Processing a Committee Bill: Parliamentary Legal Adviser briefing; Committee Reports Strategic Planning Workshop & Brand South Africa Strategic Plan 2013

This premium content has been made freely available

Communications and Digital Technologies

11 June 2013
Chairperson: Mr S Kholwane (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Parliamentary Legal Adviser briefed the Committee on the process to be followed to amend Section 15A(3)(b) of the Broadcasting Act, to grant the National Assembly time to give due consideration to the appointment of permanent members of the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) board. This implied that the period of the interim board had to be extended, as members had pointed out the week before.                                                                              

The Committee was advised to obtain permission from the House by tabling a memorandum setting out the particulars and financial implications of the proposed legislation (an example of a draft memorandum was included). With permission obtained, the Committee had to prepare a draft bill and explanatory memorandum, and had to consult with the Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM) about classification, which would be as Section 75. The drafted bill could be published in the Gazette. There had to be a call for public participation. After a first reading the bill would be returned by National Assembly to the Committee, which then had to advertise further for public participation.

The Parliamentary Legal Adviser concluded that the Committee had the power to process the amendment through a committee bill. The process for the processing of committee bills was flexible enough to allow for public participation and have the Act amended before the period of the interim board had elapsed. It was possible if the Committee and its Select Committee counterpart prioritised the bill. The Committee would have to align their process with the parliamentary programme, and the Select Committee programme.

During the discussion, it was asked if public participation could be bypassed. There was also concern that public participation could go wider than the intended amendment. The legal adviser stressed that there was considerable public interest in the SABC board. But the Committee was chiefly required to consider inputs related to the specific section to be amended. It was asked if the intended change was significant enough to justify the route to be taken. The legal adviser replied that the change was fundamental, as it concerned the appointment process of the people who ran the SABC.  There was interest in timelines. The legal adviser agreed that they had to be fast, and spelled out what had to be done to expedite the process.

The Committee Report on Brand South Africa’s Strategic Plan and Budget for 2013 was considered for adoption. The Democratic Alliance (DA) gave notice that they would support the Strategic Plan, but wished to reserve their position on the budget. There was disagreement with budget allocation. After some discussion, it was resolved that the DA position be included in the report, and that the DA be given an opportunity to raise the issue for their party. It was decided to adopt the report with the DA reservation.

The Committee’s Strategic Planning Workshop Report was considered for adoption. The DA objected that the decision to focus on regional migration, cost of communications and broadband, was not cited at the conclusion of the report. There were still no decision about the Committee programme, and a draft programme was not discussed. There was an appeal that the House Chair be asked about legislative processes for Parliament for the rest of the term. The Chairperson accepted that the focus on regional migration, cost of communication and broadband, be prioritised. The report was adopted.
 

Meeting report

Briefing by the Parliamentary legal adviser on considerations for processing a committee bill (Amendment of the Broadcasting Act 4 of 1999)
Dr Barbara Loots, Parliamentary Legal Adviser, referred to the discussion of a new interim board member for the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC), in terms of the Broadcasting Act, No. 4 of 1999, the previous week. During the meeting the issue was raised that Section 15A(3)(b) did not allow sufficient time for the National Assembly to give due consideration to the appointment of permanent members of the SABC board.

Dr Loots said that as the SABC board was the accounting authority of the Corporation, the appointment process was not to be rushed as that compromised the functioning of the accounting authority. The Committee had asked the Legal Services Office to outline the parliamentary procedure to be followed to amend the relevant section as a matter of urgency.

Dr Loots advised that the National Assembly (NA) initiated legislation through the Committees, with permission from the Assembly. The Committee would have to obtain permission from the House by tabling a memorandum setting out the particulars and financial implications of the proposed legislation. There was attached, as Annexure A, a proposed draft memorandum for Committee consideration. If the NA granted permission, the Committee had to prepare a draft bill and explanatory memorandum, and had to consult with the JTM about the classification of the bill. The drafted bill could then be published in the Gazette. There had to be a call for public participation, in terms of rule 241. After a first reading the bill would be returned to the Committee by the NA, at which point there had to be further advertisement for public participation. Stakeholders could be alerted at an early stage through the Gazette.

Steps for public participation had to be in place. There was no set prescript about the form public participation had to take. It was for the Committee to decide about reasonable steps within the context.

Dr Loots concluded that the Committee had the power to process the amendment through a committee bill, if the NA granted permission to proceed. The process for the processing of committee bills was flexible enough to allow public participation and amend the broadcasting Act, 1999 before the current period of the interim SABC board lapsed, if the Committee and its Select Committee counterpart prioritised the processing of the bill.

Dr Loots presented the Committee with two drafted options (Annexure B). The one would seek to provide for an extension of the current six month period, and the other would simply state the length of the extension required.

Dr Loots stressed that the Committee had to align their process with the parliamentary programme, and had to choose an appropriate time frame. They also had to liaise with the select Committee, according to their programme.

Discussion
Ms M Shinn (DA) asked if it would at all be possible to do the amendment without public participation.

Dr Loots responded that Parliament had a Constitutional duty to involve the public. However, it could be done to a degree that was reasonable under the given circumstances.

Mr C Kekana (ANC) said that it was clear that public participation was needed when there was fundamental change to legislation. He asked whether it was necessary to go through the prescribed route if changes were minor.

Dr Loots replied that changing one word in a bill could have fundamental implications. To extend the time period of the interim SABC Board was a significant change. The appointment of the permanent board had to follow a transparent and open process, because the public had an interest in the Board. Extension of the interim board period could be seen by the public as cutting them off. It meant that for a year there could not be public participation in the appointment of the board. The change was small but fundamental. It changed the appointment process of people who ran the SABC. Even the current six month term was seen as too long by some, to have a Board not elected by a transparent process with public participation.

Ms J Kilian (COPE) asked about time frames. She asked what the latest date could be to kickstart the process. She asked for directions about what had to start when. There was the danger that the SABC could be left without a board.

Dr Loots replied that timelines had to be fast. That was the reason why a draft document had been drawn up. The Committee had to decide about the amendment and then had to table a memorandum seeking permission from the National Assembly. The Committee Secretary had to ask for it to be tabled at National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces (NCOP). Permission could be sought the following week. When tabled and with permission granted, it could be Gazetted. During the recess, there could be a call in the newspapers. The process had to be managed according to National Assembly and NCOP programmes.

Ms Kilian said that the process would be running after the recess in July. She foresaw the problem of sitting with a board appointed for a double length period, and then having to conduct interviews in the middle of the election campaign. During deliberations the Committee had said there were shortcomings in the Act. That could be taken to have been a first amendment of the Act. The question was whether there could be another amendment within the year. An amendment to the appointment process had been proposed.

Dr Loots advised that public hearings could commence immediately after the recess, in July. There could then be a second reading in the House. It would speed things up if the Select Committee had been warned beforehand. It was Section 75 legislation, which meant that it could pass smoothly. The Amendment could kick in during August, before the current board dissolved. It could be introduced again during the same year. The need was there, public interest demanded it.

Mr A Steyn (DA) commented that if the draft was published for comment, interested parties might very well want to take things further. He asked if it would be in line with the Constitution if the Committee ignored such requests.

Dr Loots replied that when amendments applied to certain sections, the public sometimes wanted to go beyond that. Broader comment was allowed, but if the Committee wished to restrict it to section 15A, the public would also be restricted to that. It was not unconstitutional. If the public wanted other sections changed, the Committee had to apply to National Assembly again. If there were viable comments, the Committee could credit the public with that.

Ms Kilian asked if two birds could be killed with one stone. She asked if, when advertising for the amendment, the Committee could also say that it intended a second amendment to governance. She asked if that would be a different process.

Dr Loots responded that permission for that also had to be sought from National Assembly. There would have to be a separate memo published in the House. The request had to be kept simple for speedy processing.

Committee Report on Brand South Africa Strategic Plan and Budget Report
The Chairperson tabled the report for consideration.

Ms Shinn pointed out that the last sentence on page two, going over to page three, stated that “…most countries have but a tourism logo”. She said that it could be taken to state that other countries did not have branding logos.

The Chairperson agreed that it did not make sense.

The Committee Researcher said that what was meant was that it was across the board in South Africa only. In the United States they had different brands. It could be struck off. It did not make good reading.

Ms Shinn suggested that the last paragraph on page two be simplified. The last sentences could read: “South Africa has achieved consistency across all brands for branding South Africa. Brand South Africa has achieved such consistency with an inspiring new ways logo”.

Mr Steyn asked about the meaning of “seeding positioning” (first bullet on page three).

Ms Kilian opined that if one looked at the Brand South Africa mandate, it referred to positioning the brand internationally. The word “seeding” could be ommitted.

The Chairperson ventured that what was being said referred to the fact that the initial brand was not yet embedded, and it had to be made sure that it was planted like a thing. Brand SA was not doing well domestically.

Ms Kilian suggested that the sentence be reformulated to read: “aligning and embedding the brand and enhancing its position among stakeholders”.

Ms A Muthambi (ANC) noted that on page five, line three, the acronym CIVITIS was not explained.

Ms Shinn noted with reference to the last page (page seven), that the DA wished to have it stated that they were in favour of adoption, but wished to reserve their position on the budget.

The Chairperson asked where it would lead to if a strategic plan was adopted without a budget. A strategic plan could not be adopted without a budget. He asked Ms Shinn to explain.

Ms Shinn replied that the DA just wanted to reserve their position. There was a National Assembly vote on the budget the following week. The DA did not have problems with the budget, only with how it was allocated.

Ms Muthambi remarked that for the moment the Committee only had to recommend.

The Chairperson said that note would be taken of the DA position.

Ms Shinn said that the DA wished to reserve its position on budget vote one.

The Chairperson noted that in terms of section eight of the document there had to be one Committee position. But it could also be seen as an opportunity for the DA to raise issues for the Party.

Ms Muthambi said that the rules did not speak against adoption, if a party position was noted in a report.

The Chairperson asked Mr G Schneemann (ANC) if the DA position had to be noted in the report.

Mr Schneemann replied that it had to form part of the report, as the report was going into the announcements, tablings and committee reports (ATC) document. It was part of the proceedings.

The report was adopted, notwithstanding the DA reservation.

Committee Report on its Strategic Planning Workshop
The Chairperson tabled the report for consideration and invited input from Members.

Ms Shinn pointed out that the report did not include a decision to focus on regional migration, cost of communication and broadband. The Committee had not yet decided what was still to be done. There was the issue of the SABC Board. The draft problem had not yet been discussed.

The Chairperson said that the Committee would have to prioritise what they wanted to do. The workshop had dealt with a lot of issues. Broadband and other issues were priorities, but the workshop had to deal with everything. There were still not formal amendments, which made it difficult to deal with the programme. It had been said that certain amendments were on the way, but that did not happen. He agreed that regional migration, cost of communication and broadband were priorities.

Ms Shinn said that the House Chair had to be asked about legislative processes for Parliament for the rest of the current Parliament. The Committee had to be told what to prioritise for the following six to eight months. She asked about steps taken for legislation.

The Chairperson replied that there were no clear cut prescriptions. There were six pieces of legislation, counting the Broadcasting Act. He asked Mr Schneeman to comment on how to conduct correspondence to prioritise.

Mr Schneemann noted that the deadline for legislation had been 7 June 2013. That was the parliamentary deadline, but if a matter was deemed crucial, there was some leeway. It had to be discussed with presiding officers. Issues could be accommodated case by case.

The Chairperson agreed that the issues of migration, cost of communication and broadband, raised by Ms Shinn, had to be reprioritised.

The report was adopted.

Adoption of minutes of 4 and 5 June 2013
Minutes of 4 and 5 June 2013 were adopted.

The Chairperson adjourned the meeting.
 

Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: