Amendments to the ICASA Amendment Bill [B32D-2005]: discussion

Meeting report

PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS
17 May 2006

AMENDMENTS TO THE ICASA AMENDMENT BILL [B32D-2005]: DISCUSSION

Acting chairperson:

Mr G Oliphant (ANC)

Documents handed out:

Proposed Portfolio Committee Amendments to ICASA Amendment Bill [B32D-2005(Reprint)]

SUMMARY:
The Committee discussed amendments to the ICASA Amendment Bill. The President had sent the amendments back to the Committee and had rejected options 1 and 3 as put forward by the Committee. The Committee discussed Clause 7 of the Amendment Bill relating to the composition of the Council. Members raised concerns about the Competition Commission being brought in as a member of the proposed panel as the Commission was a state entity.

MINUTES
The chairperson suggested that the Committee only deal with one of the five items on the agenda - the amendments to the Independent Communications Authority (ICASA) Bill - as there would be a debate on Government Communication and Information System (GCIS) later that afternoon. The other matters that remained were in-house matters relating to reports, one of which still had to be finalised. Regarding the Bill, he stated that the State Law Advisor (Ayesha Johar, Office of the Chief State Law Advisor) had said that Clause 17A(1)2(b) and Clause 17A(1)3(b) were in conflict with each other.

Ms D Smuts (DA) told members that option 3 of the amendments was very close to her heart and that she would like to see centrality restored to Parliament. The Minister had a very clear conflict of interest as the state was a shareholder in most major communications entities. The DA would be happy to look at a proposal for a panel to be established.

Mr R Piertse (ANC) commented that he had experienced cases of receiving excellent individual CV’s whereas in reality the person turned out to be a bad team player. He suggested that it would therefore make sense for more names to be submitted to the Minister for a panel to be elected.

Mr M Kwolwane (ANC) remarked that the Competition Commission was a part of government and that performance should form part of the Act.

Ms S Vos (IFP) told members that the IFP would support the increase in the number of councilors and the establishment of a panel but not the involvement of the Minister in the appointment of the panel. All issues pertaining to the Minister would be debated.

Dr P Mulder (FF) commented that most of the issues discussed were not political but technical in nature. He said that the FF could support the amendments to a point.

Mr R Piertse (ANC) commented that Ministers were still Members of Parliament and parliamentary rules still needed to be adhered to. He indicated that there would be consumer interest in the appointment of ICASA councilors and the procedures relating to the appointments.

Ms Smuts remarked that it seemed like a good idea to involve the Competition Commission in the panel and that an economist was needed amongst the ICASA councilors. The ultimate goal of the Competition Commission was consumer interest. She said that the word ‘opposition’ should be included in option 2 of the amendment, and that the appointing bodies must be multiparty so that there could be a balance. However, it should only be the National Assembly and not the National Council of Provinces who served on the panel. She suggested that one or more members from an opposition party serve on the panel

Clause 7(b) amending Section 5(1A)(b)(vi)
Ms Smuts suggested that the clause be amended to ‘six members of the National Assembly including members of the opposition party’.

Mr K Khumalo (ANC) suggested that it specify two members from the opposition party and four from the majority.

Mr Piertse commented that the ‘chairperson’ seemed to refer to the chairperson of the Portfolio Committee.

Mr Khumalo said that the six members who sat on the panel would include opposition party members.

The Chairperson replied that the Rules of Parliament dictated that different parties were to be represented.

Dr Mulder commented that the Rules of Parliament were not very stringent and added that they were at the mercy of the majority party.

Mr Piertse commented two members from any opposition party could be represented on the panel.
 

Clause 7(b) amending Section 5(1B)(a)

Mr Khumalo suggested that the clause read ‘at least 60 days prior to the last day of the expiry of the contract’.

Clause 7(d) amending Section 5(3)(b)(ii)
Ms Smuts suggested that ‘related’ be replaced with ‘relevant’.

The State Law Advisor commented that ‘relevant’ was more subjective.

The Chairperson told members that the State Law Advisor would make the necessary amendments to the Bill so that the Committee could vote on it

The meeting was adjourned