Party, in a statement issued by Gareth Morgan MP, DA Shadow Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs criticises the official South African Weather Service website as being not user friendly and claims that the Weather Bill will close down alternative sources of weather information used by many South Africans.

A statement issued by the FW de Klerk Foundation expresses the the view that the clause is irreconcilable with Section 16 of the Constitution which gives everyone the right to freedom of expression, which includes “freedom of the press and other media; freedom to receive and impart information and ideas; freedom of artistic creativity; and academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.” The only limitations placed on freedom of expression are “propaganda for war; Incitement to imminent violence; or advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm”. The Foundation pointed out that, quite clearly, communication regarding weather or pollution-related conditions does not fall under any of the areas of expression prohibited by the Constitution. The proposed clause would directly limit freedom of expression by preventing print, electronic and social media from expressing their legitimate views on severe weather and/or air-pollution conditions.

A statement issued by the Department of Environmental Affairs defends the bill, explaining that, “These provisions are sincere attempts to ensure that all South Africans are protected against false, misleading and/or hoax warnings that can result, and have resulted, in undue public panic, related stress and injury, evacuations and/or the mobilisation of emergency services and subsequent fruitless and wasteful xpenditure. Furthermore, since its establishment, the South African Weather Services has always been the only official provider of “...severe weather-related warnings for South Africa in order to ensure that there is a single authoritative voice in this regard”.

An article in The Times reports that representatives of television channels e.tv and e.sat claim that the terms of the bill are not clear, and questioned the precise meaning of phrases such as “severe weather warning”, while the Society of Master Mariners of SA said that the clause contradicted the International Convention for the Safety of Life a Sea to which it was a party.

Download the SA Weather Service Amendment Bill from the PMG website.

See the invitation to comment, published on the PMG website

Listen to audio recordings of of the public hearings held on 25 January. Part One and Part Two - also available on the PMG website.

See also, Weathering the South African Weather Service Amendment Bill Storm published in the Mail and Guardian on 30 January 2011

Leave a comment