WEDNESDAY, 23 OCTOBER 2002
                                ____

                PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
                                ____

The House met at 15:08.

The Speaker took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayers or meditation.

ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS - see col 000.

                          NOTICES OF MOTION

Mnu I Z NCINANE: Somlomo, ndenza isaziso sokuba ngosuku olulande layo lwendibano yeNdlu ndiya kwenza isiphakamiso:

Sokuba iNdlu -

(1) iqaphele ukuba kule nyanga yokhuselo lwamalungelo abantwana, intombazana eminyaka ili-17, uPhilani Xintolo, yenze umsebenzi wokuvolontiya kubantwana abangenamakhaya eMtata;

(2) iqaphele ukuba lo msebenzi wokuvolontiya wenziwa yile ntwazana, uyinxalenye yekhwelo elibethwe nguKhongolose kubantu baseMzantsi Afrika bebonke, ukuba babe ngamavolontiya enguqu kweli lizwe;

(3) income lo msebenzi nenkuthalo yale ntwazana inguPhilani Xintolo; yaye

 4) imeme bonke abemi boMzantsi Afrika, abancinane nabadala ukuba
    balandele eli khondo lihle kangaka, bafake isandla ekwakhiweni
    kobomi obungcono babantu beli lizwe. (Translation of Xhosa notice of motion follows.)

[Mr I Z NCINANE: Chairperson, I give notice that I shall move at the next sitting of the House:

That the House -

(1) notes that this month, which has been dedicated to the protection of children’s rights, a young girl of 17, Philani Xintolo, is doing voluntary work with homeless children in Umtata;

(2) believes that the voluntary work done by this young girl is in response to the ANC’s call to all the people of South Africa to become volunteers for change in this country;

(3) commends Philani Xintolo for doing voluntary work, particularly among homeless children; and

(4) calls upon all the citizens of South Africa, young and old, to follow this very good example and lend a hand in the creation of a better life for all the people of this country.]

Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that I shall move:

That this House -

(1) notes that the crossing-over period for local government councillors ended last night;

(2) notes further that the ANC/New NP alliance enticed a few hundred councillors into their ranks;

(3) thanks the ANC for disposing of the New NP as a political competitor; and

(4) acclaims the fact that the political discourse and competition in South Africa between now and 2004 will be between the ANC and the DA.

[Applause.]

Prince N E ZULU: 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) notes with shock that some doctors in Cape Town are practising in fear of their lives while others are being forced to close their surgeries as a result of a spate of attacks and armed robberies;

(2) further notes that some of the doctors alleged that the police had failed to respond at the time of the crimes and took three weeks to arrive and to take down full statements;

(3) realises that we cannot afford to have surgeries closing down and doctors leaving, especially in the poor areas; and

(4) calls upon the relevant authorities to urgently address these and other crimes against surgeries and hospitals around South Africa.

Muf T J TSHIVHASE: Mudzula Tshidulo, ndi khou ḓivhadza zwauri nga ḓuvha ḽa dzulo ḽi tevhelaho ḽa Nnḓu ndi ḓo tsivhudza:

Nnḓu zwauri -

(1) i dzhila nzhele zwauri ṅwedzi wa Tshimedzi ndi wa Pfanelo dza Vhana, na uri Thovhele Khosi khulu Vho MPK Tshivhase vho pfufha ``merit certificates’’ kha - (a) vhagudiswa vhe vha wana maraga dza nṱha kha ṅwaha wa 2001, vha mulingo wa maṱiriki tshikoloni tsha Sekondari ya Shayandima;

   (b)  vhadededzi vhararu vho ṱoṱomowaho u ḓikumedzela kha u funza
       vhagudiswa; na uri


   (c)  ṱhoho dza zwikolo zwa fumi vho newa khomphutha dza dzi
       ḽebuthopho;

(2) i tenda zwauri pfufho ṱhanziela ndi ṱhuṱhuwedzo ya mvelele ya u guda u funza na vhuḓifhinduleli kha tshitshavha. Pfunzo ndi thulusi ya vhuṱhogwa ya u maanḓafhadza vhana na uri vha vhe na nzhele ya ndugelo dzavho na vhuḓifhinduleli sa vhadzulapo na vharangaphanḓa vha matshelo; na uri

(3) i ṱoḓa u livhuwa khosi khulu vho M P K Tshivhase kha pfunzo hei na ṱhuṱhuwedzo kha vhagudiswa, vhadedezi, ṱhoho dza zwikolo na lushaka lwa khoro ya dzofha ḽa ha Tshivhase. (Translation of Tshivenḓa notice of motion follows.)

[Mrs T J TSHIVHASE: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:

That the House -

(1) notes that the month of October is for the rights of the children and that His Majesty Chief M P K Tshivhase awarded the merit certificates to -

   (a)  matric learners who obtained the highest marks at Shayandima
       Secondary School;


   (b)  three teachers who excelled in teaching; and


   (c)  about 10 school principals who were given laptop computers;   (2) believes that these awards encourage the culture of learning,
   teaching and being responsible to the community and that education is
   an important tool to encourage children to know their rights as
   citizens and leaders of tomorrow; and

(3) would like to thank his Majesty Chief M P K Tshivhase in this education and encouragement to the learners, teachers, school principals and the royal clan of the Tshivhase family.]

Mnr A BLAAS: Mevrou die Speaker, hiermee gee ek kennis, namens die Nuwe NP:

Dat die Huis -

(1) kennis neem dat -

   (a)  Denel 'n multi-miljoenrand- buitelandse kontrak met die Finse
       vloot gesluit het, deur plaaslik vervaardigde Umkhonto-oppervlak-
       tot-lug-missiele aan hulle te verskaf; en


   (b)  dit die eerste buitelandse kontrak vir Umkhonto-missiele is en
       dat die missiele uniek is deurdat hulle vertikaal gelanseer kan
       word, 'n intelligente vermoë het om tussen 'n verskeidenheid
       teikens te kan onderskei en, verder ook aantreklik gemaak word
       deur die mededingende prys waarteen dit gelewer kan word;

(2) verder kennis neem dat -

   (a)  Finland 'n lid van die Europese Unie is en dit in Suid-Afrika se
       guns tel, aangesien dit vertroue in die Suid-Afrikaanse
       wapenvervaardigingsbedryf by ander lidlande van die EU kan
       inboesem; en


     b) die Nuwe NP Denel gelukwens met hierdie groot kontrak en die
        hoop uitspreek dat dit een van vele sal wees wat daartoe sal
        bydra dat ons inheemse wapenvervaardigingsbedryf sy regmatige
        erkenning in die internasionale wapenbedryf sal kry. (Translation of Afrikaans notice of motion follows.)

[Mr A BLAAS: Madam Speaker, I shall move on behalf of the New NP:

That the House -

(1) notes that -

   (a)  Denel concluded a multi-million rand offshore contract with the
       Finnish navy, by supplying them with locally produced Umkhonto
       surface-to-air missiles; and


   (b)  this is the first offshore contract for Umkhonto missiles and
       that these missiles are unique in that they can be launched
       vertically and have an intelligent ability to distinguish
       between a variety of targets and is further also made more
       attractive by the competitive price at which it can be supplied;

(2) further notes that -

   (a)  Finland is a member of the European Union and this is in South
       Africa's favour, as it can instil confidence in the South
       African armaments manufacturing industry with other members of
       the EU; and


   (b)  the New NP congratulates Denel on this large contract and
       expresses the hope that this would be one of many which would
       contribute to our local armaments industry getting its deserved
       recognition in the international arms industry.]

Mr M N RAMODIKE: Madam Speaker, I will move on behalf the UDM at the next sitting of this House:

That the House -

(1) affirms that access to proper and adequate public health care is a primary function of Government, which is a constitutional right of every citizen that Government must progressively realise;

(2) acknowledges that health care issues, ranging from nutrition to reproductive care, to HIV/Aids and other communicable diseases have a major impact on millions of South Africans and, if considered in total, point to a massive social injustice that continues to occur eight years into the democratic dispensation;

(3) therefore expresses its disgust with figures for January this year that were released yesterday and which indicate that there were 29 208 vacant posts at public health institutions, which has been attributed to the brain drain as well as inadequate budgets at provincial health departmental level; and

(4) calls upon the Minister of Health to develop strategies to prevent the medical brain drain as well as to ensure that provincial health departments receive adequate funding in the next budget to appoint health care professionals to address this unnecessary and highly irresponsible backlog.

Mong S PHOHLELA: Sebui, mona ke etsa tsebiso ya hore kopanong e latelang ya Ntlo ena, ke tla sisinya:

Hore Ntlo -

(1) e elellwe ha letona le kgabane la Ditaba tsa Ntshetsopele ya Setjhaba, Mohlomphehi Zola Skweyiya a tla tshwara kopano ya matsatsi a mabedi a kenyeletsang boemedi ba mafapha ohle ka mekgahlelo ya Puso ka hare ho naha, baetapele mafapheng a kgwebo, baemedi ba mekgatlo eo e seng ya Mmuso, baemedi ba mekgatlo ya tsa bodumedi ekasita le bafani ba matsete ho tswa matjhabeng;

(2) e elellwe ha mokotaba wa kopanohadi ena e rerilweng e le ``Ntwa kgahlanong le bofuma, tlhaselo ka kopanelo pakeng tsa Mmuso le boRakgwebo’’, mme ho tla toboketswa ho bopa selekane se matla ho hlola bofuma bona, le ho lwantsha kokwana-hloko ena ya HIV/Aids, tlhokomelo ya bana, maqheku le batho ba sa itekanelang mmeleng;

(3) e elellwe hore re dumela hore kopano ena e tla kenya letsoho dipuisanong le ntshetsopeleng ho hlabolla setjhaba twantshong ya bofuma; mme

 4) re thoholetsa Letona Zola Skweyiya ka morerohadi ona o makgethe. (Translation of Sotho notice of motion follows.)

[Mr S PHOHLELA: Chairperson, I give notice that I shall move at the next sitting of the House:

That the House -

(1) notes that the Minister of Social Development, Honourable Zola Skweyiya, will hold a two-day summit with representatives from all tiers of government, business leaders, NGOs, faith-based organisations and international donors;

(2) further notes that the theme of the planned conference is ``Poverty Alleviation and Eradication - for Integrated Business and Government Approach’’ and will focus on the creation of partnerships for poverty alleviation, the fight against HIV/Aids, children’s access to social grants and the rights of the elderly and disabled;

(3) believes that this summit will contribute to the ongoing national dialogue to develop strategies to meet the socio-economic challenges of the poor and in a fight against poverty; and

(4) commends Minister Skweyiya for embarking on this important initiative.]

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

That the House -

(1) notes that -

   (a)  there is a threat of war against Iraq by the governments of
       America and of Britain; and


   (b)  both governments are endangering world peace by their intended
       aggression in Iraq;

(2) observes that to eradicate poverty and accelerate economic development, especially in the former colonised countries of Africa and other, there must be peace in the world so that all available resources may be used for sustainable development envisaged by the recent World Summit for Sustainable Development;

(3) cautions that if the American and British governments want action to be taken against Iraq, it must be authorised by the Security Council according to the United Nations Charter;

(4) believes that America and Britain as permanent members of the Security Council must observe the UN Charter and international law in general; and

(5) salutes the People’s Republic of China, France and Russia, which are three of the five permanent members of the Security Council, for abiding by the UN Charter and condemns America and Britain for their intention to commit aggression against Iraq, whose main objective is to protect their oil interests in the Middle East.

Mr S N SWART: Madam Speaker, at the next sitting of the House, I will move on behalf of the ACDP:

That the House -

(1) welcomes the landmark judgment handed down by Acting High Court Judge Hilton Epstein last week when he dismissed Filmmaker De Reuck’s claim that he had a constitutional right to possess child pornography;

(2) notes that the judge stated that the Constitution was not a licence to deprave, nor is it designed to promote shameful or wicked behaviour'', and that child pornographyis debased, dehumanises and has no redeeming qualities whatsoever and that it presents one of the most, if not the most, serious problems threatening the fabric of South African society,’’;

(3) further notes that the evidence presented by the state advocates indicated that the psychological effects on children involved in child pornography included feelings of guilt, worthlessness and rage, which could lead to long-term problematic social and sexual functioning; and

(4) consequently calls upon Government to use every means at its disposal to eradicate this growing multi-million Rand business, which is a scourge of our society.

[Applause.]

Mr L V NGCULU: Madam Speaker, I shall move on behalf of the ANC:

That the House -

(1) notes that the United States National Institute for Health awarded the Universities of Stellenbosch, Witwatersrand and Cape Town a grant to the tune of R220 million;

(2) further notes that this money will be used for research projects which will focus on testing whether the interruption of treatment is an affordable way of controlling the HIV infection, determining the efficacy of two child vaccines and developing simple and inexpensive methods of diagnosing HIV and monitoring treatment;

(3) believes that the outcome of this research project will contribute positively to improving existing intervention strategies to curb the spread of HIV/Aids; and (4) welcomes the R220 million grant to fight the scourge of HIV/Aids.

[Applause.]

Ms R TALJAARD: Madam Speaker, I give notice that I shall move:

That this House -

(1) notes that –

   (a)  the final report of the UN Panel on the Illegal Exploitation of
       Natural Resources and other Forms of Wealth of the DRC found
       that ruling elites of the governments of the DRC, Rwanda, Uganda
       and Zimbabwe are involved with global criminal networks in the
       exploitation of natural and fiscal resources; and


   (b)  the Zimbabwe Defence Minister proposed to President Mugabe that
       a company be set up in Mauritius to disguise the continuing
       economic interests of the Zimbabwe Defence Force and elite in
       the DRC; and

(2) calls on President Mbeki to give assurances that -

   (a)  silent diplomacy is confronting Zimbabwe's new resource
       colonialism in the DRC;


   (b)  South Africa is not a transit country for or recipient of
       conflict commodities from the DRC; and


   (c)  any South Africans implicated in the report are under
       investigation for possible prosecution.

Mr B W DHLAMINI: Madam Speaker, I shall move on behalf of the IFP:

That the House -

(1) learns with extreme horror that an eight-year-old school girl in Gauteng was raped in class by a fellow pupil in the presence of other pupils;

(2) recognises that this problem is one that has to be rooted out; and

(3) calls on the Ministers of Education and of Safety and Security immediately to set up a high-level investigation and to report fully to the House.

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

That the House -

(1) notes that -

   (a)  the Industrial Development Corporation, IDC, has announced that
       it is entering into a R230 million empowerment deal with Black
       Management Forum Investment Firm and Karsten Boerdery in the
       agricultural sector for the development of Koebos Fruit Farms in
       Northern Cape, which will export grapes; and


   (b)  this project is estimated to bring approximately R166 million in
       foreign currency and to lead to the creation of 1 250 jobs;

(2) believes that -

   (a)  the implementation of this empowerment deal will contribute
       positively in the transformation of the agricultural sector to
       allow for the participation of historically disadvantaged
       communities as farmers; and


   (b)  the new job opportunities which will be created by this project
       will contribute positively to the fight against poverty; and

(3) welcomes this empowerment deal, among IDC, Karsten Boerdery and Black Management Forum Investment Firm to develop Koebos Fruit Farms.

Mr J DURAND: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that at the next sitting of the House I shall move on behalf of the New NP:

That the House -

(1) notes with concern the confession by Mr Andile Ngcaba, the DG of the Department of Communications, that the SABC has no funds to create the regional broadcasting service to promote multilingualism; and

(2) calls on the Government to recognise the historical, diminished use and status of our people’s indigenous languages, and to implement practical and positive measures to elevate the status of and advance the use of indigenous languages, including Afrikaans. [Interjections.]

                         FIRE IN PARLIAMENT

                         (Draft Resolution)

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

That the House -

(1) notes that - (a) on Friday, 18 October 2002, before lunch, a fire broke out in a toilet in the Old Assembly section of Parliament;

   (b)  the fire was detected by Lulamile Klassen, a Parliamentary
       switchboard operator;


   (c)  the cause of the fire is attributed to an electrical
       malfunction; and


   (d)  that neither smoke detectors nor the fire alarm was activated;
       and

(2) commends maintenance assistant, Shaun Brown, Lulamile Klassen and service officer Gavin Solomons for their brave and heroic actions in extinguishing the fire with gas fire extinguishers and in so doing averting a potential disaster in our Parliament.

                      SUSPENSION OF RULE 253(1)

                         (Draft Resolution)

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

That Rule 253(1) be suspended for the purposes of conducting the Second Reading debates on the following Bills:

(a) Administration of Estates Amendment Bill [B 54B - 2002] (National Assembly - sec 75);

(b) Judicial Matters Amendment Bill [B 55B - 2002] (National Assembly - sec 75); and

(c) Local Government Laws Amendment Bill [B 61B - 2002] (National Assembly - sec 75).

      ROBBING AND KILLING OF FOUR PASSENGERS ON METRORAIL TRAIN

                         (Draft Resolution)

Mrs L R MBUYAZI: Madam Speaker, I move without notice:

That the House -

(1) is horrified to learn that four passengers, travelling on Metrorail to Khayelitsha, were robbed and thrown to their deaths by thugs on the train;

(2) notes that this is not the first time that travellers have been thus exposed to extreme danger; and

(3) calls on the Minister of Transport to deal with this matter as one that is of extreme public importance and to report to the House within 120 days from today.

                            FINANCE BILL

                       (First Reading debate)

Order disposed of without debate.

Bill read a first time.

                            FINANCE BILL

                       (Second Reading debate)

Order disposed of without debate.

Bill read a second time.

                     BROADCASTING AMENDMENT BILL

                       (Second Reading debate)

The MINISTER OF COMMUNICATIONS: Madam Speaker, hon members of this House, the Bill that we present here today is debated in the wake of the celebration of Press Freedom Day in our country on 19 October. This 25th commemoration of a very dark day in our country, when a number of black news organisations were closed down and their members arrested because the apartheid government did not like their views, is a stark reminder of what we as a Government should never repeat, and what we as South Africans should never again accept.

Perhaps it is opportune that this Bill is debated at a time when we are reflecting on where we come from and contemplating the future of our young democracy. The debate on this Bill and the commemoration help us to reaffirm that media is fundamental to democracy and that a free media is imperative.

The Bill we are presenting was first received with some hysteria and unfounded or misguided accusations of Government’s intentions to control the media, particularly the public broadcaster, and ride roughshod over the Constitution and the rights it confers on those in the media. Nothing could be further from the truth.

We introduced the Bill very conscious of the fact that it would spark debate about broadcasting’s role and social obligations, a debate we had tried unsuccessfully to engage in with the SABC for two years. Our experience from the complaints that we had received from a number of members of this House and members of the public, both urban and rural - both those who are highly literate, with access to numerous media, and those who are illiterate, with limited access to the media except radio - helped to shape this Bill.

We were painfully aware of how the media, and the SABC in particular, had a so-called expert - I hope members still remember him - by the name of Eugene Nyathi. In fact, I was painfully reminded that the SABC is the one that created Nyathi during my chairpersonship of that organisation.

More recently two other issues of how broadcasters can unleash havoc on the public were brought to my attention. A radio in a province I shall not name had a weekly programme in which an expert on witchcraft was presented to the public, only to be told by the so-called expert psychiatrist that he is actually a mental patient. I asked myself: Why and how can we unleash such insanity - excuse the pun - on our unsuspecting public.

In another province, a weekly programme had an internecine war fanned between two people, one a mayor of a town and the other a radio programme presenter. The unsuspecting public were not informed that the presenter was in fact the former mayor of that town who was unhappy about having been ousted. Such abuse of our airwaves was certainly not intended by the right of freedom of expression.

What appeared as an extreme position of Government in the Bill was intended to have all South Africans - and, indeed, this Parliament - focus their attention on the challenge of accountability and responsibility in broadcasting, cognisant of the diversity of experiences of all the people of this nation.

After the initial reaction of this nation and the portfolio committee through the newspapers, radio programmes and the debates of hon members of this House, we are able to focus on the real issues, rather than the imagined ones that arose out of either a lack of reading and/or the failure to understand the Bill.

The debates allowed us to deal with challenges confronting South Africa, such as unequal access to television broadcasting in languages of the majority; lack of sufficient local content in programming that reflects South Africa and a shared vision of a diverse population; balancing the right of freedom of expression with the other rights enshrined in the Bill of rights in the Constitution; and challenges that are reflected in what Joe Thloloe, a respected journalist, called ``the deteriorating standards in the news room’’. He asks us to accept these fact, because a large core of experienced journalists have been lost to the trade.

He wrote as follows in the Sowetan: ``With the influx of junior reporters, the craft has lost its stature’’. In this vein another journalist wrote that journalists must use analytical tools to verify information and get their stories from primary sources, rather than replacing these with telephone and fax journalism. And he complaints that there is no verification.

It was those kinds of things that influenced us in the manner in which we first drafted the Bill. It was also challenges such as the lack of news, editorials, programming, language and other policies that informed or shaped the content of the national broadcaster, or else the lack of knowledge on the part of the public regarding any existing policies. It was challenges of the incomplete or what I called unfinished debate and the poorly articulated discourse on national interests, as well as the challenge of funding the public broadcaster without compromising its independence.

We are happy now that finally common sense and reason have prevailed over posturing, political rhetoric, sound bites and other opportunistic machinations, thereby allowing us to reach consensus on a wide range of issues pivotal to the development of the broadcasting system. As the debate of this Bill proceeded, it became clear that the discussions became less political and more about what is good for this new democracy in the context of a society that has not yet achieved what is called national consensus. There developed a cohesion and a respect for different views and I wish to thank all involved for this co-operation.

This Bill brings greater clarity by categorising different licences in accordance with services provided. We wish to thank all those that made technical inputs, such as Multichoice, M-Net, Orbicom, Sentech and Telkom, for their valuable inputs in this regard.

The Bill also provides for the implementation of the conversion and corporatisation of the SABC. It includes a charter, as well as accountability and compliance mechanisms. It strengthens the role of the publicly selected board in terms of governance and of Icasa in terms of regulation, licensing and monitoring.

To ensure delivery by the public broadcaster on its mandate, it is now required in law that it prepares and submits to the regulator policies that will ensure compliance with the regulator’s code of conduct and its licence conditions, as well as the objectives contained in the Broadcasting Act.

The board must ensure public participation in the development of policies and institute regular and effective means to solicit public opinion about its programming and give due consideration to that public input. The SABC must also develop its own code of conduct to ensure that the corporation complies with the constitutional principle of equality and equitable treatment of all people, all languages and the rights of all to information. The SABC must strive to provide a wide range of audience interests, beliefs and expressions, and a high standard of accuracy, fairness and impartiality must be adhered to.

The Bill now vests regional services with the SABC as entities under the full control of the SABC Board. These additional television services that will broadcast regionally in languages appropriated to the regions achieve one of the founding principles of the Constitution. This not only gives greater coverage to indigenous languages, but also recognises the cultural diversity and needs of our people, and enriches our society. It also states that original services should receive grants from the state and that revenue can also be drawn from sponsorships, donations and other grants.

Concern has been expressed about the potential dilution of the regulator, who is constitutionally empowered to issue broadcasting licences. However, there is legal precedent for the legislature to give direction to the regulator to begin a licensing process over which it would then have sole control.

For example, Parliament mandated the IBA to license a third television channel after the triple-enquiry process. No regulator can operate without direction and it is not unusual internationally for either parliament or government also to give guidance or to defend the interests of the public. Of particular importance is that, for the first time, the SABC is required by law to develop these policies in areas of its operation, such as editorial, content programming, local content, education, etc.

The provision that SABC must enjoy freedom of expression, as well as journalistic, creative and programming independence is retained, but this right is correctly placed in the context of and is to be balanced with other rights of all citizens. This freedom of expression is integral to the freedom of our people and, as our President said during his Freedom Day address this year, and I quote:

Freedom will have meaning if we work not only for individual fulfilment, but also for the good of every South African, men, women and children, and in so doing recognise that the freedom of each and every one of us is necessarily connected to the freedom of all.

The charter now states that the programming of the SABC must reflect South African values and attitudes, display South African talent and offer a variety of South African views, as well as advance the national and public interests. And therefore the public broadcaster must encourage the development of South African expression by providing a wide range of programming in all official languages.

We have listened to a number of imputs that suggest that we should have a separate Bill for the SABC and we will give serious consideration to this. The procedures for granting additional pay-television licences are catered for, thus allowing for competition in this sector.

In conclusion, I must emphasise that this Bill is about real issues, real people and their real needs. We have sought to ensure that the broadcasting system as a whole contributes to making a difference in peoples’ lives by allowing for the reflection of their reality and the enhancement of their empowerment, so that we or they can participate in … sociopolitical discussions in order to shape the future of this country and its people.

The space we have carved for meaningful participation by the public must be used to advance the national interests of building a united, democratic and caring South Africa. As individuals and collectives, we must take responsibility to make our input in the shaping of policies that will define the South African expression. As we have always said, rights go hand in hand with responsibilities, therefore we must always remember to participate in policy formulation and the implementation of the law. So let us all pay our television licences: it is the right thing to do.

Finally, we wish to thank all the organisations and people who made valuable contributions throughout the processing of this Bill. We know we have a better Bill that satisfies the majority of the concerns that were raised.

I would like to thank all the members of the Portfolio Committee on Communication, especially the chairperson, for steering through a Bill that ensures broadcasting which reflects the diversity of our people, their cultures, traditions and aspirations.

I also want to thank all the individuals and organisations that participated in the public processes and hearings, thereby enriching the discussions and strengthening our democracy. Special thanks go to the Department of Communications, in particular to the director-general and the deputy director-general, for co-ordinating the process that culminated in the presentation of this Bill to Parliament.

I request that this House accept this Bill. [Applause.]

Ms M SMUTS: Madam Speaker, the new Government tactic to achieve old goals seems to be to table, leak or otherwise introduce shock measures which reverse the negotiated new order and then, having created a panic, to retreat in a show of sweet reason to a compromise position. That compromised position becomes the new norm or point of departure. Little by little, the original principle is eroded. Step by step, the original goal is advanced.

It has taken weeks of work by many people just to return broadcasting to the status quo ante minus.

Partye wat deel wil vorm van die proses van regering, is vol verligting. Sien,'' sê die Nuwe NP,die ANC is nie magshonger nie!’’ Ryke ironie, komende van waar die Nuwe NP sit. [Parties who want to form part of government are quite relieved. You see'', says the New NP,the ANC is not power-hungry!’’ Such irony, if one considers where the New NP is sitting.]

``They never meant it’’, is what the New NP is saying. The SACP and Cosatu know better. I am prepared to accept that the hon the Minister did not intend to act inappropriately, but she is very badly advised, as they say. The trouble, in our view, comes from much higher up, as a glance at Umrabulo’s media policy, preceding the ANC conference and endorsed from high up, makes abundantly clear.

Hon members must not expect the DP to vote for this Bill just because we helped to legislate the unconstitutionality out of it. That is what Parliament is supposed to do, and it is high time, in fact, that this committee redeemed itself. I do not see any reason why we should be so thrilled that we managed to defeat overtly unconstitutional measures like ministerial control of SABC policies, that we should then vote for the substitute, a constitutionally respectable but otherwise intrusive and unnecessary requirement.

We do not see why we should vote for a Bill that undermines the logic of even the existing regulatory regime, when technology is running far ahead of the law and the industries are crying out for a convergence of law, which is DA policy. The department keeps promising such a law year after year after year, while it keeps tabling measures which further compound and confuse the present layers of alternately repetitive and contradictory statutes.

It has reached a point where the National Association of Broadcasters despairingly, I think, tabled a mammoth submission which, section by section, proposed amendments not only to this Bill, but also to the rest of the Broadcasting Act, and to the IBA Act, which underlies it and had been watered down by the Broadcasting Act. No such luck, of course. We either did not take their proposals on board, or took just the tiniest bit.

We did some of the same, with limited success, but could not persuade the committee that clauses that similarly either repeat or alter the Public Finance Management Act - which, of course, has application - should be deleted. One tries, one fails.

The current regulatory regime still rests on the assumption that the regulator conducts feasibility studies before it allocates scarce frequency, and before it allows competition in markets where the available advertising revenue indicates that viability might be a problem.

Government simply ignored this. The Government, which until now has been so allergic to multilingualism that the existing 11 radio stations are called by names that carefully avoid referring to the actual language, now wants us to believe that the need for African language TV is so urgent that all viability issues must be superseded.

Daar is ander maniere om ons Afrikatale te bevorder. Geld kon beskikbaar gemaak geword het vir die herinstelling en uitbreiding van die streekvensters van vroeër - hulle is weens koste afgeskaf - en daar is nuwe tegnologieë, met nuwe moontlikhede. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

[There are other ways to promote our African languages: money could have been made available for the re-establishment and extension of erstwhile regional windows - these were abolished for reasons of cost - and there are new technologies with new possibilities.]

But most importantly, we feel disinclined to vote for a Bill which scrapes by for constitutionality, but yet again reduces the safeguard against interference. It sets a new precedent which will become the new principle for the interpretation of section 192 of the Constitution, the section setting up an independent broadcasting regulator.

The hon the Minister here sighted precedent, I would respond in the following way on the third channel on which Parliament voted for the SABC: That matter arose from a section of the 1993-94 IBA Act; it was an injunction under that Act. It, therefore, preceded the final Constitution, section 192, so other considerations applied and prevailed.

I would like to demonstrate to hon members just how the progressive erosion of principle works by showing how the compromises of 1998 became the principles of 2002. The debate about the control of broadcasting is not a new one - control is the original goal. It is only the shock tactics that are a new element in the strategy, it seems to me.

We had almost exactly the same debate in l998. When Minister Naidoo tried to tamper with section 192 of the Constitution, the media featured him with his face superimposed on TV screens, dictating the 8 o’clock news like PW of old. Even the matter of the national interest was foreshadowed in the Green Paper of l997, which invoked thenew national vision'' or identified national goals.

Minister Naidoo then planned for a strategic equity partner for the SABC, just as this Bill kept referring, before amendment, to a period when the state would no longer be the sole shareholder of the corporation.

We argued in 1998 - and we had to do it all over again now - that Parliament does not under section 192 have the competence to authorise any agency other that an independent broadcast regulator to regulate broadcasting in the public interest. President Mandela was prepared to send the then Broadcasting Bill back to Parliament at our request. It is the compromise made at that point that became the new norm from which this Bill retreats yet again.

In 1999 we succeeded in defeating the ministerial powers to issue directives to the regulator. The compromise was that the Minister could issue specific kinds of directives under certain conditions. It is interesting that we came dangerously close to using one of those powers this time, ie the power to determine priority for the development of broadcasting. It seemed elegant enough at first to all of us, but in fact it interrupts and subverts the regulator’s own priorities for broadcasting.

In 1999 the regulator was given a certain set of absolutely exclusive powers. It is because this provision may be interpreted as constituting a limitation of Icasa’s general powers that the National Association of Broadcasters urged us now to reinstate the catch-all general powers the regulator used to have under the IBA Act. This was not done.

The list of specific powers which neither Government nor Parliament may interfere with, after the compromise of 1999, is naturally topped by Icasa’s right to license. Yet, here we are after the amendment, not quite licensing by statute, but nevertheless requiring the SABC to apply to Icasa for additional services. In theory it could refuse, and this is largely what renders this provision constitutional.

But the remaining question - which I find to be very difficult - is whether we are nevertheless indirectly constraining the regulator or usurping a material aspect of its regulatory function. This, the Constitutional Court has ruled in a comparable context, would be unconstitutional.

One could argue that this is not so, because we no longer say how many channels there must be; in which geographical areas; and which languages must cover them. On the other hand, we do the list the languages, we do set a criterion for coverage. In addition, we intrude on the regulator’s long- term work on regional commercial services due to be licensed late in 2004.

We direct the SABC to ask for increased dominance of the broadcasting landscape - its dominance is almost complete, practically - when the regulator is supposed to encourage diversity. We allow the regulator to determine the extent to which the services will draw on advertising revenue, but any such revenue whatsoever will affect the vested rights of existing licensees.

In fact, the reason why that Faraday cage is still blocking the broadcast of Bop into Gauteng is that the IBA ruled that it would affect e-tv and other services trying to achieve viability. Government wants Bop-TV for the new services. It is because of this that such new services must be publicly funded.

Public media funding is perhaps a desirable goal, many people want it, but it is, of course, also exactly what the ANC is proposing in Umrabulo. This holds dangers - they are inherent. [Interjections.]

Constitutionally, the new approach probably scrapes by as in 1999, but in the process it creates a precedent. Politically the dangers are all too clear. The Government wants to set up panic stations with public money, because there is a popular revolt against its rule. All that stands in its way now is a regulator which must insist on applying its own judgment. If it does that without interference, then perhaps we can look forward to a good result.

The other thing that stands in its way - and I wish to pay tribute here - is an SABC board which has proved in this long process that it takes its task of protecting free speech and editorial independence very seriously. Those rights are now restored in this Bill. That board appears to me to be taking them as seriously as they deserve to be taken and, therefore, I am encouraged.

I cannot resist adding just one last footnote for its political, perhaps historical, interest. In the course of legislating I had the pleasure to move two Cosatu amendments, regrettably without success - perhaps the combination was simply more than the ANC could bear.

We moved their excellent proposal that the memorandum and articles of association to be drawn by the Minister should be submitted to public scrutiny and parliamentary approval, and that we should approve any alteration of share capital or sale of shares.

To colleagues from Cosatu, I really do regret that it was not accepted. I think that their work is always excellent. We differ in many respects, but there are others in which we concur. [Applause.]

Mr N N KEKANA: Madam Speaker, I think Dene spoilt the debate, I wish to tell Comrade Aubrey, in this colourful House. Dene is spoiling this debate just by being … [Interjections.] Yes.

Many views have been expressed about the Broadcasting Amendment Bill before this House today. If there is anything that was achieved, even before its implementation, it was that it sparked off unprecedented national debate on media-related issues. It successfully generated a great deal of national interest and passionate public dialogue on the challenges facing the SABC.

It was encouraging to observe South Africans expressing their views and stating their opinions without any fear of being prosecuted or arrested. This is what is meant by freedom of speech, and the kind of public discourse generated by this Bill must continue. Matters of national and public interest are better addressed in an open and transparent manner. It is this rich tradition and heritage from our national liberation struggle that must be preserved for the benefit of future generations.

The DP argued for the withdrawal of the Bill, because they said that it undermined freedom of expression. What a lame excuse, Madam Smuts! This attitude is similar to the one displayed by the NP in the sixties who delayed the introduction of television until 1976 because it threatened `volkkultuur’, stating that South Africa had to be protected from that evil black box. This was what they called the television.

Today, the DP is displaying a similar approach. It is not surprising, because they absorbed into their ranks the conservative right-wing elements from the old NP. [Interjections.]

Soon after the Bill was tabled, the propoganda machine of the DP went into action, shouting that media freedoms were being undermined. Even Mr Holomisa of the UDM joined the lynching party and the self-righteous media commandos who had, at last, found proof of abuse of power by the ANC Government - so they claimed. Ms M SMUTS: [Inaudible.]

Mr N N KEKANA: They were ululating and stating that the Government wanted to turn the SABC into a mouthpiece and propoganda tool of the ANC. The ANC, I must say, had no such intentions, and the hype and hysteria was unnecessary. [Interjections.]

Unlike the right-wing political tradition that has inspired the DP, the ANC is proud of its history and policies. The DP is guided by racist and reactionary views such as those of Dr Albert Hertzog, the then Minister of Post and Telegrams, who delivered combative and angry speeches in the apartheid parliament in the 1960s, defending the non-introduction of television in South Africa.

The SPEAKER: Order! Will you just take your seat for a moment, please?

Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: Is it permissible for the hon member to refer to the party as `racist’?

HON MEMBERS: Yes!

The SPEAKER: Order! I heard `racist views’. I will check the Hansard and see if it was the party referred to. [Interjections.]

Mr N N KEKANA: Madam Speaker, that hon member is not listening.

Although there were about 3 500 television stations across the globe in 1963, the apartheid government was determined that there would be no introduction of television in South Africa. [Interjections.] This is those hon members’ history. African countries such as Ghana, Algeria, Egypt, Kenya, Morocco and Zimbabwe, which was called Rhodesia then, introduced television long before South Africa.

The apartheid regime used every trick in the book, and every piece of research they could lay their hands on to justify their foolish actions. Television was regarded as being the greatest destroyer of the family, and poisonous to youth. They thought children would be retarded by television. It was also regarded as a spiritual opiate or spiritual dagga. [Interjections.] There they are!

Before they are tempted to agree with the family values approach, which appears to be logical, here is the main reason. Speaking in Parliament on 22 May 1963 - hon members will find this in Hansard - Dr Hertzog said the following about television:

It will undermine the position of the white man in South Africa, and make the black man an even greater enemy of the white man.

Rob Nixon, in his Homelands, Harlem and Hollywood, further quotes him as uttering the most racist and ridiculous statements in defence of why television should not be introduced in South Africa. It is simply unbelievable. It will make a box office movie, I must say.

Let me quote what Dr Hertzog said:

It is afternoon …

The hon members should listen carefully.

… and the Bantu houseboy is in the livingroom, cleaning the carpet. Someone has left the television set on. The houseboy looks up at the screen, sees a chorus line of white girls in scanty costumes. Suddenly, seized by lust, he runs upstairs, and rapes the madam.

[Interjections.] This is their own history. It is here. [Interjections.]

I wish he was alive today. [Interjections.]

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr N N KEKANA: We enquired about his whereabouts, and of course, who came to explain where Dr Hertzog was? It was the hon Madam Dene Smuts! Hon Madam Smuts confirmed, yesterday in our committee meeting, that indeed Dr Albert Hertzog had died. It was not the New NP that said so. The apartheid regime was so proud of this Dr Albert Hertzog that they even had the guts to name the tall Hillbrow tower after him! [Interjections.] It was called the Albert Hertzog Tower. Does the hon member remember?

Future generations must reject with contempt attempts by the DP, inspired by the Hertzogs of this world, to deny the majority access to television by maintaining the current marginalisation of African languages and culture. Under the guise of affordability, the DP’s member has argued - she has written about it, like Dr Hertzog - she tells us that the television system is an expensive system and it must be paid for. This was from the hon Dene Smuts. [Interjections.]

South Africans demand that the SABC broadcast television programmes in their own languages. It is a shame that today we are still talking about the lack of coverage of African languages, including Afrikaans, on television. While the industry and the public made valuable contributions, certain political parties based their comments on suspicion and superstition.

For the record, the ANC stated in its 1999 Election Manifesto, and in many policy documents before 1994, that the SABC must be guaranteed its independence. [Interjections.] Even the recent ANC policy conference restated this policy statement. As living proof, we have before this House an amending Bill that will improve the public broadcasting system and provide a clear, legal and regulatory framework in the broadcasting industry.

What lies behind the sensational and dramatic reaction to the Bill is the itch to maintain the status quo, namely, television must continue to broadcast a high level of foreign programming in a language that is not accessible to the majority of South Africans. Let me say that an empty vessel makes the loudest noise, and this is what Mr Holomisa and Ms Smuts generated - a lot of hullabaloo that has since been replaced by a big, embarrassing yawn. [Interjections.] Why? It is because all the so-called concerns were addressed by a one-page amendment tabled by the ANC to clarify the true intention of Government in addressing the relationship of the SABC and the Minister. The best that the DP could contribute in the committee was to make certain technical reflections, but they agreed with the ANC amendments. They had no alternative tabled, except to delete the so-called controversial section. [Interjections.]

After the ANC amendment, there were suddenly no more grounds of constitutionality, no more talks of obsession to gain control of the SABC. This attempt to confuse and mislead the public has been frustrated, and all South Africans will benefit immensely from this Bill. We have effected changes that spell out clearly the role of the SABC Board in developing policies and the necessary public participation in the formulation of these policies.

The SABC is also, for the first time, through legislation, compelled to consider regular inputs of public opinion on its broadcasting services. The accountability of the SABC has been clarified, and the ANC is satisfied with the provisions in the Bill to increase the answerability of the broadcaster to the public. There is no more room to hide. All SABC policies must be finalised by the Board after public comment. We deliberately avoided stipulating a mechanism of public engagement, but we are hopeful that the SABC Board will use its roving provincial board meetings to engage locals, civic organisations, even political parties for that matter, to improve the services and programmes of the public broadcaster.

Another matter that received considerable attention in the debate was the relationship between the media, the public broadcaster and the advancement of national interests or public interests. A certain Ivor Wechter, writing for the IT Brainstorm magazine, asked the question that summed the suspicion and superstition of media commandos who questioned the intention of our democratically elected Government. He asked:

If a democratic Government is inherently trustworthy, why is one of the basic tenets of democracy that the executive, legislative and judiciary branches of government be independent?

He continues to ask another question which betrays his true intention and purpose in asking this question:

Why would our Constitution not only call for parliamentary oversight and the jurisdiction, of course, over the executive, but also for a free press?

First, like all the other so-called proponents of free speech and freedom of the media, he deliberately ignored section 16 of the Bill of Rights. Like the DP and many of their neo-liberal believers, they are being selective in their interpretation of freedom of expression. It is actually in our democratic Constitution. [Interjections.]

Let me educate hon members a little bit. Section 16 of the Constitution provides for the freedom of expression and states:

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes -

(a) freedom of the press and other media;

This is where Madam Smuts stops, as does the rest of the DP. The Constitution, however, goes further. They conveniently omit that, in this particular section, there is a further qualification which states that there is the (b) freedom to receive or impart information or ideas;

(c) freedom of artistic creativity, and

(d) academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.

This is what the rest of section 16 says, but they conveniently omit this particular part of section 16.

Given the full text of section 16, we should ask: How can South Africans exercise this fundamental human right when they are not afforded an opportunity to develop and broadcast local content, and thus realise their artistic creativity? If the information they receive is not even in the language they understand, how can they exercise this right if there appears to be such blatant prejudices against their language?

The founding provisions of our Constitution directs the state to take practical and positive measures to elevate the status and advance the use of indigenous languages. Government is compelled to intervene and issue a directive to the public broadcaster to address the language deficit of our broadcaster. However, the current situation can easily result in litigation against the state. [Interjections.] Any person or community whose language is underrepresented on SABC television may take the state to court and argue, successfully, that their language is being discriminated against. The responsibility, therefore, lies with Government as it must give effect to the guarantees of the Constitution.

The public radio stations of the SABC have been more successful in promoting all languages of our country, but it is obvious to viewers that television is not quite accessible. In the short term, multilingual programming is the best way to address the language deficit on television.

While it is unrealistic to imagine that all 11 official languages will have their own distinct television channels, the introduction of digital terrestrial technology will assist in closing the gap between the usage of English and the other 10 official languages. We are, today, through legislation, directing the public broadcaster to deliver television programmes in all official languages. There is nothing unconstitutional about what we are doing.

We have, for the first time, through legislation, compelled the SABC to develop a South African expression. The Minister has gone to great lengths to address this particular matter. Not only must the SABC enjoy and exercise freedom of expression, creative and journalistic independence, but now there is a clear, spelt-out national obligation to the public of South Africa. We believe that the SABC has a critical role to play in building and shaping the moral fibre of our society and the building of a united and patriotic nation.

We would like to say to the SABC management and journalists that while they enjoy the rise that we are giving them, they also have obligations to the public of this country. We decided to include in the Bill both national and public interests without offering any outright definitions. The reason we have done so is that we are convinced that there is nothing wrong in stating that the public broadcaster must deliver programming to advance national and public interests.

In fact, this Bill, compared to laws of other Commonwealth countries, is very moderate. In our country, like all other democracies, the far-reaching provisions of our Constitution are the brick and mortar that constitute national interest. Whereas public interest tends to be populist and often reflects fashionable views in society, national interests are all- encompassing and inclusive. National interests should not be confused with party-political interests. It is those like the DP spin doctors who often conflate the two concepts in order to suppress discussion and debate on this important subject of advancing national interests.

Recently, the coverage of news from an African perspective through SABC Africa, now available on free-to-air television channels makes us proud as Africans. The SABC must forge alliances with other public broadcasters on the African continent and advance the African Union, Nepad and promote the vision of an African renewal.

It is only through a free and independent public broadcaster and media that many African countries can be protected from the rogue elements that seek to topple democratically elected governments. Coup plotters usually target and capture radio and television stations to announce their malevolent intentions and deeds. It is therefore important for a country to have multiple and varied radio, television and newspaper sources to make it coup- free.

Although we must encourage the transformation of the advertising industry, to recognise that they have a responsibility to support media diversity and development in our country, the dependence of the SABC on advertising is unhealthy. The advertising industry unreservedly supports programmes that are aimed at the so-called white, English-speaking audiences.

The ANC believes that, in the coming years, the country must move towards a public-funded model of the public broadcaster. Although the SABC must continue to rely on mixed funding, which includes sponsorship grants, the huge dependence on advertising must be reduced. Parastatals must use their public relations budgets creatively through the sponsorship of local content dramas.

The ANC, at its recent policy conference, resolved to encourage Parliament to establish a dedicated radio and television channel to enable greater participation and access by the public to the legislature. The idea of a national youth station, as contained in the IBA triple inquiry report, must be revived.

We received, all in all, 28 written public submissions, and we would like to thank many of the industry players who have made a contribution towards improving this Bill. All Bills before Parliament are subject to change, subsequent to parliamentary submissions and hearings, which is a matter of procedure in passing good law. We would like to thank the Minister, the Director-General and the department as well as parliamentary staff, including state law advisers, for working tirelessly to assist the committee to deliver on time any matter before us. All political parties have, over the years, shown a great level of co-operation and maturity in dealing with matters of public and national interest before the committee.

The ANC supports this Bill, as amended.

Ms S C VOS: Chairperson, as we have heard, this Bill has not had an easy birth. At its conception, to give it a more human face, it became evident that this was an unwanted baby. The IFP unsuccessfully pleaded that it be returned to its parents immediately, ie the Minister and her department. This was one infant that we were not going to rock happily in its cradle. Nobody cooed over this baby, we can assure you.

Red flags were raised across the land, and yet again our brightest legal minds sharpened their pencils at vast expense to their clients. As is now usual in the Portfolio Committee on Communications, a rescue mission was mounted and after a somewhat difficult labour, we became the midwives to this brand new product we have before us today.

Once again we are indebted to our chairperson, Mr Nkenke Kekana, who has now firmly established in our committee a highly inclusive process of allowing relevant and affected parties to constructively contribute to our deliberations. All members have benefited enormously in past years from the expertise that the ICT industry generously and regularly places at our disposal. Unfortunately, they have little choice: many of the Bills placed before us require extensive amendment, to put it kindly.

To put it bluntly, the question that really needs to be asked is why, time and again, does the department think that it can get away with placing before the very beady eyes of the well-honed committee, draft legislation which is sometimes unconstitutional and often incoherent, notwithstanding the hidden agendas. More often than not we receive Bills in which there is more than one definition of the same subject matter, but these days that is just a minor detail.

An alarming golden thread now weaves its way through much of the draft law placed before us. It takes the form of consistent attempts by the department to introduce direct executive control over broadcasting and telecommunications in this country, in spite of constitutional and other legislative constraints in this regard. There is a view, which the IFP shares, that the Communications department now wants to claw back the power correctly taken away from the state and placed in independent hands during our constitutional negotiations, and in founding legislation immediately post 1994.

The Constitution is quite clear: An independent authority must ``regulate broadcasting in the public interest’’. The Independent Communications Authority of South Africa, Icasa, under the excellent leadership of Mr Mandla Langa, has shown itself well up to the task of attempting to protect its mandated role of independently regulating the broadcasting and telecommunications sectors of our society.

But from where we sit in the communications committee - and if one listens to the industry in general - there is no doubt that, while the department’s budget is awash with funds for myriad consultants, as well as empire- building policy-making programmes and projects, Icasa is almost being starved into submission. The department has a barely concealed, contemptuous attitude to Icasa. The regulator is woefully underresourced and denied the capacity to do its job properly. This House must correct this wrong by urgently applying its mind to this matter.

The communications committee finds itself caught up in a turf war for the control and manipulation of public and private broadcasting, and the telecommunications industry in general. Given the intensely political nature of the terrain of this battle, vigilance is required. One needs to ask, for instance, why the Electronic Communications Security (Pty) Ltd Bill has just been shepherded through the intelligence committee and not where it obviously belongs, ie in the communications domain.

This Bill directly impacts on matters relating to the telecommunications industry and has the fingerprints of the Department of Communications all over it. Not all of us can surely be so naïve as to not wonder why it was steered through the safer waters of the intelligence committee - surely less intimately familiar with the subject matter - and, needless to say, survived relatively intact. The stormy seas of the communications committee would, no doubt, have been a different matter.

Over and over again in our committee we have to address matters of constitutionality and ``executive creep’’ into the public and private domain of the ICT sector. It is no wonder that there are now some very sharp lawyers in this country, who are more or less employed on a permanent basis by relevant public and private players. Yet again, with this Bill before us today, some of the country’s top legal brains flew yet again into Cape Town. There was no doubt on anybody’s minds that the Broadcasting Amendment Bill was unconstitutional and had vast implications in a number of critical areas.

It must be noted that our public broadcaster and our regulator, let alone the industry in general, as well as numerous representatives of civil society, showed their mettle with this Bill. It was a joy to see them defend democracy, freedom of speech and freedom of expression. That they had to do so against a Government department is clearly cause for concern.

Matters that bounded off the pages of this Bill included attempts to exert ministerial power over the reporting and editorial policies of the SABC. We obviously stopped that in its tracks, and the SABC board must now submit its policies to Icasa.

The Minister now says that all she wanted was for the public broadcaster to be held accountable to the people it serves. She has got her wish. The SABC will, as members have heard, now developed a code of practice, and it must provide suitable means for regular input of public opinion.

So blatant was the intention to turn the public broadcaster into a state broadcaster that the authors of the draft Bill were even so unsubtle as to attempt to delete a previous statutory power, which said that the SABC would ``enjoy freedom of expression and journalistic, creative and programming independence.’’ That clause, needless to say, has found its way back into the Bill.

Another unconstitutional attempt to license regional television stations by fiat, completely ignoring the regulator, Icasa, has also been cured. It is not that the IFP and others have a problem with the development of regional television services: we just do not think that the state should run them. We think Icasa must apply its mind to all matters relating to broadcasting, as it is mandated to do.

The IFP has long championed the principle of regional television and radio broadcasting services. It is a cornerstone of IFP policy. We have long argued that only they can really cater for the various language and cultural needs, as well as the imperatives of the people of South Africa.

Way back in the heady post-1994 days, when we began drafting new broadcasting and telecommunications laws, it was the IFP who called for provincial public broadcasting funded from the public purse. At that time we were accused of wanting apartheid and homeland broadcasting. Now, my, have times changed!

Now, on and on we ploughed through this Bill. As members will hear time and again, we have all but rewritten what started out as the shock-horror, unconstitutional Broadcasting Amendment Bill. How it ever got through Cabinet, in the first place, how it was not immediately eviscerated by the state law advisers, is a mystery to many.

On the other hand, now that it is not unconstitutional and various other matters too numerous to mention have also been redrafted, does the Minister of Finance have any idea what is heading his way? Did Cabinet apply its mind to the financial implications of the Bill, relating, specifically, to the funding of the proposed regional television services?

This could well be a ``surprise, surprise, Mr Manuel!’’ Bill, because we do not think it has been costed at all. [Time expired.]

Mr J DURAND: Chairperson, the New NP believes that great progress has been made in Parliament’s communications committee to bring the Broadcasting Amendment Bill into conformity with the Constitution. The original draft attracted a storm of protest because it proposed to make the SA Broadcasting Corporation subject to the control of the Minister of Communications in a manner which would infringe on the constitutional provisions of freedom of speech and independence of the media.

We thank the committee and applaud the courageous stand taken by committee chairperson Nat Kekana in engaging with the SABC and the industry regulator, the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa, on these contentious issues. However, the communications director-general will continue with his long- established practice of presenting either unconstitutional or power-grabbing draft legislation to the committee in the future, and we will deal with it.

The promulgation of this Bill will represent a breakthrough in bringing a future of greater transparency and public trust in the SABC. The Bill’s original proposal to make the SABC’s editorial language and journalistic policies subject to ministerial approval had been replaced by their referral to Icasa, which is responsible for ensuring that the SABC complies with its founding charter.

The New NP is glad that the ANC supported our proposal that the amending Bill also provide for public participation in policy making. With regard to the legislative creation of two new regional television channels to cater for other national languages and Icasa’s licensing role, the committee has decided that the provision for this would be accommodated in the new licence to be issued in the SABC when it is incorporated as a public company.

An outstanding matter was a clause allowing the Minister to decide on what limitations should be placed on the cross- ownership of the media. We are concerned that this would be a unilateral decision by the executive, and hoped that the clause would be amended to require Icasa to submit a report to Parliament which would then make a decision.

The Broadcasting Amendment Bill of 2002 has raised a fair amount of headline-grabbing controversy around the issue of the SABC’s editorial independence. But Government’s intention to create new channels to promote indigenous languages is commendable.

The Government has finally recognised that the current position violates the constitutional status of these languages. A public broadcaster must ensure fair and equitable representation of all languages in its full range of programming. One does not need to be an African cultural nationalist to appreciate that there is a large body of African views in need of a broadcasting presence.

However, when your three channels are dedicated to national broadcasting and 11 national languages have to be accommodated, the crux becomes more complicated than the ideal. There are commercial realities. In a global context, where television has to respond to commercially-driven competitors, where will the money for these channels come from? Who out there is going to finance the costs of producing Tshivenda documentaries, dramas and comedies? Who out there is going to foot the Bill for news- gathering and reporting in Afrikaans, including the cost of training Tswana journalists and reporting from the North West?

Where will the money for these channels come from? From the state! Government must accept the fact that the public broadcaster must be subsidised. The SABC’s management and board have confirmed in recent debate that the language requirement and the public broadcasting mandate is something they cannot afford. According to current research, these languages draw audiences from fewer views and are therefore not highly attractive to advertisers.

The recognition that 10 of the 11 official languages are marginalised in television is long overdue. But as is evident, there must be practical steps to achieve the policy goals. The implementation will have to make sense, as well as be affordable and viable. A possibility is to spread the 11 official languages across the existing three SABC channels and the proposed two new channels. This would ensure representation of languages across channels, rather than have a concentration within a channel. In this scenario, particular channels could specialise in at least two languages for the main news bulletin and specific genres outside of news, drama and documentaries.

Die Nuwe NP se uitgangspunt is dat die SABC die infrastruktuur en die bedrewendheid het om aan ons ‘n stelsel te verskaf wat ‘n maksimum aan taal- en kultuurvryheid en uitdrukking sal toelaat - die voorvereiste vir versoening.

Ons benadering is ook in ooreenstemming met die beginsels en riglyne van die nuwe Uitsaaiwet. Die tegnologie begunstig dus kulturele en taaldiversiteit. Dit beteken dat die eter so wyd is soos God se genade'' en dat die moderne tegnologie 'n gawe is van God omte leef en te laat leef’’, asook vir die voorsiening van kulturele Lebensraum in ‘n tyd van onophoudelike konflik op ander vlakke. Die tegnologie laat ons toe om te differensieer sonder diskriminasie.

Die Nuwe NP sal hierdie wetsontwerp steun. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[The New NP’s point of departure is that the SABC has the infrastructure and the skill to provide us with a system which will allow a maximum of language and cultural freedom and expression - the prerequisite for reconciliation.

Our approach is also in agreement with the principles and guidelines of the new Broadcasting Act. The technology thus favours cultural and linguistic diversity. This means that the ether is as wide as God's grace'' and that modern technology is a gift from Godto live and let live’’, also for the provision of cultural Lebensraum at a time of continuous conflict on other levels. Technology allows us to differentiate without discrimination.

The Ne NP will support this Bill.]

Mnr S ABRAM: Mnr die Voorsitter, wanneer die Kabinet ‘n konsepwetsontwerp oorweeg vir tertafellegging, en daarvoor goedkeuring verleen, is dit uiters belangrik dat behoorlik gekyk en aandag gegee word aan sowel grondwetlike as finansiële implikasies. Ons het nou net hier gehoor dat die wetsontwerp voorsiening maak vir die SABC om alle landstale eweredig te bevorder. Dit het geweldige en ernstige finansiële implikasies. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

[MR S ABRAM: Mr Chairperson, when the Cabinet considers a draft Bill for tabling and grants approval for that, it is of the utmost importance that both constitutional and financial implications are looked at properly and receive thorough attention. We have just heard here that the Bill makes provision for the SABC to promote all of the official languages equally. This has enormous and serious financial implications.]

As far as the Bill itself is concerned, I will be failing in my duty if I did not pay tribute to the chairperson and members of this committee, who worked extremely long hours. The chairperson, who possesses very special powers that enable him to take a lot of criticism, is always willing and prepared to listen to varying viewpoints and, in the end, get them together to find, by way of consensus, a settlement which will please practically everybody.

I realise that, as an opposition party member, I cannot expect everything that we want to be part of the end product. Of course, by the very nature of our presence here, it means that there has to be a great deal of give and take. Amongst the more contentious clauses in the original Bill as published were clauses 6 and 15. Clause 6 has been totally rewritten. It is a totally new clause, whilst clause 15, which sought to insert a new section 13(a) in Act 4 of 1999, was dropped. The objectionable clauses which one feared would place power in the hands of a political functionary have, therefore, disappeared. In terms of section 192 of the Constitution, Act 108 of 1996, national legislation must establish an independent authority to regulate broadcasting in the public interest, and to ensure fairness and a diversity of views broadly representing South African society. The Bill addresses this matter by expressly referring to public interest. Although various interpretations of public interest exist, it seems that the amending legislation places the focus on matters such as freedom of expression, as well as journalistic, creative and programming independence as enshrined in the Constitution, in accordance with the newly inserted clause 1 of Bill 34A of 2002.

In order to give expression to South Africa’s constitutional obligation, it is proposed that the new SABC should offer plurality of views and a variety of news, information and analyses. It follows that an integral part of such a plurality of views includes the SABC’s news, editorial policy, programming, local content, educational universal service and access, as well as language and religious policy. These obligations are fairly self- explanatory in giving effect to the prominent constitutional obligation of access to information, which in terms of section 32 of the Constitution, means that everyone has the right to access to information held by the state, and any information held by another person that is required for the exercise of protecting any rights. [Time expired.]

Mrs W S NEWHOUDT-DRUCHEN: Chairperson and hon members, according to our Constitution everyone has the right to use the language and to participate in the cultural life of their choice. Everyone also has the right of access to information. But access to information must be provided in the language understood by all. The SABC must reflect the multilingual and diverse nature of South Africa. Thus far the SABC has not provided for all the official languages in their programming.

Why is the emphasis on language so important? It is because we talk and communicate every day, and information goes around every day. It is important that children learn a language, so that they can communicate with their own family members. Outside their home environment they need to communicate with other members of society.

We have members of the disabled community who are deaf. Deafsa statistics show that there are 4 million deaf and hard-of-hearing people living in South Africa. Of that number, approximately 1,6 million use sign language as their first language of communication. Sign language is a visual language. By that I mean that the deaf do not use their ears to access information; instead, they use their eyes. If they cannot use their eyes to communicate, they are cut off from obtaining information everyday.

One way of obtaining information is via the television. For a deaf person, this is one of the best ways, because TV is visual to us. But we do not receive information via television, as it is mostly inaccessible to us, the deaf community. The deaf community cannot understand what is going on on TV. We who are deaf have to play a guessing game as to what has been said on TV.

A deaf person came to make a presentation at the public hearings we had. He said the first time he went to America he sat for 17 hours watching TV, because all the programmes were captioned. For the first time, he was able to understand what was said on TV.

We also have members of the disabled community who are blind. About 0,6% of the South African population is either blind or partially sighted. There are some frustrating times when they do not know what is going on on TV, for example when something happens very quietly and there is no sound where people can see what is happening, but the blind cannot.

People who are blind do not know what colours are on TV as well. They need things to be described to them. Both deaf and blind people are expected to pay for their TV licences, yet they do not have full access to TV programmes.

One of the resolutions taken at the ANC national policy conference is that the public broadcaster must ensure that its television programmes have close captioning, sign language and other means, to cater for the deaf community. I am happy to say that this new Broadcasting Amendment Bill has added that to the objectives of the Broadcasting Act, Act 4 of 1999, which states that the SABC must be responsive to the audience’s needs, including the needs of the deaf and the blind, and account on how those needs will be met. This is an achievement for us as the ANC.

What is necessary is that the deaf community must have access to television programmes, either through sign language or via captioning. Let me give hon members an example of sign language programmes. The news and some educational programmes for children are interpreted into sign language. I am happy that that provision has been met.

Captioning differs from subtitles, in that the words are coloured and are positioned to indicate who is speaking. It also provides information on the music and the sound effects, which may be important to the understanding of the programme.

Subtitling only places words in other languages at the bottom of the screen. Deaf people will be able to read and understand what is happening on the TV programme. This will not only benefit us as the deaf community, but will also benefit people who can hear but cannot read and write, namely the hearing children, youth and adults. Adults will also be able to learn to read via captioning or subtitling.

People who are blind should be provided with video descriptive services. A visually disabled person will be able to hear via headphones a description of whatever and whoever is on the screen. This will help them understand better what is happening on TV. We know that having access to information via TV in our own language is very important.

South Africa has 11 official languages, but the SABC does not broadcast in all the official African languages of South Africa. Language allocation during prime time, that is, between 6pm and 10pm, shows that English is the only language on SABC 3, as quoted in the 2002 Annual Review Report. Approximately 50% of prime time on SABC 2 is in English, followed by Afrikaans, which is 30%, and 12% for Sotho languages. More than 70% of prime time on SABC is in English, while only 15% is allocated to Nguni languages.

The new Broadcasting Amendment Bill aims to change this. Under this amending Bill the SABC is mandated to provide regional television services. This means that the SABC will be licensed to provide additional television services which will be broadcast regionally into our African languages such as Sepedi, Sesotho, Setswana, Siswati, Tshivenda, Xitsonga, Afrikaans, Isindebele, Isixhosa and isiZulu in the respective regions on an equal basis.

At every meeting when the SABC reports to the Portfolio Committee on Communications, the complaints have always been the same: ``There is no money.’’ Well, now we have the objectives in law and the SABC must provide the means of access for the deaf and the blind. The amending Bill says that regional services provided by the SABC must be funded by money appropriated by Parliament. There will be no financial implications prior to the passing of this Bill, but there will be financial implications for the implementation processes.

We hope that TV services are already included in the next financial year’s Budget. But we anticipate that next year’s services to people with disabilities, as well as regional services, will definitely be included in that Budget. If the SABC wants money from the Government and if they want regional services to be successful, they must be accountable for proper financial regulations.

We expect that at the end of next year the licensing process for these regional services will be completed, up and running and providing these services.

The provision of services to cater for the various languages and for access by people with disabilities is not the responsibility of the SABC only, but of other broadcasting companies as well, such as e-tv, M-Net and others. Icasa must make sure that this is included in the license conditions for all.

To end, I would like to congratulate ourselves on the completion of this amending Bill, and to thank all involved for their hard work. I would also like to thank those who took part in the presentations and public hearings, to enable us as members of Parliament to be more sensitive to the needs of others in our country.

The ANC supports the amending Bill.

Mr L M GREEN: Chairperson, the Orwellian concept of a government controlling the thoughts of a nation through the mass media is a dangerous concept.

With regard to the initial introduction of the Broadcasting Amendment Bill by the Minister, there was an understanding or interpretation to the effect that this was an attempt by Cabinet to introduce the Big Brother concept into our broadcasting legislation. This has been temporarily stopped, but unless this kind of determinant thinking pattern is itself controlled, Government will mostly likely introduce similar pieces of legislation in the future.

Public broadcasting should be the most transparent of all media engagements, since it is less directed by private interest. Ironically, public interest seems to be interpreted by Government to mean ``politically owned’’ through what it terms national interest, captured in clause 4(d) of the Bill. South Africa has a Constitution that endorses a public policy where the rights of all citizens are guaranteed, protected and substantiated on the basis on the basis of democracy, pluralism and diversity.

The Broadcasting Amendment Bill wanted to negate all of these values, wrest them from the public domain and then vest, in the case of this Bill, all authority in the Minister, who would finally decide what information is palatable or compatible for public consumption.

We are glad to state that such Orwellian measures have been stopped dead in their tracks. The Broadcasting Amendment Bill is now handed back to the public, with the responsibility on corporations such as the SABC to ensure proper regulatory measures to meet the public’s diverse needs. The contributory role of Icasa becomes relevant in this regard.

However, the SABC should be required to reflect a diverse business culture, and does not need Icasa to regulate such practices. We must strive for is guaranteed independence for the SABC. This victory was achieved through multiparty effort and public support in general.

The point the ACDP wishes to highlight in this regard is that the people of this country value their independence and freedom from control. The SABC should, therefore, take clear notice of this and realise from the onset that its mandate is a public mandate, and not a Government or party- political mandate.

In view of its independence, the SABC must draw a definite line where the public funding of the media is found to have a contributory influence. [Interjections.]

Dr S E M PHEKO: Chairperson, the PAC supports the Broadcasting Amendment Bill. This Bill is amending the Broadcasting Act of 1999. Its purpose, inter alia, is to add certain definitions, as well as clarify the relationship between the policies governing public commercial services and the values of broadcasting services.

The Bill also provides for the application and granting of television licences, the imposing of penalties for failure to pay television licence fees and the appointment of inspectors. It is important that people paying for their television licences also watch, to a large degree, what interests them.

Languages that are neglected on television, such as Tshivenda and Xitsonga, must be considered. It does not make sense to talk of 11 official languages in the Constitution of this country while they are treated as if they are not equal. The time allocated to these languages must be equal. At present some languages get more than their share. How are viewers expected to pay for their licences when they do not get value for their money?

The SABC television seems to be reluctant to cover events in rural areas and in other African countries. Of course, democracy will not thrive in our country if the SABC is concerned only with the activities of the ruling party and does not give reasonable coverage to political parties which are not in Government. Supporters of these parties pay their TV licences so that, among other things, they can watch the activities of the parties they support.

I want to emphasize that the SABC can play an important role in nation- building in this country if it promotes the important cultural values of our country. That would create political stability, accelerate economic development and eradicate poverty.

I cannot go into other matters.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Hon member, your time has expired.

Dr S E M PHEKO: The PAC supports this Broadcasting Amendment Bill.

Mr M A MAYIZA: Mr Chairperson, hon Minister of Communications, hon members, it is common knowledge that for many years the majority of our people were not afforded the opportunity to watch television in the languages of their choice, but were compelled to learn and enjoy the next best language chosen for them by those in the broadcasting industry.

It is, therefore, with this knowledge in mind that clause 26 of the Bill introduces a new provision for the establishment of two regional television services in the country. This will assist the national broadcaster in rolling out programmes in indigenous languages, which are currently not adequately covered by the national broadcaster.

In relation to these two regional television services, the Bill further provides for the establishment of one or more corporate entities, which must be licensed to service either of the regional services. These corporate entities must be financed by the state.

However, the possible public and private investor participation through advertisements is not ruled out. The advantages of the proposed funding by the state are extensive, amongst which one may tabulate a few.

Firstly, the fact that television, as part of the media in general, is a highly contested terrain which is therefore not neutral, indicates that major reliance on private or public investment by these corporate entities will have undesired implications on their independence.

Secondly, the influence that private and public investment has on television and the media in general has the capacity to undermine the Government’s objective of ensuring the development of local content and local language usage in the regional services.

The Bill proposes stringent methods of licence fee collection, by introducing penalties and prosecution. The current licensing provisions are reinforced and, in addition thereto, any person who defaults on the payment of licence fees may be liable to pay to the SABC a penalty to the amount equal to double the amount of the applicable licence fee. This penalty will be in addition to the prescribed licence fee which the defaulter will still be liable to pay.

For many years people have refused to pay licence fees, using the excuse that they were not being employed or claiming poverty, while they could still afford to buy television sets, hence the reinforcement of these stringent payment methods.

However, in the introduction of these stringent measures, we have not lost sight of the fact that there are people who genuinely deserve some relief from licence fees. It is in this regard that the Bill provides for exemptions as may be prescribed by the Minister through the regulations.

On the other hand, some people have argued that they do not even watch television, since their languages are not catered for. They say that they are, therefore, refused access to the television. The two regional television services that I have mentioned earlier will ensure the development of all languages, including sign language. The development of sign language will attract the 4 million deaf audience who are refusing to pay licence fees, claiming that the current language usage does not cater for them.

Dealers and businesses have also not escaped the net of licence fees. In the event that a television set is released without proof of a licence, the dealer shall, on conviction, be liable for the payment of a fine of R3 000 for every set so released, but not exceeding a total amount of R10 000.

There has been confusion as to whether a person must have one television licence for each television set that one has, or whether it is sufficient for a person to have only one television licence for all television sets that one has. The Bill makes it clear that a person must have a television licence for each television set that one has.

For purposes of accounting, the Bill also dictates the requirements for proper financial accounting systems as prescribed by the Public Finance Management Act, as it provides for the yearly submission of audited budgeting reports to Parliament. It is, of course, a fact that the only interference of Government and Parliament shall arise in instances where there is failure on the part of the board to account properly, as the Bill demands.

I want to draw hon members’ attention to the fact that the ANC, since taking over power, has always demonstrated its commitment to the freedom of the press and noninterference policy. I further want to express that this belief is still in the proposed policies for the coming conference of the ANC.

The Bill calls for the authority to monitor and enforce compliance with the charter by the corporation. It is on the basis of this commitment that I would like to reassure the opposition parties that their continuous pretence of concern regarding interference with the freedom of the media emanates from their previous practice.

I would also like to emphasise that our commitment to our Constitution and the Bill of Rights is what we will not sacrifice. Hence the said development of a wide range of programmes that reflect South African attitudes, opinions, ideas, values and artistic creativity without undermining the rights of the television viewers.

Participation by the public in the development of the policies referred to in the Bill is also a key factor, for it calls on the public to assist in ensuring a quality service and ownership. We are talking about a public service here. How can it be a public service if the public has to accept what is imposed upon them?

The Bill also gives the authority the right or power to question and monitor the corporation, since the authority is entitled, in terms of the licence conditions, to know if the corporation is not in compliance.

I want to draw to the Minister’s attention the fact that some members of the other parties, especially those from the ACDP, are an embarrassment by coming here and telling stories, for they never took part in the deliberations on this Bill. For them to come here and confuse the House is unfortunate.

I also want to bring to their attention the fact that one will always see the interference of the ACDP in those broadcasting stations that are owned by these religious people. Their reaction is based on the fact that this is what they do, for they do not understand or believe in the freedom of the press. They do not even believe that the press has the authority to assist this country to develop. [Applause.]

Miss S RAJBALLY: Chairperson, broadcasting media, whichever or whoever they may be, and all of us, have been severely held back and hampered and tampered with and suffered many other forms of abuse by the apartheid regime. The MF is glad to see that broadcasting in South Africa, that also suffered under apartheid, is undergoing the necessary transformation process.

It is important for all licence holders to enjoy the programmes. The broadcasting industry is very important. It is our window to the world. Whether it is a documentary, educational TV or just a movie or soapy like The Bold and the Beautiful, our people are watching and learning. The question that is then often asked is: If broadcasting plays such an important part in our day-to-day lives, should the material to be broadcast not be overseen and monitored to rather exhibit programmes that will instill good moral values in our society?

Good moral values are personally instilled and not necessarily influenced by the media. For instance, there might be a documentary on nightclubs and drugs, but it might not entice viewers to take on these habits. What is important, is that parental guidance and such strategies exist to monitor certain explicit movies and I sincerely hope that they do.

The most important factor, however, is the shift in broadcasting from the minority to the greater majority. We have seen a major shift in TV with more people of colour being introduced to the system. The increase in local productions and so forth is also encouraging with regard to the talented material that our society has to offer. The multichannel distribution service, which must apply, is most welcome. We also hope that in the near future the Indian language will also be included.

The MF supports the Broadcasting Amendment Bill.

Mnr C AUCAMP: Geagte Voorsitter, ‘n oom in my gemeente het altyd, as ‘n mens hom vra of dit goed gaan met die gesondheid, geantwoord, ``Dominee, op my ouderdom gaan dit net beter; dit gaan nie goed nie.’’ (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

[Mr C AUCAMP: Mr Chairperson, whenever this older gentleman in my congregation was asked about his state of health, he would always answer: ``Reverend, much improved for my age, but I am not well’’.]

The moral of the story is that better is not necessarily good. That is the case with this Bill. After inputs by opposition parties and civil organisations, the Bill is better, but still not good enough to get our support.

‘n Bekende taktiek in die sakewêreld is die volgende. Die prys van ‘n artikel van R100 word opwaarts aangepas tot R200. As jy hom dan vir R150 koop, dink jy jy het ‘n winskoop gekoop, en dan dink jy sommer ook die winkelier is ‘n gawe kêrel. Intussen het jy steeds R50 te veel betaal.

Die aanvanklike bepalings van hierdie wetsontwerp was soos daardie R200 prysetiket, totaal onaanvaarbaar, met die Minister wat beheer kry oor die beleid van die SABC, en totaal onkonstitusioneel, soos duidelik uitgewys. Nou dink die ANC ons gaan tevrede wees met R150.

Die AEB sê nee. Ons het twee besware. Eerstens is daar gans te veel wetsvoorskrifte wat die Onafhanklike Kommunikasie-owerheid en die raad van die SABC bind hul onafhanklikheid in die gedrang bring. Wetsvoorskrifte, moet lede onthou, dra altyd die stempel van die meerderheidsparty, en dra dus ‘n sterk politieke karakter.

Tweedens word die Kommunikasie-owerheid in sy beleid gebind, nie net aan die openbare belang nie, maar aan die nasionale belang. Hierdie nasionale belang word maklik herdefinieer as die staatsbelang. Die staatsbelang word weer, in die volgende asem, die regeringsbelang en weg is die noodsaaklike onafhanklikheid en word die openbare uitsaaier uiteindelik ``his master’s voice’’.

Hou verder in gedagte dat die Minister, by die aanvang van die debat oor hierdie wetsontwerp, spesifiek gekla het dat die pers nie die regering se boodskap goed oordra nie.

Verder is die vraag of met hierdie nasionale belang dalk bedoel word een algemene konsensus wat diversiteit en verskil van mening uitskakel as irrelevante randverskynsels en van die openbare uitsaaier ‘n monochroom-, eenstemmige koor wil maak. Die wetgewing is beter, maar nog nie goed nie. Die AEB kan dit nie steun nie.

Mag ek ten slotte die agb Kekana gelukwens met sy kennis van die antieke geskiedenis. Dr Albert Hertzog het reeds in 1969 die destydse regerende party verlaat, min of meer die tyd toe die agb Kekana gebore is. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.) [The following is well-known tactics in business. The price of an article of R100 is marked up to R200. So when you buy it for R150, you think you have bought a bargain, and you think the shopkeeper is a nice guy. Meanwhile you have still paid R50 too much.

The initial provisions of this Bill were like that R200 price tag; totally unacceptable, with the Minister gaining control over the SABC’s policies, and totally unconstitutional, as was clearly pointed out. Now the ANC thinks we are going to be satisfied with R150.

The AEB says no. We have two objections. Firstly, there are far too many legislative provisions binding the Independent Communication Authority and the board of the SABC, compromising its independence.

Secondly, as regards policy the Communication Authority is being linked not only to public interest, but also to national interest. This national interest is easily redefined as state interest. With the next breath, state interest in turn becomes government interest, gone is the essential independence and the public broadcaster eventually becomes ``his master’s voice’’. Also keep in mind that the Minister, at the start of the debate on this Bill, complained in particular about the press not having properly conveyed the Government’s message.

The question is further whether this national interest could refer to one general consensus which eliminates diversity and difference of opinion as irrelevant fringe phenomena, attempting to turn the public broadcaster into a monochrome, undiversified choir. This legislation has been improved, but it is still not a good law. The AEB cannot support it.

Finally, may I congratulate the hon Kekana on his knowledge of ancient history. Dr Albert Herzog had already left the erstwhile ruling party by 1969, more or less the time when the hon Kekana was born.]

Mr P J NEFOLOVHODWE: Chairperson, now that this Bill is to be made law, Azapo calls on the board of the SABC to involve all sections of our community in a meaningful way when it consults the people for the formulation of the charter of co-operation.

Closest to Azapo’s heart is the question of local content, because the broadcasting must reflect the identity and diverse nature of our society. Our national television ranks highest among priorities that have to be considered. At the moment all three SABC channels could easily pass for European channels. The quantity of foreign material is overwhelming. It is so overwhelming that it is also reflected in the style and content of locally produced material. The humour, the settings and the characterisation are all foreign. This is not acceptable. Our national television must be seen to reflect the identity and diverse nature of our society.

The treatment of languages by our public broadcaster has, up to now, not been satisfactory. Now that the Bill has been completed, there can no longer be any reasonable justification by the board of the SABC to delay the implementation of the content of this Bill. There can never be any justification for not having the ability to practise an equitable language policy on the basis that there is no legislation. There is legislation now. The equitable distribution of language policy must then occur.

Azapo supports this Bill. Mnr R D PIETERSE: Mnr die Voorsitter, ek dink die feit dat agb Aucamp hier gestaan het, is alreeds ‘n bargain''. Ek dink hy moet nie meer bargains’’ soek nie, want dan moet ons hom natuurlik daarop wys dat hy glad nie ‘n vergadering bywoon nie. Ek gaan die agb Green die verleentheid spaar en nie oor sy afwesigheid praat nie. Hy moet ophou om hier skynheilig te wees vir almal en te probeer preek. Hy kom nie na een vergadering nie en het allerhande verskonings.

Mej Smuts, wat die Engelse weergawe van die AWB verteenwoordig, het ons natuurlik gewys tot watter hoogtes sy kan gaan met haar gekkery. Sy was ‘n absolute clown'', en ons aanvaar dit want dit is deel van haar party se kultuur. Gisteraand het hulle natuurlik verskonings gesoek om te drink en dit 'ncelebration’’ genoem. Waarvoor, weet ek nie. Natuurlik kry ons almal verskonings vir hoekom ons ons wil oorgee aan die drank, soos die DA gisteraand. [Tussenwerpsels.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[Mr R D PIETERSE: Mr Chairperson, I think the fact that the hon Aucamp has stood here is already a bargain. I do not think that he should look for more bargains, because then we would of course have to point out to him that he never attends any meetings. I am going to spare the hon Green the embarrassment of talking about his absence. He should stop being a hypocrite here and trying to preach to everyone. He does not attend a single meeting and has all sorts of excuses.

Miss Smuts, who represents the English version of the AWB, has of course shown us to what lengths she can go with her clowning. She was an absolute clown and we accept that, because it is part of her party’s culture. Last night they were naturally looking for excuses to drink and called it a celebration, for I do not know what. Of course, all of us find excuses for indulging ourselves in alcohol, as the DA did last night. [Interjections.]]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon Smuts, are you rising on a point of order?

Ms M SMUTS: Chairperson, it was not easy to follow the hon member. What was he saying? That the DA drank last night? What is he referring to? Would you kindly consider whether that is parliamentary or not? I do not think he was referring to me.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Thank you, hon member. I was trying very, very carefully to follow what he was saying. So far, what he said does not appear to have had a direct impact on any individual member. If he had crossed that line, I would have called him to order.

Mnr R D PIETERSE: Dit is maar die storie. Sy het nie reg gehoor nie. Dit is ‘n geval van die skoen wat druk, sodra ons van drank praat. [Tussenwerpsels.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

[Mr R D PIETERSE: That is the story: She did not hear correctly. It is a case of the shoe’s pinching as soon as we talk about alcohol. [Interjections.]]

``Pay your TV licence, it is the right thing to do!’’

As I rise on behalf of the ANC on to support this Broadcasting Amendment Bill, I want to repeat what I said: As a proud South African, please pay your TV licence! It is the only thing to do!

I want to dedicate this input of mine to the children of our beloved country, as this is the Month of the Child in terms of the Letsema campaign. But I also want to pay homage to them, as they are often forgotten when we pursue the transformation of our country.

When this Bill was first introduced, there was a huge outcry as to whether or not it was constitutional to make the SABC ``His Master’s Voice.’’ The hon the Minister and the DG of the Department of Communications have on many occasions assured the industry, in particular the SABC, of its continued independence and no interference from herself, her good office or from the Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Communications, Mr Nkenke Kekana. The chairperson was once again at his brilliant best when he steered the committee and the discussion on this rocky road, and one needs to thank him for the outstanding role he has played to get the committee and the industry players to agree that this is a very good piece of legislation.

The Bill facilitates a process that would allow the SABC, while retaining its mandate, to educate, entertain and inform, as well as split into public and commercial services. It is also important to note that we have removed the wording - ``while the state is the sole shareholder’’, because it sent wrong signals to ordinary South Africans and played into the hands of those who propagated that we must privatise everything at all cost. The public broadcaster belongs to the people and is a national asset.

This public broadcasting service will definitely not be boring. It will focus on education and will inform the public in a very creative way. I must stress that this will not be easy to achieve, but is achievable if we all play our positive part.

Whilst the SABC and its subcommittees are facing the challenge of replacing the management board, they must ensure much more or and greater transparency in the commissioning of programmes. This Africa will rise like a giant phoenix, soaring across the globe in the face of adversaries, and the SABC must be there to cover it.

We have seen the global reality from a South African perspective and I want to encourage hon members to watch SABC Africa. Education and information about the AU and Nepad, our economic programme, should be taken to the people. The public broadcasting services should be there and involved, and should even take the lead.

The public broadcasting service must and will showcase the real South Africa. It must tell the South African story through their creative works, and allow South Africa to express itself to its people. If I could suggest any story to illustrate South Africa in its finest form, then it is to focus on the South African women. We have enough material about the quality and success of our African women to last us a couple of years. I urge the SABC not to close their eyes or to ignore the quality of the ready-made material on our African women.

Ek dink dadelik aan ‘n vrou soos Sara Bartmann, wat op ‘n jong ouderdom weggerokkel is na Engeland toe, en in Frankryk moes werk as prostituut, en ook later daar gesterf het. Sy is verlei deur ‘n Engelse heer wat ook as mediese dokter gewerk het. Meer as honderd jaar later bring ons Regering - en ons moet oplet, nie sommer enige regering nie, maar ‘n ANC-regering - haar oorskot terug en sorg vir haar ordentlike begrafnis.

Dit is hierdie soort oorwinning teenoor die felste aanval op teen ons vroue wat vertel moet word. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[I immediately think of a woman like Sara Bartmann, who was lured to England at an early age and had to work as a prostitute in France, where she died later. She was seduced by an English gentleman who also worked as a medical doctor. More than a hundred years later our Government - and we must take note, not any old government, but an ANC Government - has returned the remains and ensured her decent burial.

This is the kind of triumph over the harshest attack on our women that must be mentioned.]

Soul City is another good example of public service. While covering health issues, this programme educates, is solid, but still very entertaining. We are waiting with bated breath for more talk shows and actuality programmes, particularly in languages other than Afrikaans and English. Stop giving us excuses!

Ons kan onder geen omstandighede aangaan met verskonings dat ons moedertale afgeskeep en dikwels geïgnoreer word nie. [Under no circumstances can we continue making excuses that our mother tongues are being neglected and often ignored.] The SABC should grit its teeth and execute its language mandate. We have award-winning programmes such as Special Assignment which raise issues that are uppermost in the minds of our people and get them to talk about them.

Fokus met Freek is ‘n ander program wat baie goed en insiggewend is. Voorleggings deur Deafsa dui daarop dat baie Suid-Afrikaners hardhorend is, of selfs doof. Van hulle het selfs meer as een gestremdheid en vind dit dus moeilik, of selfs onmoontlik, om met die wêreld te kommunikeer, soos gesien deur die oë van die uitsaaier.

Hierdie wysigingswetsontwerp maak voorsiening vir die regstelling daarvan en dus sal gebaretaal, sowel as drukskrif, binnekort op beeldradio’s gesien word.

Ons kan nie die fout maak om tale teen mekaar uit te speel of politiek daarvan te maak nie. Ons moet in dieselfde asem gelykwaardige tyd aan al ons amptelike tale gee. Die huidige raad van die SABC sal hier ‘n oorhoofse rol speel, met programme wat die publiek sowel as kommersiële uitsaaidienste sal bestuur. Hierdie struktuur laat natuurlik toe dat daar baie gefokusseer word op die detail van die mandaat en die positiewe uitvoering daarvan. Hierdie wysigingswetsontwerp is die begin van ‘n baie opwindende periode in die lewe van die uitsaaiwese van die SABC.

Ek wil baie dankie sê aan almal wat voorleggings gedoen het, soos Deafsa, Tabema, SABC, MNet, Multichoice - maar veral Cosatu wat weer eens uitstekende werk gedoen het. Ek sluit af met ‘n aanhaling van my vriend wat sê:

Ek is gebore op ‘n ou sendingstasie, Zoar, bekend vir sy ongestreepte strate en min water, maar ook vir sy liefde en sy omgee vir mense. Grootgeword op stofstrate van die Kaapse Vlakte, geswerf van werkplek tot werkplek om armoede te ontduik. Ek praat Afrikaans met ‘n sleng, en baie van my vriende praat Sotho of Xhosa. Ek is trots wanneer ek sê my hart is rein en oop. Ek gee om vir my medemens, waar hy of sy ookal vandaan kom in Moeder Afrika. Ek is trots op wanneer ek sê: Inderdaad ek is ‘n Afrikaan. Inderdaad ek is ‘n African.

Die ANC steun hierdie wysigingswetsontwerp sonder enige voorbehoud. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[Fokus met Freek is another excellent and informative programme. Submissions by Deafsa indicate that many South Africans are hard of hearing, or even deaf. Some of them even have more than one disability and therefore find it difficult, or even impossible, to communicate with the world, as seen through the eyes of the broadcaster.

This amending Bill provides for the rectification of this and soon sign language, as well as subtitles, will be seen on television.

We cannot make the mistake of playing languages off against each other or politicising them. We must, at the same time, give equal time to all our official languages. The present board of the SABC will play a controlling role in this regard with programmes that will manage the public as well as commercial broadcasting services. This structure allows for a strong focus on the detail of the mandate and its positive implementation. This amending Bill is the beginning of a very exciting period in the life of the broadcasting service of the SABC.

I want to say thank you very much to everyone who made submissions, such as Deafsa, Tabema, SABC, MNet, Multichoice - but especially Cosatu who has once again done excellent work. I conclude with a quote from my friend, which goes:

Ek is gebore op ‘n ou sendingstasie, Zoar, bekend vir sy ongestreepte strate en min water. Maar ook vir sy liefde en sy omgee vir mense. Grootgeword op stofstrate van die Kaapse Vlakte, geswerf van werkplek tot werkplek om armoede te ontduik. Ek praat Afrikaans met ‘n sleng en baie van my vriende praat Sotho of Xhosa. Ek is trots wanneer ek sê my hart is rein en oop. Ek gee om vir my medemens, waar hy of sy ookal vandaan kom in Moeder Afrika. Ek is trots op wanneer ek sê: Inderdaad ek is ‘n Afrikaan. Inderdaad ek is ‘n African.

The ANC supports this amending Bill unconditionally.]

The MINISTER OF COMMUNICATIONS: Mr Chairperson, hon House, I would really like to thank hon members for the debate that we had today and for the support that many hon members, especially of the opposition, have given to this Bill.

However, I would like to say to hon Dene Smuts who says that I was badly advised …

Ms M SMUTS: Very!

The MINISTER: … and she says very badly advised, from higher up. I think part of the problem is the lack of understanding of how we work, because it is precisely the higher ups'' that said to me:Are you sure that this is where you want to go?’’ I asked them whether they were lily-livered or not, because all hon members of this House come to me all the time, complaining that I must exercise control and ask for this and that from the SABC. They said that we need more money coming from the state. They asked about accountability, because when the SABC does not spend its money well they do not go to the SABC but run again to me, because they do not sit in the committees.

What this Bill has done is that it has forced South Africans. I would like to say to the hon Vos that I also shared her joy, seeing how all of us, whether one was on this side or the other side, wanted to defend the freedoms. These are freedoms that the ANC has always fought for. I am glad that - what is the word again - one puts something under the chicken-coop and the chickens go scattering all over! [Laughter.] That is what South Africans did and that is why we have a much better Bill that everybody has contributed to.

I know that what we have done is to place a very difficult task on the SABC. Unless we did what we had done in terms of policy, accountability and all of those things, we would have made the task of the management and the board of the SABC extremely difficult. However, because I have confidence in the managerial capacity for finance, policy and operations, it gives me confidence. The road for the SABC is going to be a difficult one, but I have never doubted that as South Africans, and as SABC management, we will overcome and be able to deliver.

Let me refer to the issues around politically owned and public interests. I think there is indeed something that we as South Africans sometimes have to think about and that was raised by the hon Nat Kekana, namely the questioning of the integrity of the Executive. In questions this Executive should not be referred to as your Executive'. Whether hon members like it or not, it belongs to all of them. We are part and parcel of this mengelmoes’. So we all have to work together to make sure and be able, as I say, to see where it is where we support one another, where we say that we should not infringe upon one another’s powers, but where we all do this for the betterment of this country.

Dit is dus nie ‘n kwessie van die nasionale belang is nie die staatsbelang nie. Ek het so lank geveg dat ons nie die staatsbelang moet bevorder tot nadeel van die mense van die land nie. Ek weet nie waarom ek vir die staatsbelang moet staan nie, want môre, wanneer hierdie party nie so sterk is soos wat hy nou is nie, sal ek wil terugkom en ander wette maak. Die nasionale belang is álmal se belang; nie een mens se belang teenoor ‘n ander mens se belang nie. Dit is tyd dat Suid-Afrikaners besef ons is Suid- Afrikaners wat’n nasionale konsensus moet hê. [Applous.] Ek wil graag baie dankie sê aan die mense wat hierdie wetgewing gesteun het. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

[It is therefore not a question of the national interest not being the state interest. I have fought for so long to ensure that we do not promote the interests of the state to the detriment of the people of the country. I do not know why I should take a stand for the interests of the state, because tomorrow, when this party is not as strong as it is now, I will want to come back and pass other laws. The national interest is everyone’s interest; not the interests of one person as opposed to the interests of another. It is time South Africans realised that we are South Africans who must have a national consensus. [Applause.] I should like to say thank you very much to those people who have supported this legislation. [Applause.]]

Debate concluded.

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

The House adjourned at 17:42. ____

            ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS

ANNOUNCEMENTS:

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:

1. The Speaker and the Chairperson: (1) The following Bill was introduced by the Minister for Agriculture and Land Affairs in the National Assembly on 23 October 2002 and referred to the Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM) for classification in terms of Joint Rule 160:

   (i) Deeds Registries Amendment Bill [B 65 - 2002] (National Assembly - sec 75) [Explanatory summary of Bill and prior notice of its introduction published in Government Gazette No 23775 of 30 August 2002.]

   The Bill has been referred to the Portfolio Committee on Agriculture and Land Affairs of the National Assembly.

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

 (2)    The Minister of Health submitted the Wysigingswetsontwerp op
     Bedryfsiektes in Myne en Bedrywe [W 39 - 2002] (National Assembly
     - sec 75) to the Speaker and the Chairperson on 23 October 2002.
     This is the official translation into Afrikaans of the
     Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Amendment Bill [B 39 -
     2002] (National Assembly - sec 75).


 (3)    The Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development
     submitted the Tweede Insolvensiewysigingswetsontwerp  [W 53 -
     2002] (National Assembly - sec 75) to the Speaker and the
     Chairperson on 23 October 2002. This is the official translation
     into Afrikaans of the Insolvency Second Amendment Bill [B 53 -
     2002] (National Assembly - sec 75).


 (4)    The Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development
     submitted the Boedelwysigingswetsontwerp [W 54 - 2002] (National
     Assembly - sec 75) to the Speaker and the Chairperson on 23
     October 2002. This is the official translation into Afrikaans of
     the Administration of Estates Amendment Bill [B 54 - 2002]
     (National Assembly - sec 75).

TABLINGS:

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:

Papers:

1. The Minister of Home Affairs:

 Report and Financial Statements of the Film and Publication Board for
 2001-2002, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial
 Statements for 2001-2002.

National Assembly:

1. The Minister of Home Affairs:

 Letter from the Minister of Home Affairs, tabled in terms of section
 65(2)(a) of the Public Finance Management Act, 1999 (Act No 1 of 1999),
 explaining that the delay in the tabling of the Annual Report and
 Financial Statements of the Film and Publication Board was due to the
 delays in completion of the audits by the Office of the Auditor-General
 and the Audit Committee.

COMMITTEE REPORTS:

National Assembly:

1. Report of the Portfolio Committee on Health on the Medicines and Related Substances Amendment Bill [B 40 - 2002] (National Assembly - sec 75), dated 23 October 2002:

   The Portfolio Committee on Health, having considered the subject of the Medicines and Related Substances Amendment Bill [B 40 - 2002] (National Assembly - sec 75), referred to it and classified by the Joint Tagging Mechanism as a section 75 Bill, reports the Bill with amendments [B 40A - 2002].

2. Report of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development on the Judicial Matters Amendment Bill [B 55 - 2002] (National Assembly - sec 75), dated 22 October 2002: The Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development, having considered the subject of the Judicial Matters Amendment Bill [B 55 - 2002] (National Assembly - sec 75), referred to it and classified by the Joint Tagging Mechanism as a section 75 Bill, reports the Bill with amendments [B 55A - 2002], and endorses the classification of the Bill as a section 75 Bill.

   The Committee wishes to report further, as follows:

   1. Clause 22 of the Bill as introduced was intended to address problems experienced by attorneys and candidate attorneys in the areas of the Eastern Cape which formed part of the former Transkei and areas of the North West Province which formed part of the former Bophuthatswana. These were intended to be measures of an interim nature, pending the enactment of the Legal Practice Bill, which is intended to rationalise the legal profession and the legislation which regulates the legal profession. In the light of matters raised in the Committee and recent representations received on Clause 22, it would appear as if this Clause, while on the face of it appearing to be straightforward, may need further consideration and consultation with other role-players.

      The Department is therefore requested to consult with the relevant role-players on the issues at hand and to revert to the Committee during February 2003 with appropriate amendments, if necessary, that address all the issues, and which contain the necessary transitional arrangements.

   2. The Committee has been approached to consider inserting provisions in the Attorneys Act, 1979 (Act No. 53 of 1979), which will make it compulsory for all newly admitted attorneys and sole practitioners to complete a legal practice management course. This should go a long way towards reducing the number of claims against attorneys which arise as a result of a lack of management and/or administrative skills. While amendments have been prepared and made available for consideration, the Committee, because the deadline for the submission of draft legislation has expired and because of the tight legislative agenda for the remainder of the session, requests the Department to submit the amendments, which have been prepared by the Department and which differ from the original proposals submitted by the attorneys’ profession in a number of respects, to all role-players for their comments and to revert to the Committee during February 2003 with firm legislative proposals.

   3. The Committee notes that the amendments effected to sections 415 and 417 of the Companies Act, 1973, may also be required in respect of similar provisions of the Insolvency Act, 1936. The Committee requests the Department to consider the desirability of amending the Insolvency Act, 1936, in a similar manner, or to include them in the comprehensive review of insolvency legislation, and to revert to the Committee on the matter during February 2003. Report to be considered.