WEDNESDAY, 15 MAY 2002 __

                PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
                                ____

The House met at 14:42.

The Chairperson of Committees took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayer or meditation.

ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS - see col 000.

QUESTIONS AND REPLIES - see that book.

                          NOTICES OF MOTION

Ms M C LOBE: Madam Speaker, I give notice that I shall move:

That the House -

(1) notes-

   (a)  the growing number of Israeli citizens who  demand  and  support
       the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state alongside  an
       Israeli state;


   (b)  the mass rally of over 50 000 Israeli citizens calling for peace
       held in Jerusalem over the past weekend; and


   (c)  with regret the reactionary stance  taken  by  the  Likud  Party
       which opposes the establishment of a Palestinian state;

(2) therefore calls on the leadership of the Likud Party to reconsider its position in the interest of peace and to desist from using this issue as a politically convenient tool in its own intraparty leadership contests;

(3) commends the peace forces in Israel, drawn from every sector of that society, who have courageously resisted the tide of bellicosity typified by Israel’s incumbent prime minister and the party which he leads; and

(4) reiterates its call for the resumption of peace talks and speedy progress towards the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state that can coexist in peace with the state of Israel within secure borders. [Applause.]

Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that I shall move on behalf of the DP:

That this House -

(1) notes with concern the mounting evidence of systematic collapse of health-related services in the Eastern Cape, including -

   (a)  the nonpayment of funds to hospitals and TB clinics;


   (b)  the failure of the primary school nutrition programme;
   (c)  the failure to fill vacant, funded health-worker posts;


   (d)  the delayed payment of suppliers for all essential services; and


   (e)  the nonutilisation of last year's Aids budget and the  irregular
       transfer of the funds to a Fort Hare University account;

(2) condemns this shocking mismanagement and heartless disregard for the health of the province; and

(3) calls for the resignation of the premier and the MEC for Health in the best interests of the people of the Eastern Cape. [Applause.]

Mr V B NDLOVU: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the IFP:

That the House - (1) learnt with utter shame of the incident in which a South African and a British citizen were connected to, and therefore arrested for, the trafficking of drugs to New Zealand;

(2) further abhors the use of our territory and its people by foreigners to traffic drugs, not only to South Africa but also to other states; and

(3) appeals to our communities to refuse being used in criminal acts by foreigners.

Mr L J MODISENYANE: Madam Speaker, I shall move on behalf of the ANC:

That the House -

(1) notes the calls of President Thabo Mbeki in Oslo yesterday for imbalances in international trade to be addressed in order for African farmers to become globally competitive;

(2) endorses the words of President Mbeki that there is a vital need to address issues of market access, agricultural subsidies and nontariff barriers as well as intra-African trade;

(3) calls on developed nations to share responsibility for the impoverishment of developing countries; and

(4) urges these nations to contribute to the development of the African continent through the removal of unfair subsidies and barriers to trade. [Applause.]

Dr S J GOUS: Mev die Speaker, hiermee gee ek kennis dat ek op die volgende sittingsdag sal voorstel:

Dat die Huis -

(1) die noodfondse wat aan agt teringhospitale in die Oos-Kaap beskikbaar gestel is, verwelkom, nadat dit aan die lig gekom het dat die provinsiale gesondheidsdepartement drie maande agterstallig is met subsidies aan die hospitale en ‘n uitstaande bedrag van R8 miljoen verskuldig is;

(2) verder kennis neem dat dit onaanvaarbaar is dat die Oos-Kaapse gesondheidsdepartement se swak dienslewering 1 600 teringpasiënte van voedsel en medikasie sou ontneem; en

(3) ‘n beroep doen op -

   (a)  die President om inhoud te gee aan sy openingsrede van 2002  oor
       swak dienslewering van staatsamptenare, deur die betrokkenes  te
       ontslaan; en


   (b)  die Oos-Kaapse provinsiale regering om hulle verbintenis tot die
       daarstelling van 'n infrastruktuur te verseker, wat  soortgelyke
       krisissituasies sal verhoed. (Translation of Afrikaans notice of motion follows.)

[Dr S J GOUS: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:

That the House -

(1) welcomes the emergency funding made available to 8 tuberculosis hospitals in the Eastern Cape after it came to light that the provincial health department is 3 months behind in subsidies to the hospitals and an outstanding amount of R8 million is owed;

(2) further notes that it is unacceptable that the Eastern Cape department of health’s poor service delivery would have deprived 1 600 tuberculosis patients of food and medication; and

(3) appeals to -

   (a)  the President to give content to his  2002  opening  address  on
       poor service delivery by public servants,  by  dismissing  those
       involved; and


   (b)   the  Eastern  Cape  provincial  government  to   ensure   their
       commitment to the creation of  an  infrastructure,  which  would
       prevent similar crisis situations.]

Mr W G MAKANDA: Madam Speaker, I give notice that I shall move at the next sitting of the House:

That the House -

(1) vehemently rejects the recent decision of the ruling Likud Party in Israel to deny Palestinians their inalienable right to self- determination, in defiance of a UN Security Council resolution calling for the creation of an independent Palestinian state;

(2) sees this as an Israeli resolve to maintain the present status quo of balkanised, Israel-dominated Palestinian cheap labour reservoirs, which will be condemned to perpetual servitude to the state of Israel;

(3) repudiates Ariel Sharon’s arrogant attempts to depose the legitimate leadership of the Palestinians under Yasser Arafat and to impose a puppet regime of his choice; and

(4) calls on the United States to comply with and give effect to the UN Security Council resolution calling for the creation of an independent Palestinian state. [Applause.]

Ms M S MANTUA: Madam Speaker, I shall move on behalf of the ANC:

That the House -

(1) notes that staff from Luthuli House, the ANC head office, and Gauteng Province volunteered to clean Helen Joseph Hospital on Tuesday, 14 May;

(2) further notes that this is part of the programme of action of the ANC, which promotes a culture of volunteerism amongst our people so that they are actively involved in accelerating change and building a better life for all; and

(3) commends the initiative of the ANC staff for embarking on this programme and leading through action.

Mayihlome! [Prepare for action!] [Applause.]

Adv Z L MADASA: Madam Speaker, I shall move at the next sitting of the House:

That the House -

(1) notes that the interim Constitution in Schedule 4 contains certain political values that are viewed as immutable and non-negotiable;

(2) notes that participation of minority political parties in the legislative process in a manner consistent with democracy and the provision for proportional representation are some of these political values upon which the final Constitution on the electoral system was built;

(3) notes that any electoral reform which effectively denies proportional representation and participation of minority parties in the legislative process would be repugnant to the Constitution;

(4) notes also that in the National Assembly time allocation to minority parties for debates in the House is inadequate and renders their participation in the legislative process meaningless and merely symbolical;

(5) notes that these developments are a clear indication that the ruling party is bent on domineering the minority parties through means that may be unconstitutional; (6) calls upon the Speaker of the National Assembly and all presiding officers to devise a mechanism in which time allocation to minority parties for debates will be done in a manner that will promote participatory and inclusive democracy; and

(7) condemns the practice of allocating one minute or two minutes to minority parties during debates in the House as contemptuous and meaningless. [Interjections.] [Applause.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member, I would like you to note that I gave you more than a minute. [Laughter.] [Interjections.]

Dr S E M PHEKO: Madam Speaker, I give notice that I shall, on the next sitting day of the House, move:

That the House -

(1) notes that the PAC has called for the release of its imprisoned former Apla members for over seven years now and that the PAC members who belonged to its military wing, Apla, during the liberation struggle fought against apartheid, declared a crime against humanity by the United Nations;

(2) notes further that it was illegal and a violation of international law to parade freedom fighters and apartheid criminals before the TRC and give amnesty to the criminals of apartheid, while denying that amnesty to freedom fighters of this country, and that the recent pardon of 33 prisoners by President Thabo Mbeki is by far inadequate;

(3) notes again that the PAC still has a number of its former Apla members, among whom is Kenny Motsomai, serving two life prison sentences plus 19 years in Mangaung Private Prison, and that Motsomai was recently assaulted by a gang of criminals in this prison; and

(4) therefore calls … [Time expired.]

Ms S D MOTUBATSE: Chair, on behalf of the ANC I shall move:

That the House -

(1) notes that Government has signed an agreement on restructuring the electricity distribution sector;

(2) recognises that this aims to create an affordable and well-regulated electricity market which will, in the words of Minister Mlambo-Ngcuka ``give a stable industry to large users, and cost-managed tariffs to the poor’’; and

(3) commends the Government for its commitment to efficient delivery of electricity services to all South Africans and its strategic and innovative approach to combating inefficiency.

Mrs S V KALYAN: Chair, I hereby give notice that I shall move on behalf of the DP:

That this House -

(1) notes that Parliament today lit a candle in commemoration of those living with HIV/Aids;

(2) further notes that recent statistics show that about 6 000 South Africans are dying every week from Aids-related illnesses;

(3) expresses its disquiet at -

   (a)  President Mbeki's continued equivocation regarding HIV/Aids;


   (b)  the Government's therapeutic paralysis in confronting the health
       crisis in our country; and


   (c)  continued negative state action against  concerned  doctors  who
       try to provide the best treatment to people living with HIV/Aids
       and rape survivors;

(4) commends the NGOs and selfless individuals who are carrying the burden of the fight against HIV/Aids in South Africa; and

(5) urges the Government to put the lives of people first and loyalty to the ANC and party principles second.

Hon MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Mr E T FERREIRA: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the IFP:

That the House -

(1) congratulates the SAPS for having managed to track down a funeral parlour in Orlando East, Soweto, that has been responsible for the theft of vehicles and converting them into hearses; (2) detests the fact that Ndlovu & Sons Funeral Services had recently stolen cars to the value of almost R380 000, two of which belonged to another funeral parlour;

(3) regrets that the owner of Ndlovu & Sons Funeral Services is still at large, running away from facing the consequences of his actions; and

(4) believes that the seizure of such vehicles by the police will help in alerting other such criminals that they will also be caught soon.

Dr R H DAVIES: Chair, I will move on behalf of the ANC:

That the House -

(1) notes the announcement that Toyota intends to invest a further R3,5 billion in South Africa over the next three years;

(2) further notes that this investment will be used to upgrade facilities and to expand the company’s manufacturing plant, a fair proportion of which will be for the production of a model for the global market;

(3) commends Toyota for showing such confidence in the South African economy; and

(4) congratulates the South African Government for its transformation of the South African economy into a dynamic and competitive global player. [Applause.]

Mrs M E OLCKERS: Mr Chairman, I give notice that I shall move on the next sitting day of the House:

That the House -

(1) notes the judgment of the Cape High Court yesterday that the state is liable to pay damages to a victim of crime where the perpetrator of the crime is at large as a result of a failure of Government officials to act appropriately or correctly;

(2) congratulates Ms Alix Carmichele for her dogged determination in pursuing her case through the courts over a period of seven years in search of justice and for striking a blow on behalf of the victims of violent crime; and

(3) believes that more attention should be paid by Government to the victims of crime and measures to alleviate their position.

    SIERRA LEONE'S FIRST PRESIDENTIAL AND PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION

                         (Draft Resolution)

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Chairperson, I move without notice:

That the House -

(1) notes that on Tuesday, 14 May 2002, five thousand polling stations opened in Sierra Leone for the first presidential and parliamentary election, following the end of this country’s ten-year civil war;

(2) recognises that the pre-election period has been by far the most peaceful in Sierra Leone, which in the past has suffered electoral violence, coups and a devastating civil war;

(3) believes that this election is a major milestone towards the achievement of a peaceful, stable and democratic continent; and

(4) wishes the people of Sierra Leone a successful and peaceful election and looks forward to their anticipated contribution to the development of the continent.

Agreed to.

                        MOTION OF CONDOLENCE

                     (The late Ms Anarine Meyer)

Mr H J BEKKER: Chairperson, I move without notice:

That the House expresses its deepest condolences to Mrs Carien Meyer and to Mr Roelf Meyer, a former Minister in our Government, on the sad loss of their daughter Anarine in a motorcar accident.

Agreed to.

                      UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

                              (Ruling)

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon members, I now wish to give a ruling. During debate in the House on 7 May an exchange of words took place between the hon Mr Nash and the hon Mr Davidson. After himself having withdrawn an unparliamentary expression, Mr Davidson, on a point of order, asked whether it was parliamentary for the hon Mr Nash, by implication, to call him a racist.

I undertook to study the Hansard. Having done so, I would now like to give my ruling. The hon Mr Nash, in his speech referring to the hon Mr Davidson, said the following, and I quote:

Blacks must not get these things, he seems to think. The only reason he has complained about this, the SFF purchasing Basrah Light, is that he cannot see blacks entering the market and his thinking in this regard must change.

Concerning imputations of racist mindsets, we must accept that in our political discourse, the shadow of the hateful policy that prevailed in this country before 1994 will continue to loom over what we do and what remains to be done. For that reason references to race and colour, as they impact on collective policy, will inevitably and even necessarily feature in general debate and cannot, on those grounds, be construed as racist. By continuing to talk in disparaging and critical terms about race-based policies, we are in fact ensuring that we move away from the legacy of racism.

It is a different matter, however, if such references are imputed as reflecting the predisposition of individuals. In that regard the Speaker has previously pointed out that, in view of our history, it is incumbent on members of this House actively to take the lead to rid our society of its racist heritage.

She emphasised that members, when participating in debates in the House, had a unique opportunity actively to inculcate and promote the values of tolerance, diversity and inclusivity, and indeed should be setting standards in that regard.

It is appropriate for me, on this occasion, to renew that appeal. Returning to the Hansard of 7 May, I note that after an interjection the hon Mr Nash went on to say, and I quote him:

My racism is pathetic but the hon member cannot get rid of his racism.

The words in the latter part of that sentence are a direct accusation of racism against another member, and just as the hon Mr Davidson had to withdraw a similar remark on that day, I must ask the hon Mr Nash to withdraw the words, and I quote:

… the hon member cannot get rid of his racism.

Mr J H NASH: Chairperson, I withdraw it. [Applause.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! May I commend you and the others. It is in keeping with the appeal by the hon Speaker that we serve as role models in this regard.

             MEDIA DEVELOPMENT AND DIVERSITY AGENCY BILL

                       (Second Reading debate)

The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY: Chairperson, hon members, when Parliament adopted the Constitution, it was set a vital task. It is a task of providing a framework of policy and law that can make our rights a living reality for all South Africans, rich and poor, young and old, male and female, urban and rural, black and white.

The Constitution enjoins us to correct the imbalances arising out of our unjust past. It enshrines the aspirations of South Africa’s people for a truly democratic society. In particular, the Constitution affirms and entrenches the right of all South Africans to freedom of expression, embracing the freedom of the press and other media and the freedom to receive and impart information or ideas.

The Bill which I have the privilege of introducing today is one small, but significant, contribution to the task of translating the aspirations to freedom of expression into actuality. When our country emerged from generations of oppression and discrimination, these rights were enjoyed, in practice, only by a minority of citizens.

Even today, though there has been progress, there are still millions of South Africans who have minimal access to these rights. Let us remind ourselves of the stark reality. To us, reading newspapers, listening to radio and watching television are as familiar as breathing and eating. But barely half of South Africans read newspapers or magazines; in rural areas, less than a third. Only three quarters of South Africans watch television and millions are still beyond the reach of FM radio.

Given the distribution of wealth in our society, and the history of neglect of the education of the majority, the communication landscape which Comtask surveyed in 1993 was one of the barriers to full participation of most South Africans in the media. There were barriers of different kinds to people participating as consumers, writers, managers or owners, or as citizens seeking perspectives in the media to match their own experience and aspirations.

Such was the marginalisation of the poor and of black people from the media world that Comtask concluded that it was necessary to establish an agency whose task would be to lower those barriers, so that, in a reasonable time, the imbalances should diminish.

The progress that has been made in the boardrooms and newsrooms is welcome. But measured against the needs of the situation, it is a drop in the ocean and only a beginning.

It was from such premises and aspirations, part of our founding national consensus as a nation, that the project towards a Media Development and Diversity Agency began.

The Media Development and Diversity Agency Bill embodies the principles and objectives that have informed this initiative from the start and through the long consultation with stakeholders. In my budget speech two years ago, I enumerated the most important of those principles.

A fundamental principle is that Government, the private media sector and international donors should mobilise resources to promote media development and diversity. This principle of partnership informs every facet of the agency provided for in the Bill, as it informed the long and complex process of consultation with stakeholders in all sectors out of which it has emerged.

Funding from Government, both existing allocations to the Department of Communications in the field of media development and a recent allocation to the Government Communication and Information System, will support the work of the agency. The commitments by the private sector, which can only be formalised when the agency exists and can enter into agreements, are tangible and significant. Indeed, without anticipating the precise figures, we can say that there is no precedent for private sector financial contribution to a statutory agency on this scale.

I would like to thank the media houses for their positive approach during the extensive consultation process. Notwithstanding differences of opinion, we reached consensus on very many issues, and as I understand it, at least positions that all sides were comfortable with.

This gives concrete expression to the fact that complex as the media sector is in terms of differing interests, there is an overriding consensus that it is in the interests of our democracy and all sectors of the media and our society to act together to redress the imbalances of our past.

The principle of partnership is carried forward into the composition of the board. Six members will be appointed through a parliamentary process, and three directly by the President, taking into account the funding of the agency. In particular, those three appointments will include one from the commercial print media and one from the commercial broadcast media sector so that there is participation in the board from the private sector funders.

The Bill leaves open the inclusion on the board of a representative of Government as a principal funder, and indeed the originator and driver of this initiative aimed at promoting development and reconstruction. Perhaps we should note where we stand on this matter of funding.

When we assessed the gap in resources between the current situation and what would be desirable, it totalled R500 million over the next five years. After that, the requirements would sharply diminish, with much of the backlog having been dealt with. With an eye on what was feasible, and on the understanding that developing media enterprises could find ways of raising the remainder from other sources, we set the target at half that amount, in other words R50 million a year over five years.

We have commitments amounting to just over R40 million per annum. This does not include what will be forthcoming in terms of material support such as training, print and distribution facilities, or subsidies and discounts that the MDDA will be seeking.

As far as international donors are concerned, we have proceeded on the basis that they will in the first instance want South Africans to demonstrate their commitment to make this initiative work. Having done that, we are preparing to approach donor agencies for their support for an initiative which has already awakened interest in other parts of the world.

A further basic principle informing the MDDA initiative is that the MDDA, as a body promoting the rights to freedom of expression through support for media development, should have a relationship with both Government and the media houses, public and private, that is arm’s-length.

The Bill explicitly requires the agency to be independent. It defines independence, not in terms of the composition of the board, or where it draws its members from, but by the way it acts in exercising its powers. The law requires the board to be impartial and to act -

… without fear, favour or prejudice and without any political or commercial interference.

There is a strong provision dealing with conflict of interest to ensure that funds are not disbursed to further the interests of any member of the board. Amongst the principles we affirmed from the start was that the MDDA should be a body with the necessary authority, and should have a small structure with the best systems of corporate governance.

Those involved in the wide and lengthy consultation preceding the submission of the Bill are agreed that a critical reason for the failure of earlier attempts to promote media development and diversity was their informal character. The law which this Bill proposes, and the consensus amongst stakeholders, will ensure the authority and status of the MDDA.

A further principle is that the MDDA should be transparent in its operations, in so far as it should conduct its operations and provide assistance on the basis of broad criteria set out for all to see. In requiring that the board formulate publicly the criteria and guidelines it will be following in allocating support, the Bill will ensure such transparency.

A fundamental guiding principle has been that the MDDA will pursue diversity, not by interfering in the content of the media, but by promoting development that overcomes the many barriers that until now have prevented historically disadvantaged communities from being full participants in the media, whether as consumers, producers or distributors.

The Bill is informed by this conviction that in dealing with these structural impediments, it will act as a catalyst to the emergence of a more adequately diverse media. In short, developments should lead to greater diversity. The Bill explicitly affirms that the MDDA will not interfere in the editorial content of the media.

In any case, the agency will not have the power to do so. Where there is reference to regulations, these are guidelines for the conduct of the board itself in the exercise of its functions. They are not regulations governing the opinions of others. As befits a statutory body based on partnership, these guidelines have the dual authority of board and Minister. The Bill requires effective concurrence in the prescribing and making of regulations.

The MDDA will work in partnership with those agencies that do have regulatory powers, such as Icasa, and the process out of which this legislation emerges has involved co-operation and consultation with such bodies.

A broadcasting project to which the MDDA gives support could operate only if granted a licence by Icasa, and Icasa retains the sole right to grant licences according to its own criteria. The MDDA will address those conditions which have undermined the emergence and, initially, the survival of community and small media projects.

The experience of recent years has made it quite clear that the granting of a licence does not translate automatically into viability; that the transfer of equipment does not ensure sustainability and survival; and indeed that cash grants on their own will not ensure lasting health in a media enterprise.

Capacity-building and training in all areas of media production and distribution therefore receive strong emphasis in the mix of support that will come from the MDDA. By providing a powerful impetus to the development of community media and small commercial media amongst historically disadvantaged sectors of our society, the MDDA will promote diversity in our media as a whole. Small as this initiative may be in relation to the legacy to be addressed, we are confident that it will act as a powerful catalyst. The community media sector of today will tell one that it has acted historically as a training ground from which journalists, media workers and managers have moved into the mainstream commercial media.

By promoting a reading culture amongst South Africans, a bigger community sector will expand interest in media products and processes generally, to the benefit of the established media.

It will enlarge the pool of creativity and communications skills in our country. In short, a vigorous and expanding community media sector will have consequences far beyond its own sphere, to the benefit of the entire media sector of South Africa and all our citizens.

All our research points to an immense hunger amongst our people for information which they can use to improve their lives and which empowers them to have an effective say in governing. It shows, too, that this hunger is being inadequately met, for various reasons, by our media as currently configured.

In passing this Bill, this House will create a framework for a partnership of Government and media that will create more implements with which the people of South Africa can plough the fields of freedom. It will strengthen their hands as informed and active agents in the reconstruction of their country and the development of a just and prosperous society.

I would like to thank the portfolio committee and its chairperson, Nat Kekana, for all the work that they have done from their side in order to ensure that the Bill is in the House today. The Bill has benefited substantially from the legislative experience and wisdom of the portfolio committee. The public hearings which the committee held, both on the draft position paper and the Bill itself, made it possible for all those interested in media development to play a part in this initiative. The Bill is the outcome of all these inputs and those of many others who participated in the process. I wish to thank all those who have contributed to this democratic initiative, and I call upon this House to give its assent to this Bill. [Applause.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! That is the most thank you’s the hon the Minister has made.

Ms M SMUTS: Voorsitter, ons verneem die studente van die Departement Joernalistiek aan die Universiteit van Stellenbosch is in die galery, en met u verlof verwelkom ons hulle graag. [Chairperson, we understand that the students from the Journalism Department of the University of Stellenbosch are in gallery and, with your permission, we would like to welcome them.]

When a government decides that the case for media diversity is so compelling that a subsidy system should be set up, it should be willing and able to fund both the subsidies and the body that dispenses them and to ask us, as Parliament, to vote the necessary funds. Government is, here, however setting up a body, the MDDA, which it has made clear it cannot fund. Its contribution, it has said, will be limited to existing allocations to departments such as Communications. It is not clear to me, from what the Minister has just said, whether more will now be forthcoming. But, what is clear is that the money for the new scheme, in practice, will come from the commercial, print and broadcasting sectors. Originally, a levy was to have been imposed. The industries dissuaded Government from such a course. Now they will fund it by way of voluntary agreements with the MDDA Board, concluded in terms of clause 21 of the Bill.

It must be noted that the industries are at present operating in an anaemic environment where adspend, their lifeblood, has thinned, and where costs for items such as paper have skyrocketed. The print media association, nevertheless, already runs a print development unit which helps start-up papers. The industries are operating also in an environment changed beyond recognition from the time when Comtask recommended an arm’s-length subsidy system.

By mid-2000, on the GCIS’s own figures, 12 out of the 30 of the country’s mainstream editors were black. Debates on ownership and control today centre on such questions as whether Saki Macozoma’s cash-flush empire does or does not constitute an empowerment company to a degree which should satisfy the broadcasting regulator that diversity would be served before it will allow Mr Macozoma to buy up more FM stations, in the light of the existing - probably outdated - statutory prohibitions on concentration of ownership. Those are the debates today.

But, in spite of these realities the hon the Minister, in his foreword to the position paper on the MDDA, trots out the tired old communist idea that South Africa is still burdened by the special form of colonialism that has shaped our country, and that the nature of the public discourse is shaped by patterns of ownership and control, such that the poor and disadvantaged remain marginalised.

The position paper itself assures us that the legacy of apartheid remains and that significant currents of thought remain marginalised. Now, no prizes for guessing which current of thought is destined for greater exposure. Government’s goal, it seems to me, is essentially to get the private sector to fund state media, and not for nothing, in my view, is the GCIS working on a satellite network for community radio stations.

Of course our ruling party thinks that it is the state. In fact the MDDA created by this Bill strikes me as the perfect illustration of the phenomenon which was once described in one of those deathless Mail & Guardian columns by Craig Tanner, which were written to the hon the Minister’s good self under the rubric of Letters to the Best Man. He credited the Minister with, I quote, ``achieving the synthesis which gave us Thatcherism-Stalinism, the hallmark of the Mbeki regime’’.

Is that not wonderful and is this not a wonderful illustration of this remarkable doctrine of Thatcherism-Stalinism: the profits of free enterprise and free speech funding the thought control of the vanguard party?

Government’s goal goes, or went, beyond this, however. It wanted the MDDA, according to its position paper, to fund research and stimulate public debate on issues including ownership and control patterns, empowerment trends, concentration, cross-ownership, limits on foreign ownership - you name it.

In other words, the industries must pay for enquiries that could result in their own decimation. Until now they got their inquisitions free, as it were, courtesy of the taxpayer, who indirectly forked out for such exercises as the Human Rights Commission’s so-called media racism inquiry, which, of course, represented the ``national’’ part of the national democratic revolution.

It would truly be a triumph of Thatcherism-Stalinism to get the media to pay for the next stage of the revolution, but fortunately our constitutional order is based on a different doctrine altogether. In so far as broadcasting is concerned, section 192 of the Constitution requires an independent authority to regulate broadcasting in the public interest to ensure fairness and the diversity of views.

In the authoritative opinion of Adv Gilbert Marcus and Alfred Cockrell, written at the time the DP and the IFP were at loggerheads with the ANC on the constitutionality of the Broadcasting Bill in 1998, section 192 requires that the broadcasting authority must be responsible for controlling and governing broadcasting activities in South Africa. Such a requirement, say the advocates, would be meaningless if other agencies could also regulate broadcasting. It follows that that section effectively disempowers Parliament from authorising any agency other than the broadcasting authority to regulate broadcasting in the public interest. In other words, that section deprives us in Parliament of the competence to enact legislation which empowers any other agency to regulate broadcasting activities. Ensuring fairness and a diversity of views broadly representing South African society is the primary goal of regulation in the public interest. Regulation of matters relating diversity is therefore the sole preserve of the regulator, Icasa, and the Democratic Alliance argued that the role of the MDDA must, of necessity, be limited to support for Icasa in respect of broadcasting. Icasa’s duties in respect of diversity have already been legislated. The duties and objectives include a plurality of views, control by a diverse range of communities, diverse services for all language and cultural groups, ownership and control by previously disadvantaged groups, programming for grassroots and developmental issues including health community needs, determining priorities within the community radio sector and so forth.

It was therefore quite clear that the MDDA, as the Bill stood, would have encroached on the broadcasting regulator’s constitutional terrain, and all clauses relating to research into diversity, hearings, public consultations, meetings with the media industry and recommendations to Government and industry were accordingly removed. It should in addition have been made crystal clear that the MDDA acts in a capacity subordinate to and supportive of Icasa.

In fact, such a supportive role could have been of great value to Icasa and I wish that we could have completed the clean-up of the Bill so that we could have supported it. Yes, I do. A genuinely disinterested agency could have done so much better than the Department of Communications’ support programme for community radio stations.

We heard from the sector during hearings how lorryloads of unexpected equipment had been known to arrive at radio stations’ doors. Now, that is simply wasteful and unacceptable. However, sadly, the ANC’s redrafted objectives clause falls well short of the proper approach to Icasa.

However, let me immediately say that the majority party did better; in fact, the ANC MPs did well in respect of section 16 of the Constitution by requiring consistency with its provisions upfront and moreover stipulating that the MDDA must not interfere in the editorial content of media.

Even an MDDA, an agency whose role is limited to financial and facilitative support for small media, inevitably involves evaluation of programming and content as part of a business plan, especially when the goals are so social. It follows that the MDDA must be genuinely independent.

Indeed, the creation of criteria for funding was taken out of the hon the Minister’s hands and put into those of the board alone, for one brief, shining week at any rate. But, sadly, the Minister took his effective co- regulatory powers back the next week by ensuring that only he, much like the Minister of Communications in the case of telecommunications, can ultimately gazette the regulations. We got that close. But, the beautiful language about independence from political interference in clause 2 is now eroded and spoiled. In addition, it is tacitly understood that the GCIS functionary will serve on the board alongside the representatives of the commercial sectors. These three will be presidential appointments, sitting with six appointed by us.

The fact that the Minister, who coregulates the criteria for small media funding, is the very person tasked with propagating Government information, and that the GCIS sits on a supposedly independent board, is simply fraught with danger for media freedom. The idea that the GCIS has an interest in the media environment, because that is where it needs to achieve exposure of Government’s programmes and positions, has been part of this Government’s thinking since the Comtask process. We argue that it has no logical role in shaping the media environment. On the contrary, it is inherently dangerous to allow this Ministry to preside over the creation of the MDDA.

We are happy to have contributed to a better Bill and we compliment our ANC colleagues for many excellent amendments. But, in the end we have to oppose because those coregulatory powers have been placed in the hands of the Minister who propagates Government information. [Applause.] Mr N N KEKANA: Chairperson, I am really disappointed that the DP chose to simply oppose this Bill based on an ideological position.

The portfolio committee conducted public hearings and also received a number of written submissions. Right at the outset, we would like to thank all the stakeholders who made contributions. Indeed, the public submissions made a difference. They were particularly helpful when the committee deliberated and we were proud to table a much improved amended Bill. We must also thank the leadership of the Minister, the CEO and staff of GCIS for their contribution in ensuring that we have a Bill that is able to open up the media to many of our people.

It was noted by academics O’Dubhchair, Scott and Johnson in a paper titled ``Building a knowledge infrastructure for learning communities’’, and I quote:

Communities of the 21st century cannot compete without advanced ICT applications and without a commitment to build on a continuing process of learning, knowledge and action.

We believe that this Media Development and Diversity Agency Bill today will contribute towards building a new knowledge infrastructure that will give local communities greater responsibility for their future. Our communities must be part and parcel of the change taking place, not only in our country but also at a global level.

Section 16 of our esteemed Bill of Rights bestows upon every citizen of the Republic of South Africa the right to freedom of expression, which includes the freedom to receive and impart information or ideas. This Bill that we are debating today is constitutional. Not only does it satisfy section 16 of the Constitution, but it also covers no fewer than four other sections in the Bill of Rights. It also satisfies section 192 of the Constitution.

The DP is not listening to what the Minister has said. This is in relation to section 192. The Minister said - perhaps the DP needs a copy of the Minister’s speech - one cannot simply rely on licensing alone. This is not based on some experience in the USA or somewhere else. It is based on our concrete experience here in South Africa. We have licensed community radio stations. We have allowed community media and newspapers in particular actually to collapse in front of our eyes. We cannot leave that situation to chance. We are creating an MDDA that is going to make a difference in the communities.

Icasa licenses, and the MDDA steps in and looks into how best to sustain the licence itself. Throughout the course of the history of our country, the poor rural communities, women and other marginalised communities have all by default fallen into an information loop, an information gap, an information divide. They have truly been relegated to the outskirts of society. It is no wonder that the poverty and abject conditions under which they live persist to this day and are generally ignored by the media.

Across the globe it is accepted that we now live in what is called an information society and once one does not have access to information, one is disempowered and disadvantaged. A large proportion of our population is disempowered and disadvantaged because they are not able and have the means to access information, thereby perpetuating their own disempowerment. It is this which the Media Development and Diversity Agency Bill seeks to redress. Today in South Africa freedom of expression and access to information is enjoyed by an elite, whilst many still do not enjoy this right or the fruits of their hard-won rights which are now enshrined in our Constitution.

If people do not have information, how will they know what is happening around them? How will they make a contribution? This is basically what democracy is all about. Our understanding of democracy is based primarily on this, that people must be informed so that they can make better choices. Once our people have access to information and to the means of communication, there will be numerous encouraging benefits and advantages to society as a whole. Our society will operate in a more inclusive and cohesive fashion as all sorts of information about various initiatives, situations and opportunities are shared in and between communities. We can all see that the MDDA will bring opportunities and hope to the lives of many of our people, especially those in rural areas, as we continue in reconstructing and developing our country.

The agency itself will, through its programmes, help to promote media diversity and development for the benefit of all South Africans and we should not apologise for this or be ashamed of this, as the DP would have us be. It will be a resource for the whole nation and be a catalyst for much-needed media transformation, so that all South Africans may become better informed and better able to exercise their democratic rights.

It will promote development by creating an enabling environment for sustainable media diversity, thereby deepening democracy. It will, therefore, increase access to media for all citizens, both as consumers and producers. It will particularly ensure that the voices, aspirations and images of marginalised sectors, such as women, the youth, illiterate people, rural people and people with disabilities, are heard and seen.

The MDDA will be a statutory body which will be independent of the Government, the media, the industry, donors and the beneficiaries. As we have just explained, the MDDA will address the inequalities and imbalances in the media environment and will have nothing to do with the content. I am glad that the DP is crediting the ANC for inserting this particular clause.

It is very clear in the Bill that the agency must not interfere with the editorial content of the media. This has been a very consistent line argued by the ANC, and we can even take it back to Comrade Walter Sisulu in one of the first broadcasts of Radio Freedom. This has been our argument and we have been very consistent in so far as this position is concerned.

Notwithstanding this patent clarity, the DP has harped on and on in the committee, public hearings and even in the media, to anyone who would stop and listen, about how this is not the case. [Interjections.] They have said so! They argue that, in fact, this agency is set up as a propaganda machine to tell people what to write and broadcast and what to think. [Interjections.] This is what they say. How noble of them to pretend that they are the guardians of free speech. They always argue like this - access to information.

Let us remind them of their past. They do not want us to talk about their past, but they played a role in the apartheid colonial system and its virtual propaganda machinery. Together with the apartheid government, they controlled what South Africans wrote, broadcast and thought. [Interjections.]

This is what Mr Ellis’s party has done. [Interjections.] The DP has always been the party of the elite few. They have not changed, despite parading a few black faces at their conferences and playing Kwaito music. [Interjections.] They are the elite who, by and large, currently control, own and have access to the media. [Interjections.] Of course! The reason why they are opposed to this Bill in this House today is that they are afraid to relinquish such control. [Interjections.] What Dene Smuts was arguing for today was to retain the status quo; that was all she argued for. [Interjections.]

It is fine that a few black people can own the media, be in control, be editors … By the way, the hon member did not mention that some of the editors, like Kaizer Nyatsumba, are now in the UK or somewhere. The Cape Times here used to have a black editor. Where is that editor today? So, she should not quote statistics to try to satisfy her argument here. She is opposed to this Bill because it seeks to address the imbalance of the elite having full control.

Let me also point out that we have noted what the DP has said about the powers of the Minister here. The Bill reads, and I quote:

The Minister may, in consultation with the board, make regulations regarding any matter that is required or permitted to be prescribed in terms of this Act.

This is not unusual, it is a universal practice that regulations are made by executives and ministers in various countries. This is a right which they earned through elections. I do not know who can make laws. [Interjections.]

It is clear that the ANC and the DP have a fundamental ideological difference. There is nothing we can do to make the DP move away from this ill-advised and ill-informed position. [Interjections.]

If there is a regulatory authority or agency, the general approach is to find a way in which this body may make a contribution, either in consultation with the Minister or after consultation with the Minister.

Now, what the after consultation'' means is that the Minister can go and talk to them and, of course, take their point of view, and thereafter go and make regulations in consultation’’. This is the legal position. Whoever one may contact will tell one this. ``In consultation’’ means the Minister has to take the views of the board, but the principle here is that governments are there to govern. Ministers are there to ensure that if there is a gap in the law - because this House does not sit every day - if there is a need to make regulations, one makes these regulations. That power cannot be delegated to some particular structure. [Interjections.] No, that is not the case. [Interjections.] It is because that is not Government. That is not the executive. It is a body that relates to Parliament and the executive itself.

I do not know exactly how the opposition seeks to approach this very serious issue. Even regarding the section 92 body in the Constitution, and this whole question of regulation, it is regulation in relation to the work that they are doing. But when we talk about the gap in the law, the Minister has that power. The opposition should go back to the Broadcasting Act, the one that was passed. They should go back to it and then they will find exactly what we are talking about.

But it is very clear that in all the media and communications Bills that we have considered and passed in this house, there is an ideological divide here, and I think there is very little that we can do about it. The opposition is espousing conservative, liberal views, whilst ours are more revolutionary and democratic. We are not only concerned about Sandton; we are concerned about the people in Alexandra whom the opposition only visits when they contest elections. That is the point. [Interjections.]

We are not only concerned about the Sandton people, but also about rural areas. Many of us in the ruling party happen to be what Sol Plaatje called the ``people of two worlds’’. We have one foot in the urban world and the other in the rural world. That in itself gives us a unique insight into what our people really want. The opposition says the status quo must remain and we do not want to accept that argument. [Interjections.] That argument falls away and we are not willing to accept it.

Lastly, the Media Development and Diversity Agency Bill is for all our people. It is not only about whether we are going to give them licences as far as community radio is concerned, about whether we are going to let them struggle. I met the editor of Alex Times and he is struggling to survive. Caxton has just abandoned them. Once this Bill is in place, the MDDA will be able to go to that editor and tell them that we are not going to interfere in his editorial content, but they are going to ensure that he survives, because Alex Times must reflect the views of the community of Alexandra, which is my constituency.

Lastly, there is one other matter that one has to address right at the outset. We have tried our best to ensure that we have an agency where money is not going to go to the administration but to projects that are going to be approved by the board. We are going to make sure that we popularise this Media Development and Diversity Agency Bill to all communities, and we will ask GCIS also to reach out to communities so that they know that there is this particular agency that exists, an agency that will help them to contribute to national debates, because that is the voice that is missing.

The pessimism of the elite is not reflected in communities on the ground. We want those views to come up in national debates. Those student journalists from Stellenbosch in the gallery must be able to reach out to all those communities. By the way, those journalism students should please learn other official languages so that when they go into townships and rural areas they do not rely on interpretations, but on their own first- hand interaction with communities so that they can give these communities a voice in all the newspapers and radio stations they will be working under. [Applause.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! The hon members are continuing a second debate in the back there.

Ms S C VOS: Chairperson, when describing certain legislation in our caucus, the IFP will sometimes refer to a Bill as being in the ``yes, but’’ mould. The Media Development and Diversity Agency Bill is a typical example. On the one hand, who could possibly object, in our resource-skewed, postapartheid society, to the promotion of an enabling environment for media development and diversity?

On the other hand, in the real world of politics all over the world, we all know the dangers of governments putting their sticky fingers into anything to do with the media in all its multiplicity of forms. As an example, and one that springs readily to mind, let us ponder for a moment the world of Mr Robert Mugabe in neighbouring Zimbabwe - not for him the correct and natural tensions that apply to relations between politicians and the press in democracies around the globe.

Early on in his now imperial presidency he decided that having an independent press, voicing critical opinion from time to time about him and his party, was an inconvenience he would rather not have. It is much easier to have state-controlled TV, radio and print media, and party hacks at their helm, dancing to the tune of their political masters. Of course, now he has gone one step further, and he locks up the brave souls who do dare to offer the citizens of Zimbabwe a glimpse of the goings-on in their nation, not authored and tailored by Zanu.

Among journalists there is a saying that goes: ``Show me a country where there is famine and a free press.’’ As famine looms large in Zimbabwe, it is perhaps no coincidence that Mr Mugabe is host to the exiled former Ethiopian dictator, who also brought terror and starvation to his people - no doubt a case of birds of a feather flocking together, as the saying goes.

From the outset, the IFP made its views well known about this particular piece of legislation. It supported the principle of the Bill and even decided to go along with the concept of a public-private partnership to achieve its goals. But - and here is our big but - we want the Government to play an arm’s-length role.

When a Bill involving the media is introduced directly from the Presidency of a country, as this one is, politicians, certainly opposition politicians, take a long, hard look at it, and so do vigilant citizens, democrats all, as was evident from the many submissions received by the Communications committee.

When allocating funds for and establishing community and commercial media and research projects, the temptation for party-political considerations, in whatever guise, to come to the fore is just too great. We are human, after all.

In its first draft, the role to be played by the GCIS jumped off the pages of the Bill. The hand of Government was made all too clear. The Minister’s slip, so to speak, was showing. Much gnashing of teeth later, and to the considerable credit of the committee and its chairperson, this is no longer the case. But, attempts to disqualify employees of Government, public servants, from serving on the board through the back door failed.

However, all is not lost. Clauses have been inserted with the stated intention of ensuring that the board, as proposed, acts independently and without any political or commercial interference, as the hon the Minister so rightly said. Office bearers and employees of any party, movement or organisation of a party-political nature are disqualified from appointment to the board of the agency.

This is not exactly what the IFP wanted, but after consideration we are prepared to live with it. This is as good as it is going to get in round one. It is now up to the democratic process to work. In our qualified support for this initiative, it is now up to us all and to those whom we appoint to undertake this task to ensure that the media and the research, which will flow from this initiative, are indeed independent and that they do indeed strengthen democracy in our country.

Throughout history, it is well recorded that governments have sought to impose controls on the flow of information and opinions in furtherance of a range of state interests. A free and independent media is known to be a key element in contributing to transparent and accountable governance. The IFP can only hope that, as we pass this Bill today, we are indeed positively contributing to the development of this reality throughout South Africa. We must, however, have no illusions that governments and the media are like oil and water. They do not mix, and they should not be made to mix.

Mr M G PHADAGI: Chairperson, it seems that when we are debating this Bill we are debating it as if we are strangers in this country. A person will come here and talk English and go back, so that she is recorded as having spoken on behalf of her party. I want to assist this House by introducing into the debate the actual happenings in our country. I want to tell people about a town which is the home to not less than 800 000 people. That is almost a million. It has a university and several colleges. This town is in the rural province of Limpopo, as are many other towns in that province and also in other provinces.

People in this town do receive newspapers every day, in the afternoon, of course. They queue until the van from Johannesburg brings the newspapers. They read about issues happening all over the country, but one thing is for sure - issues in their town are not mentioned. When their issues are mentioned, one finds that there is excitement and a stampede to buy these papers.

Occasionally one finds that other issues in the rest of the country are interesting to the people of this town. They are used to buying these newspapers, but issues in their town such as community matters, funerals, weddings, politics and sport are not in the papers. This is a town which is serviced by another city which is not less than 500km away. Unfortunately, the news they are getting is from one source, a company which produces a lot of different newspapers. When one reads one newspaper, it is like one has read all of the newspapers in South Africa. They speak the same language and have the same style.

There is a need for the town I am talking about to have a voice in the South African media. Alternative commercial newspapers in this town are started from time to time, but their lifespan is short and they do not go beyond their second birthday. Why? Because they are competing with big companies, who have a monopoly of the market. Some of these companies belong to families which were promoted during apartheid times. These family newspapers are the only voice for the whole country.

People’s agendas in different towns are set by these families which own the newspapers. These newspapers with different titles belong to one group or section of our community, and have remained the same ever since they were established. But at least since 1994 there have been some changes here and there. One sees a black face managing or as editor, but still reporting to the very same school of thought.

I need to warn some of my colleagues in the portfolio committee that if their constituencies, to whom they are preaching every day, could hear them saying that we should stop this, they would definitely not get the votes of those constituencies again. They would not come back here. [Interjections.]

Those people are really fighting to have a voice. The small number who voted for those members are convinced that they are going speak on their behalf. So if Dene Smuts comes here and says that English should be stopped, she is not representing those constituents at all. [Applause.]

Fortunately enough, the Constitution … [Interjections.]

Mr M J ELLIS: Essop, they do not want your voice, they want our voice.

Mr M G PHADAGI: Chairperson, the Constitution of this country is very clear. It says, and I quote:

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes

(a) freedom of the press and other media;

(b) freedom to receive or impart information or ideas …

The Reconstruction and Development Programme of 1994 tells us that open debate and transparency in Government and society are crucial elements of reconstruction and development. This requires an information policy which guarantees the active exchange of information and opinions among all members of society.

The RDP goes on to say that the democratic Government must seek to correct the skewed legacy of apartheid, in terms of which the media was an instrument of NP policy, community media were repressed, private media were concentrated in the hands of a few monopolies, and a few individuals from the white community determined the contents of the media. The RDP further says that new voices and genuine competition, rather than a monopoly of ideas, must be encouraged. This is a document all of us respect.

Helo bammbiri li khou amba fhungo la vhukuma line heyi khoro ya vha hu uri yo dzulela lone hafha. [That paper is portraying the real issue that this House is debating here.]

The good news for the people in the town I referred to earlier is that the Government has taken the bold step of setting up an independent agency that will address some of their problems of media development and diversity in South Africa, called the Media Development and Diversity Agency.

This agency will help people to own their own newspapers, particularly those marginalised by race, language, sex, geographic location and so forth, because a newspaper is like any other business. This agency is going to assist us to run those businesses by assisting those people in Thohoyandou and many other towns to acquire loans at a low interest rate, and ensuring that proper business plans are drawn up, which will determine the specific steps to be followed that will make the business a success.

The money acquired will also assist with the training of the staff, so that they will be able to run their businesses properly. It will also be used to commission media research to assess needs and fund research projects. Progress is also going to be monitored that addresses issues relating to media development and diversity. That is good news for the people I am talking about.

The MDDA Bill will ensure that information will be disseminated to all communities, especially to the poor and marginalised ones. The ANC is the party which always has and will continue to represent the interests of the poor and marginalised communities, hence we give this Bill our unequivocal support.

Vhathu vha hashu hu pfi u ḓivha makhulu ndi u vhudzwa. Zwino hafha ri khou vhudziwa uri ri ḓivuse ngauri kholomo hu vuswa i ḓivusaho. Ṋamusi ḓuvha ḽo ri ṱavhela. Vha tshi amba vha ri: A farwa kaṅwe matsetse tsalela i fara maḓula. Zwino muhasho wo ri vulela mavothi. Tsho salaho ndi uri hafha miḓini yashu ri shumisane na muhasho. Ri vhe na dzigurannḓa hedzi dzine vha khou ri ṱuṱuwedza uri ri vhe nadzo. Arali ri nadzo, ṋamusi a hu tsha ḓo fana na matshelo. Ri ḓo kona vho u vhudza vhana vhashu na vhathu vhashu zwine zwa khou bvelela shangoni ḽashu, ra dovha hafhu ra kona u vha na agenda ine ya vha khagala ya ḓorobo dzine ra dzula khadzo, u itela uri ri sa vhudziwe zwine ra fanela uri ri ite zwone nga vhathu vhane vha dzula mimaela na mimaela kule na hune ra vha hone. Zwino tshifhinga ndi tshashu, ri khou tea u dzhenela, u itela uri na rine-vho sa vhathu, ri vhaliwe kha vhathu vhane vha tshimbidza dzigurannḓa fhano Afurika Tshipembe. [U vhanda zwanḓa.] (Translation of Tshivenḓa paragraph follows.)

[It is said that to be familiar with what is happening, one has to be informed. So we are told to stand up, since help is available to those who help themselves. Today the sun is shining on us. There is a saying: ``An opportunity comes only once’’. The department has opened its doors for us. The only thing remaining is that we must work hand in hand with the department in our villages. We should get hold of these newspapers that we are encouraged to have. If we do have them, today will never be like tomorrow. We will be able to tell our children what is happening in our country. Moreover, we will know the agenda of the town we are living in. Then we would not be told what to do by people who are miles away from where we live. Now the time is ours. We are supposed to participate and make sure that as people, we can be counted amongst those who distribute the newspapers here in South Africa.]

Mnr J J DOWRY: Mnr die Voorsitter, agb Minister, in ‘n jong ontwikkelende demokrasie soos Suid-Afrika moet ‘n mens enige stap verwelkom wat die verskeidenheid van menings en stemme in die media bevorder. Dit is bevorderlik vir gesonde debat wat die lewe van almal raak, en dit lê ook ‘n goeie grondslag vir onderlinge begrip in ‘n samelewing wat dikwels nog in kompartemente bestaan.

Meer kompetisie beteken ook dat die bestaande media gedwing word om nog beter te funksioneer. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[Mr J J DOWRY: Mr Chairperson, hon Minister, in a young, developing democracy such as South Africa one should welcome any step promoting the diversity of opinions and voices in the media. It is beneficial for healthy debate touching the lives of everyone, and it also lays a good foundation for mutual understanding in a society that still often exists in compartments.

More competition also means that the existing media are forced to function even better.]

The Media Development and Diversity Agency Bill marks a critical stage in the way towards an agency that will help to ensure that the constitutional rights of freedom of expression and information are enjoyed in practice by all South Africans. Broad consensus exists on the need for such an agency to help redress the legacy of imbalances in access to and the use of the media.

I agree with the GCIS that fundamental to the philosophy of the MDDA is that it will not involve itself in content. Rather, it aims to overcome the barriers to media development which have helped preserve the imbalances that still exist, like a lack of access to resources. By helping to overcome such barriers to media development, the MDDA should promote the climate conducive to greater media diversity. Dit is steeds ‘n onweerlegbare feit dat mediadiversiteit tydens die afgelope ag jaar nie noemenswaardig gegroei het nie. Die industrie moes baie meer gedoen het om mense uit die agtergeblewe gemeenskappe te betrek by opleiding, mediageleenthede, en so meer. Baie meer mense uit voorheen benadeelde gemeenskappe kon op dié wyse eienaarskap van media bekom het. Die industrie het as’t ware die Regering gedwing om met die wetgewing te kom sodat die wanbalanse aangespreek kon word.

Hoewel die wetgewing in beginsel lofwaardig is, laat dit ook terselfdertyd ernstige vrae ontstaan. Artikel vyf wat gehandel het oor die samestelling van die beheerraad is gelukkig na debatvoering in die portefeulje komitee sodanig aangepas dat dit tans baie meer aanvaarbaar is, en dat ‘n mens dalk daarmee kan saamleef nadat die invloed van GCIS op die samestelling uit die weg geruim is. Hoe dit ookal sy, die politici kry magte, rakende die samestelling van die raad, wat geensins bevorderlik is vir persvryheid in enige demokrasie nie.

Dit het niks te doen met mense se eerlikheid, al dan nie. Dit is slegs ‘n geval dat die Parlement, en die uitvoerende gesag, die pers onafhanklik moet hou, en hom moet toelaat om sy eie sake te hanteer. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[It is still an irrefutable fact that the media diversity during the past eight years has not grown considerably. The industry should have done much more to involve people from the disadvantaged communities in training, media opportunities, and so forth. Many more people from formerly disadvantaged communities could have gained ownership of the media in this manner. The industry basically forced the Government to come forward with the legislation so that the imbalances could be addressed.

Although the Bill is commendable in principle, at the same time it gives rise to some serious questions. Luckily, after debate in the portfolio committee, section five, which dealt with the composition of the control board, was adapted in such a manner that it is currently far more acceptable, and that one will possibly be able to live with it after the influence of the GCIS on the composition has been removed. In any case, the politicians are being given powers, concerning the composition of the board, which is in no way conducive to freedom of the press in any democracy.

This has nothing to do with people’s honesty or dishonesty. It is merely a case of Parliament, and the executive authority, having to keep the press independent, and allowing it to handle its own affairs.]

According to clause 15 certain media will be helped financially by direct subsidies, low interest rates, etc. The danger exists that these media will lose their independence by their financial dependence on the state and will no longer be able to fulfil their watchdog function freely. There is no guarantee that the state will not abuse its power in this instance. Direct subsidies should have been managed by a totally independent body and not by the state.

Direct subsidies to small commercial media projects are also very welcome. Direct subsidies, that is, cash grants to small commercial media projects are part of the enabling environment that the Bill seeks to create. Such support is very much in line with the principles of economic empowerment. In our view the subsidies should be managed by an independent body, away from the state, so that press freedom should not in any way be compromised. Yes, we remember The Citizen newspaper. Many people benefited by millions from that project that was supported by the state. But the fact that it happened does not make it right.

Ons moet onthou: ``Wiens brood men eet, diens woord men spreek.’’

Lae rente lenings om ‘n bedryf aan die gang te kry, is iets wat die staat reeds doen, en dit kan, soos ons reeds gesê het, ook in die mediabedryf gedoen word, mits dit op ‘n streng sakegrondslag gebeur. Selfs al sou sulke lenings deur ‘n onafhanklike instansie toegestaan word, sou uitdruklike kontraktuele waarborge ook nodig wees om te keer dat die betrokke media se onafhanklikheid, en reg om die staat vrylik te kritiseer, aan bande gelê word. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[We must remember: Wiens brood men eet, diens woord men spreek'', meaning Don’t bite the hand that feeds you’’.

Low-interest loans to get a business started are already provided by the state, and this can, as we have said before, also be applied in the media industry, provided that it takes place on a strict business foundation. Even if such loans were approved by an independent organisation, explicit contractual guarantees would also be necessary to prevent the independence of the media concerned, and its right to freely criticise the state, from being curbed.]

In principle a democratic state should do nothing to even faintly suggest that it wants to restrict press freedom. This means that there should be no interference in an industry where market forces define the state of business. The state should rather engage in talks with the media industry to express its concerns about imbalances in the industry. They should convince the industry to allow more voices on its own initiative. In the end every newspaper, magazine and radio station is a commercial business which has to stand on its own financial legs.

Newspapers may be more than just another commercial business, but they still cannot function without money. Just like the state cannot support factories that do not make money, it cannot support media which do not have a chance of survival without subsidies.

In die geheel genome moet daar simpatie vir die doelstellings van die wetsontwerp wees, veral met die doelstelling om diversiteit vir die media te vestig deur voorheen benadeelde mense in te bring, en hulle te help om eienaarskap te kry van ‘n ekonomiese aktiwiteit in ons gemeenskap waar hulle nog nie veel kans gekry het nie.

Die Nuwe NP sal help saamwerk om dit te laat realiseer, maar die metodes wat deur die wetsontwerp in die vooruitsig gestel word, pas nie in ‘n liberaal-demokratiese staat nie. Die feit dat die raad slegs regulasies kan maak in konsultasie met die Minister, dui daarop dat die raad nie absoluut onafhanklik kan optree nie.

As dit enige ander liggaam in Suid-Afrika was waaroor ons hier gepraat het, kon die inmenging deur die staat nog begryp word, maar ons praat hier van die pers, die media, wat ‘n absoluut onafhanklike pilaar van die demokrasie is, en wat langs die Parlement en die uitvoerende gesag ‘n derde baie belangrike rol speel. As een van die ander twee pilare begin voorskriftelik raak ten opsigte van die media, is ons besig om die fondasie van ‘n swaarverdiende demokrasie uit te kalwe, en sal ons die buitewêreld se respek verloor.

Om dié rede kan die Nuwe NP ongelukkig nie die wetsontwerp steun nie. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[In all, there has to be sympathy for the objectives of the Bill, especially with the objective of establishing diversity for the media by bringing in formerly disadvantaged people, and assisting them in gaining ownership of an economic activity in our society in which they have not received many chances.

The New NP will co-operate in helping to realise this, but the methods envisaged by the Bill have no place in a liberal democratic state. The fact that the board can only make regulations in consultation with the Minister shows that the board cannot act absolutely independently.

If it had been any other body in South Africa that we were discussing, the intervention of the state could have been understood, but here we are talking about the press, the media, an absolutely independent pillar of democracy which, alongside Parliament and the executive authority, plays a third very important role. When one of the other two pillars starts becoming prescriptive in respect of the media, we are undermining the foundation of a hard-earned democracy, and we will lose the respect of the outside world.

For this reason the New NP unfortunately cannot support the Bill.]

Mrs W S NEWHOUDT-DRUCHEN: Mr Chairperson, hon members, it gives me great pleasure to introduce this Media Development and Diversity Agency Bill that is in front of us.

Before I mention why this Bill is so important, let me just say that everyone needs information, whether it is by word of mouth, reading or listening. We all need information. Knowing what is going on around us is important. On that point, I would like to thank Comrade Chairperson Nat and Comrade Randy. They are always willing to keep in touch with me, willing to provide me with information via a small device known as a cellphone. How? Via short message systems. I would like to thank them. [Applause.]

According to our Constitution, we know that every South African has the right to receive information, and the right to express and disseminate one’s opinion within the law. This has not always been so. We have just ended a system of apartheid where public media were turned into instruments of National Party policy where community media were repressed, where private media were concentrated in the hands of a few, and where a few individuals from the white community determined the content of the media.

As a result, the poor and the disadvantaged remain marginalised in terms of the media. As Minister Essop Pahad said, and I quote:

It is common cause that the media in our own country, in its perspective, still reflects a narrow range of interests not reflective of our country’s diversity.

The Bill provides for the establishment of the Media Development and Diversity Agency, which will help create an enabling environment for media development and diversity that is conducive to public discourse and which reflects the needs and aspirations of all South Africans. The Bill makes sure that the communication environment improves so that a better infrastructure is built and a media that gives expression to the voices currently marginalised will emerge.

The Bill will not interfere with the content of any newspaper, but will make sure that there is an area that will allow media to develop and to meet the diverse needs of all South Africans. The Bill calls for the promotion of media development and diversity by promoting support, primarily to community media projects. We know that the print and distribution infrastructures are concentrated in the metropolitan areas, and innovative ways to distribute newspapers to disadvantaged communities in rural and peri-urban areas have yet to emerge. In order to promote media diversity, ownership and control of the distribution and printing infrastructures must be addressed.

What do we know about community newspapers? I myself like to read the community newspapers, because they are easily understood. Issues regarding my community are raised in these newspapers. They talk about issues of social concern such as social grants and how to access them, what the police are doing in the area, how members of the community can support each other, various community activities are mentioned, and all these activities are important in our daily lives.

But, we know that, in rural areas, community newspapers are not available. It is in these communities that these community newspapers are not written in the language of the people who live in those communities. Little or no support is given to these community newspapers.

Newspapers in our own languages will promote literacy, which we so dearly need in South Africa considering the high level of illiteracy.

According to Statistics South Africa, there are about 4 million South Africans over the age of 15 who are illiterate and a further 3,5 million adults who are functioning illiterate. We need a culture of learning and reading, which needs to be encouraged amongst all our people. The promotion of literacy and a culture of reading is important both for the individual and nation-building.

As mentioned in the position paper, the MDDA will liaise with the Department of Education and other literacy organisations in considering support for literacy material production to promote reading.

We need our people to take ownership of community newspapers. I am happy to say that this new Bill makes provision for the appointment of a board which will support anyone wanting to start their own community newspaper.

Support of ownership will be given to those from historically disadvantaged communities. This agency will also encourage the development of human resources, training and capacity-building within the media industry, especially amongst historically disadvantaged groups, which include women, the youth, children, people with disabilities, the working class, poor people, people living in rural areas, people living in cities and towns, those having limited media resources, marginalised language groups, illiterate people and senior citizens.

Yes, as we can see, the Bill is for our people at grassroots level. This Bill is basically for us. We congratulate the GCIS for bringing this Bill. Let us continue to work and make a better life for our people through making South Africa an information, informative, informed country. [Applause.]

Mr S ABRAM: Chairperson, I wish to congratulate the hon member Wilma Newhoudt-Druchen for, in her way, communicating with us and giving us her innermost feelings on this particular measure.

Worldwide, the media environment is rapidly offering a greater variety of choice. This is equally true of the media environment in South Africa. The modern media environment offers more diversity and a freer flow of information, nationally as well as globally. The other side of the coin, however, is that the media can also limit access. South Africa has its own history of a media controlled by particular segments of the population.

Based on Comtask recommendations of 1996, Cabinet apparently decided to focus its attention on both media diversity and media development. The MDDA will be responsible for developing expertise through funding and research around media development and diversity, and will operate at arm’s length from Government, the media industry and donors.

The motivation for the creation of such a body is twofold, as it will focus on both diversity and development. Media diversity, broadly speaking, is about giving all sectors of society affordable access to a variety of opinions and sources of information. These sectors range from the aged, disabled people, people in poorly resourced and remote areas, to working- class people, women, children and illiterate people. Ideally, media diversity should reflect the multilingual and multicultural nature of South African society. Within nations, a combination of private and public initiatives can persuade the media to set certain minimum standards with regard to content and media ownership.

This can be done on a self-regulating basis. A major challenge is the transfer of these standards in an international context. Ultimately, an international media system - a so-called global forum - can be developed, which could offer all individuals and citizens the opportunity of having their voices heard.

South Africa is fertile ground for media development. As a result of the lack of media diversity in South Africa, the media industry was left with insufficient development in the field of news production and media management. Factors such as media research, media financing, literacy projects, capacity-building, including journalistic, management, strategic, business and financial skills, and networking at regional, local, national and international levels, are the key focus areas of media development. Media development will therefore focus on matters such as ownership and management, access to media, content, news, advertising and ownership.

Factors contributing to the need for an agency for media development and diversity are the need for an independent media development and diversity body free from interference by Government; the active promotion of democracy and the emphasis being placed on as a wide a variety of voices and opinion as possible; the balancing of freedom of expression against the right of others, with particular reference to respect for standards of decency, especially with regard to children, but avoiding censorship; the accessibility of information, particularly in regions with insufficient human and financial resources; creating as fine a balance as possible between the marketplace and the consumer; and enabling governments to play their part in deregulating the media, without exerting undue control.

In conclusion, the drive for the development and diversification of the media in South Africa seems to be in line with international developments in this field. [Time expired.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Some hon members, particularly to my right, are agitating the decibel meter. If you would just contain yourselves, please.

Mrs R M SOUTHGATE: Chairperson, the role of the media should effectively be about sharing news and views in partnership with society as a whole. The creating of information, as well as access to it, is an inalienable right and possession of the public and the protection thereof should be respected.

The ACDP respects the right of the freedom of information that intrinsically means the independence of the media in this regard. The media should be respected for the democratic role they play within society. Therefore our understanding is that like Government, the media should equally enjoy space to develop according to the needs and changes of society.

In the apartheid era, the media danced according to the tune of the ruling regime of the time. The media currently seem not to have unlearned this bad habit of self-censorship, as they are still biased in giving more time and coverage to bigger parties, thus effectively diminishing their role as true democratic institutions of society.

The media are to blame for not taking the initiative in broadening and diversifying their role in society. Unfortunately, Government has to step in and promote this process, but fails to do so, and where the media could have controlled this process, Government will gladly usurp centre stage. What should have been a natural and freely diversified media development process will now be transformed into a controlled process implicated by the financial sanction of central Government.

The Bill, as it stands, implies that the agency will determine the mode of operation of media development and diversification based upon the support of the Minister, and he will enjoy authority over this process. The ACDP is concerned about the powers and influence that the Minister will have. The ACDP is all in favour of the development and diversification of the media, especially if the party will enjoy greater respect for its own role in Parliament. Yet the issue at stake is not how we can benefit, but whether the media will be free of Government interference. I trust that this is not another Zimbabwe in the making.

Dr S E M PHEKO: Mr Chairman, the PAC supports the Media Development and Diversity Agency Bill. [Applause.] Our country needs development and diversity in the media. This is one of the main ways of promoting national stability and enriching democracy in our country.

The media in this country desperately need a process of decolonisation and abandonment of behaving as if the eurocentric view of the world is the only one in the world. African countries have made a blunder of the first magnitude by allowing so much foreign or European investment in media to control the minds of our people to their advantage. Diversity cannot come out of media which were founded on colonialism and racism, and whose objectives were to protect foreign interests and trample down those of the indigenous people.

The purpose of the Media Development and Diversity Agency Bill is to provide for the support of projects aimed at promoting media development and diversity.

The PAC goes along with clause 6 regarding qualifications of persons who may not be appointed on the board of the agency. Clause 17 deals with special groups who must benefit. Some of them are poor people, people living in rural areas, women, the youth, children, illiterate people, senior citizens and people with disabilities. The present media pay little or no attention to these special groups.

However, we find that clause 18(3) contradicts clauses 6(c) and (d), which say respectively that a person may not be an MP or the office bearer of a political party. Yet clause 18(3) provides for the Minister to provide for detailed criteria for selecting, albeit in consultation with the board. [Applause.]

Ms M R MORUTOA: Mr Chairperson, members of the Cabinet, hon members, members of the public, firstly, I would like to correct a statement from my colleagues from the portfolio committee from the opposition party. Nowhere in the Bill does it state that the Government Communication and Information System will be represented on the board. Hon members Vos and Smuts are misleading the House.

My speech will be on the outstanding importance of having the Media Development and Diversity Agency Bill enacted. The ANC gives its full support to this Bill because the historic aim of the ANC is to lead the democratic and patriotic forces to destroy the apartheid legacy and replace it with a united, nonracial, nonsexist and democratic South Africa in which people as a whole shall govern and all shall enjoy equal rights. The time has come! And the time is now! The MDDA is an independent statutory body without regulatory powers. Its aim will be to obliterate the barriers that exist in achieving the Government’s objective of universal access to diverse information in the society. For instance, commuters are interested in receiving information on programmes addressing their social needs in their indigenous languages. The only way to address the plight of these communities is by licensing more community radio stations. Community radio stations represent the democratisation of communications and the adaptation of the media for the use of communities. They aim to be the basis of popular participation by communities.

It has been seven years since the first community radio licences were issued, and community radio has had a profound impact on opening up the airwaves in South Africa.

The latest radio audience measurement, or Rams, figures estimate overall weekly listenership at well over three million. In the past five years alone 100 community radio stations have been licensed and 80 of these are still going strong.

The radio stations became a breeding ground for big-timers like the famous Phat Joes of this world who happened to be volunteers at community radio stations before they became famous. The community radio that I am speaking about should be a different one from the cheap radio stations that we had previously. It should address issues of women and give information to the elderly about their social grants. It should broadcast educational programmes for the youth. The MDDA should work with Icasa for the licensing and co-ordination of community radio stations.

On the other hand, it would be ideal for the universal service agency to roll out telecentres where community radio stations could be established. Gone are the days of the colonialist order. I would like to remind the House of the broadcasting stations we had in the 1950s. In Soweto we had Radio Fusion. I do not know how many hon members still remember what Radio Fusion was. Umsakazo. [Radio.] A box was installed in a house, without any consultation with the occupants of the premises. It did not give one any option but to listen to the programmes prepared by the broadcasting authorities. It was also used for propaganda purposes. The first programme on Radio Fusion would start at five. I have already mentioned that one had no option, because there were no utilities to operate on this device. In the morning one was compelled to listen to this loud sound of a cock crowning: ``Cookerookookoo.’’ [Laughter.]

Vukani, vukani, sekusile madoda. [Kuyahlekwa.] [Wake up, wake up, it is already daylight. [Laughter.]]

This meant everyone should wake up and start running for their trains or buses to go and toil for their living, while the society of whites was enjoying the preferred radio stations such as Springbok Radio, the medium waves and LM Radio. [Interjections.] These stations were using English and Afrikaans, and were very biased towards the white communities.

The poor black people never even thought of having a sophisticated device such as a radio.

Sekela Sihlalo, ndichaza indlela le zixabiseke ngayo iindawo zosasazo eluntwini, ngoba nabantu abadala baye bakwazi ukumamela iinkqubo zenkamnkam, nolutsha luyakwazi ukuva ngamathuba emisebenzi kwiindawo ngeendawo nakwiidolophu ezinkulu. Enye into ebalulekileyo ngala majelo, ziimfundiso ezikhoyo ngesifo ugawulayo. Le ke yinto ebaluleke kakhulu kula maxesha angoku. Ndiyathemba okokuba le ntetho iya kufikelela ezindlebeni ezibukhali zabemi boMzantsi Afrika. (Translation of Xhosa paragraph follows.)

[Deputy Chairperson, I am trying to explain the importance of the media to people because even old people can listen over the radio to programmes that talk about pension issues, the youth are able to hear about job opportunities in different places and big towns and cities. Another thing that is important about the media is that people get educated about HIV/Aids. That is very important nowadays. I hope that all the citizens of South Africa will hear this speech.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: I think the hon member could well be called upon to start the next Comrades Marathon. [Laughter.]

Miss S RAJBALLY: Chairperson, the media is one of the world’s key factors in communication. The message that it conveys, portrays and establishes is crucial. This could be both positive and negative but, as a Government of transparency, we think that it is crucial that all activities should be accessible to the public, whether positive or negative.

We have passed the era of shoving things under the carpet and hiding the truth. It is mainly for this reason that today many people still falsely believe that the era of apartheid was an era of good governance and management of South African affairs, as they were unaware of the racial discrimination. People were misled to believe that lie and are today puzzled by our Government’s performance regarding transformation and the lack of funds. Others claim that it engages in unnecessary expenditure but they do not realise that we are sitting with a massive foreign debt which was accumulated by the past regime. Hard work, sacrifice and time are needed to overcome it. If the foreign debt was written off, our performance and achievements would be much greater.

However, I am here to rather talk about the Media Development and Diversity Agency Bill that the MF supports. Having noted the various organs and parties that were consulted, it would be expected that the agency would serve as a credit. As part of the Government of transparency, the MF hopes that this agency will also undertake to ensure the success and achievements of the Government’s projects for the people so that the true notion of delivery should be conveyed, and hope and confidence be instilled in our people and the Government of our people.

The MF supports the Media Development and Diversity Agency Bill. [Applause.]

Mnr C AUCAMP: Mnr die Voorsitter, wanneer ons praat van verskeidenheid en ontwikkeling, rakende dit wat hierdie Raad gaan doen, dan is die AEB positief. Die grond van ons bestaan is dat verskeidenheid erken moet word. Ons glo ook dat ontwikkeling op alle gebiede die sleutel is tot ‘n suksesvolle Suid-Afrika, dat die media in Suid-Afrika die verskeidenheid van alle gemeenskappe moet reflekteer, en dat alle gemeenskappe moet ontwikkel. Die staat moet hiertoe bydra, finansieel ook, want die vryemark kan wreed wees. Dit kan die vet koeie vetter maak en monopolieë tot gevolg hê.

Maar wanneer die regerende party, via sy Minister van propaganda, indirek ‘n keuse kan uitoefen oor wie gefinansier word, en wie nie, begin die rooi ligte flikker. Die gevaar bestaan dan dat die verskeidenheid kan sneuwel ter wille van ``his master’s one voice’’. Ons het vandag mooi beloftes oor onafhanklikheid gehoor. Waarom dan die groot regeringsinspraak?

As ‘n mens onafhanklikheid soek, implementeer jy onafhanklikheid. Jy kan nie vir wolf skaapwagter maak, net omdat hy so mooi belowe hy gaan nie die skape eet nie. Hy gaan. [Gelag.] Dit is in sy aard. Hy is ‘n politikus wat stemme soek by ‘n volgende stembus. Hy kom boonop van ‘n party met die hoofdoelwit: ``To change the minds and the hearts of the people.’’ [Tussenwerpsels.]

Ten spyte van al die mooi ideale mag politici nie op hierdie wyse beheer kry oor die media nie. Wat is die alternatief? ‘n Onafhanklike liggaam wat soos die OVK met vaste kriteria en vaste formules verskeidenheid kan bevorder. Ons het hier te doen met ‘n proses van, nie social engineering'' nie, maarmedia engineering’’. Dit is ‘n goeie diagnose wat gemaak is, naamlik dat daar ‘n behoefte ontstaan het; ongelukkig is hierdie wetsontwerp dodelike medisyne.

Die AEB kan nie hierdie wetsontwerp steun nie. [Applous.] [Tussenwerpsels.] (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)

[Mr C AUCAMP: Mr Chairperson, when we speak of diversity and development, regarding what this House is going to do, then the AEB is positive. The foundation of our existence is that diversity has to be acknowledged. We also believe that development in all spheres is the key to a successful South Africa, that the media in South Africa should reflect the diversity of all communities, and that all communities must develop. The state must contribute to this, also financially, because the free market can be cruel. It can fatten up the fat cows and cause monopolies.

But when the governing party, via its Minister of propaganda, can indirectly exercise a choice regarding who will and who will not be financed, the red lights start flickering. The danger then exists that diversity can be slain for the sake of ``his master’s one voice’’. Today we heard lovely promises regarding independence. Why, then, does Government have such a great say in the matter?

When one seeks independence, one implements independence. You cannot let the wolf take care of the sheep just because he dutifully promises not to eat the sheep. He will. [Laughter.] It is in his nature. He is a politician seeking votes at the next poll. In addition he comes from a party whose main aim is to change the minds and the hearts of the people. [Interjections.]

In spite of all the fine-sounding ideals, politicians may not gain control of the media in this manner. What is the alternative? An independent body which, like the IEC, can promote diversity with set criteria and formulas. Here we are dealing with a process, not of social engineering, but of media engineering. A good diagnosis was made, namely that a need exists; unfortunately this Bill is deadly medicine.

The AEB cannot support this Bill. [Applause.] [Interjections.]] The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY: Chairperson, I would like, first of all, to thank all of the speakers who participated in this debate for their input, and I include Ms Dene Smuts. However, I do regret one thing: The approach taken by Ms Dene Smuts reminds me that we actually do live in two worlds.

There is a world inhabited by the DP, which is very different to the one inhabited by the hon members Phadagi and Morutoa, for example, and it would have helped the hon members from the other world to sometimes just pay a little attention to what the hon Phadagi and Murotoa said, for example. Now I am not sure that Ms Smuts’s choice, as a journalistic device, to use Thatcherism-Stalinism is going to endear her to those very conservative friends and supporters that she has. They are not going to be happy with her. She probably lost her party some votes. If I were the Whip Mr Ellis, I would have another look at her speeches before she makes them. [Interjections.]

If that hon member had some thoughts to control he could control them, but some of those members do not have any thoughts, so it is a bit difficult to control them.

I do understand that Ms Southgate’s party has very few members in this House and therefore it is not possible for the ACDP to attend all of the meetings of the portfolio committees, but it would have helped if she had just taken the trouble to actually read Bill. I take it that she can read English. It would have taken her no more than half an hour to read the Bill. If she had read the Bill, Ms Southgate would not have said what she said.

There is nothing in this piece of legislation about government control, nothing whatsoever. What it does say is that, with respect to regulations that would govern even the way the board may function, the Minister in consultation with the board, as Comrade Kekana pointed out, will make these regulations. With any government in any part of the world, the making of regulations is essentially the function of the executive. What we have done in this Bill is bend over backwards to accommodate those in the private sector who are making a contribution and who said that they did not want a situation in which regulations were passed which would make them unhappy.

Let me repeat this so that the hon member does not have to read the Bill. The Minister cannot make regulations on his own. They will be made in consultation with the board and the board itself cannot publish regulations in the Gazette … [Interjections.] The hon member should read page 8 at the bottom there, and if she still does not understand she can meet me outside and I will explain it.

Secondly, I would be ashamed if I were one of those hon members, really, because I am utterly disgusted at someone who could stand here, not understanding a piece of legislation, and then express the hope that there will not be a Zimbabwe. What is the matter with them? Politically, I call on them not to join the serried ranks of the reactionaries. If they want to win one more seat in 2004, they should not go in the direction of reactionary politics, because then they will lose even those seats that they have now. [Applause.]

Let me say this to Ms Smuts. If we had wished to do so, as the Government - we are putting more money into this than the private sector - we could have done so without the necessity of having any piece of legislation. We could have set up a media development and diversity agency. What we have done, in spite of the fact that we are putting in more money, is actually introduce a piece of legislation which, as Ms Vos asked, will then put this agency at arm’s length from the Government. We have done this in spite of the fact that we are putting the bulk of the money into the agency. There are very few governments in this world that are prepared to do that.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Would the Minister please start rounding off?

The MINISTER: We are prepared to do that because we believe very sincerely that what we require in South Africa is a diversified media that will act and operate in a way in which those of our people who have been systematically denied the right not only to receive information but also to impart it will now begin to get that right. That is why we are setting up this agency.

So it is the opposite of any attempt to control anything. Therefore, even at this late stage - I have known Ms Smuts for a long time, we negotiated together at Kempton Park, and I know that she is a nice person, she is bright, and that she understands many things - I would like to appeal to her to support this Bill. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time (Democratic Party, New National Party, African Christian Democratic Party and Afrikaner Eenheidsbeweging dissenting).

The House adjourned at 18:56. ____

            ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS

ANNOUNCEMENTS:

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:

1. The Speaker and the Chairperson:

 (1)    The Minister of Transport on 9 May 2002 submitted a draft of the
     South African Maritime and Aeronautical  Search  and  Rescue  Bill,
     2002, as well as the  memorandum  explaining  the  objects  of  the
     proposed legislation, to the Speaker and the Chairperson  in  terms
     of Joint Rule 159. The draft has been  referred  to  the  Portfolio
     Committee on Transport and the Select Committee on Public  Services
     by the Speaker and the  Chairperson,  respectively,  in  accordance
     with Joint Rule 159(2).


 (2)    The Minister for Provincial and Local Government on 10 May  2002
     submitted a draft of the  Local  Government:  Municipal  Structures
     Amendment Bill, 2002, as well  as  the  memorandum  explaining  the
     objects of  the  proposed  legislation,  to  the  Speaker  and  the
     Chairperson in  terms  of  Joint  Rule  159.  The  draft  has  been
     referred  to  the  Portfolio  Committee  on  Provincial  and  Local
     Government  and  the  Select  Committee  on  Local  Government  and
     Administration by the Speaker and  the  Chairperson,  respectively,
     in accordance with Joint Rule 159(2).


 (3)    The following Bill was introduced by the Minister for Provincial
     and Local Government in the National Assembly on 14  May  2002  and
     referred to the Joint Tagging Mechanism  (JTM)  for  classification
     in terms of Joint Rule 160:


     (i)     Local Government: Municipal Structures  Amendment  Bill  [B
          22 - 2002] (National Assembly - sec 75) [Bill and prior notice
          of its introduction published in Government Gazette  No  23247
          of 19 March 2002.]


     The  Bill  has  been  referred  to  the  Portfolio   Committee   on
     Provincial and Local Government of the National Assembly.


     In terms of Joint Rule 154 written views on the  classification  of
     the Bill may be submitted to the  JTM  within  three  parliamentary
     working days.


 (4)    The following Bill was introduced by the Minister  of  Transport
     in the National Assembly on 14 May 2002 and referred to  the  Joint
     Tagging Mechanism (JTM) for classification in terms of  Joint  Rule
     160:


     (i)     South African Maritime and Aeronautical Search  and  Rescue
          Bill [B 23 - 2002] (National Assembly - sec  75)  [Explanatory
          summary of Bill and prior notice of its introduction published
          in Government Gazette No 22509 of 7 September 2001.]


     The Bill has been referred to the Portfolio Committee on  Transport
     of the National Assembly.


     In terms of Joint Rule 154 written views on the  classification  of
     the Bill may be submitted to the  JTM  within  three  parliamentary
     working days.

National Assembly:

1. The Speaker:

 (1)    Mr N P Nhleko has been appointed  Chief  Whip  of  the  Majority
     Party with effect from 9 May 2002.


 (2)    Message from National Council of Provinces to National Assembly:


     Bill, as amended, passed by National Council  of  Provinces  on  14
     May  2002  and   transmitted   for   consideration   of   Council's
     amendments:


     (i)     National Railway  Safety  Regulator  Bill  [B  7D  -  2002]
          (National Assembly - sec 76).
     The amended Bill has been referred to the  Portfolio  Committee  on
     Transport  for  a  report  and  recommendations  on  the  Council's
     amendments.

TABLINGS:

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:

Papers:

1. The Minister of Labour:

 Preliminary Annual Report of the Department of Labour for 2001-2002 [RP
 70-2002].