Madam Speaker, hon members of the House, ladies and gentlemen, the amendment Bill before us arises out of the recent experiences we have had of our inability to significantly lower the cost to communicate, of increasing access to, and the affordability of information and communications technologies.
One of the challenges South Africa and many other African countries faced was that sufficient investment in the infrastructure was not occurring. At a summit held in Kigali, Rwanda, on Connect Africa, sponsored by the African Union and the International Telecommunications Union - ITU - at which seven heads of state participated, it became abundantly clear that 55% of the unconnected population of the continent will not become connected unless we create new models and especially have governments intervening.
This was in line with our thinking as expressed in this amendment Bill. While the World Economic Forum readiness index had found our policies to be some of the best among our peers in developing countries, the World Economic Forum found we were low on uptake and usage of ICTs. This amendment Bill facilitates the intervention by government to ensure that strategic infrastructure investment is provided to extend access to and affordability of, information and communication technologies services. It also provides a framework for ICASA - our regulator - for licensing a public entity to achieve the strategic intention of reduction of costs and the extension of access and affordability.
This thinking is a paradigm shift in the sector not only in South Africa but throughout the continent. Throughout the continent, several questions have arisen to which this proposal responds. The questions that were asked were provided by the private and public sector, as well as by the regulatory bodies. The questions are: What is it that we must do, given that rural areas are usually not seen as a market for private sector investment?
Satellite coverage is a possible solution for these areas. But satellite is too expensive. So, what should we do? The kind of partnership and funding models and mechanisms for absorbing whatever funds we have, have not been appropriate. What is it that we can do?
The overwhelming answer and consensus of all the different stakeholders, those from the private sector, namely operators, satellite providers, IT equipment and device manufacturers, etc, to the Development Financial Institutions as well as governments, was: African governments should invest in the building or provision of broadband infrastructure, including wireless broadband and especially the most efficient and less expensive.
Government should provide frameworks for sharing common infrastructure, access points, spectrum, devices, content and knowledge, especially in poor and under serviced areas, in order to meet our Millennium Development Goals. That government should help to reduce the costs of doing business and improve affordability by all while not suppressing but encouraging competition.
This amendment Bill does just that. It does not suppress competition but allows for strategic intervention by government, where the market fails while providing a framework for licensing in such circumstances.
The shrinking pool of investment capital and the failed initiatives by the private sector to address the issues of costs to communicate, has led us to these critical steps of amending the Electronic Communications Act in line with the concept of a developmental state.
The process within the parliamentary committee has been very thorough and I thank all members of the portfolio committee for diligently engaging with the amendment. I also thank the ICT sector operators and the regulator for giving opinions, advice that generally was not violently opposed to the Bill and for accepting the principle of the need for strategic government intervention that can spur competition in the expansion of ICT access and services. I thank, particularly, the new chairperson of the committee, Comrade Vadi for his demonstrated leadership in steering this Amendment Bill through in such a tight schedule, especially in an area he had not been as familiar as the previous chairperson.
Finally, I'd like to thank my departmental staff, especially Ms Mashile Matlala and the policy section under which she has worked very closely with my deputy. They have worked round the clock to ensure the passage of this Bill.
I would like to urge this House to pass this Bill, which will assist us in bringing the advantages of ICTs closer to our people and achieve some of the Millennium Developmental Goals for our country. I thank you.
Madam Speaker, South Africa would not, in fact, have had a problem with a lack of competition in the infrastructure layer if the Electronic Communications Act had not contained the one section that we opposed in that law. The Electronic Communications Act is Parliament's law. It is also our law.
We reconceptualised the Convergence Bill as it was, to deal not only with convergence but also with competition. The absence of competition that has slowed us to a snail's pace was - let it be said - the product of policy failure, which gave Telkom too long an exclusivity period and then tried to introduce a duopoly under adverse conditions.
Legislating in a policy vacuum in 2005, we threw the sector open to competition, except for that one section. Section 5(6) prevents Icasa, the Independent Communications Authority of SA, from issuing invitations to apply for network licences above a certain scope.
A properly empowered regulator applies its expert mind precisely to such matters - how to stimulate and create incentive investment and competition in areas where it is lacking. The Electronic Communications Act, however, contains a red robot: Everyone has to wait until our hon Minister issues policy directions in terms of which Icasa can issue an ITA, invitation to apply, not only for the big networks but also for any licence for in which a state-owned entity holds 25% or more. The light remained resolutely red.
Then enters the hon Public Enterprises Minister to turn the light from red to green. Unfortunately, he did so, of course, using the only entities over which he holds sway - the SOEs.
I would like to say that the DA, like every party in nearly every country in the world, is opposed to a return to state telecoms, and I mention that because our hon Minister described a paradigm shift in Africa, which, I think, we must be really careful about.
The case for liberalisation in telecoms is conclusive, but our telephone minister number two - as I nicknamed the Public Enterprises Minister - made proposals that sounded as if they had, in fact, the potential to break the bottleneck in terrestrial backbone facilities provided, of course, that they remain limited to a wholesale, cost-oriented offering to operators.
Infraco, in other words, had the potential to serve the goals of the pro- competitive Electronic Communications Act. Now, Infraco could not simply be deemed a licence under its own Act, for legal reasons and also because it must fit the logic of the Electronic Communications Act. It had to be brought into Icasa's domain. Regrettably, the amending Bill tabled by our hon Minister brought it firmly into her own domain, rather than the regulator's.
The DOC, Department of Communications, leapt at the opportunity to introduce an effective parallel licensing regime under which it could license its own SOEs to perform strategic infrastructure interventions - and we are talking here only about infrastructure interventions. Sentech, of course, already is supposed to play such role - one wonders.
However, such a provision as the one tabled, unconstrained, was far too vague and broad. Our communications committee has instead placed this provision within the Electronic Communications Act's policy direction- making section, where it is automatically subject to checks and constraints. It is the logical place to put it since that makes it the extension of section 5(6), which is essentially exception to the general Electronic Communications Act prohibition on ministerial influence upon licensing decisions.
Let me say that it remains regrettable that this amendment does not open the ITA - which is to follow - to private sector entities that do wish to build infrastructure.
It is no more than a form of damage control against the ambitions of both telephone ministers. However, because it goes someway to achieving such damage control, we will, today, support it. As our colleague, the hon Manie van Dyk, supported Infraco but made many warnings, we echo those very same warnings.
We do warn against the return to state telecoms. What we need is not the competition between two Ministers, which we are going to get. They are already competing with each other on undersea cables to the east and to the west of our continent. What we need is real and open competition. Thank you. [Applause.]
Madam Speaker, hon members, ladies and gentlemen, indeed, it would be important for me to appreciate the well-calculated decision by the Portfolio Committee on Public Enterprises to ensure that they do refer this matter to the Portfolio Committee on Communications, so that we deal with this matter of the amendment of the Electronic Communications Act accordingly.
When we were debating the second reading of the Infraco Bill, I said - and I will repeat it again today - that across the political spectrum, we are all in agreement that the cost of communication services in this country is too high.
All the stakeholders that appeared before the committee on 31 October 2007, during the public hearings, shared the common objectives of government, that is to expand access to information, communication and technology infrastructure and services and, furthermore, to make strategic interventions in infrastructure investment.
However, we all differed on how government should achieve these objectives. Most of the submissions, with the exception of a few, suggested that normal processes of licensing should be followed. However, we are moving from the premise that indeed government should play an important role in ensuring that we do bring down the costs of telecommunications.
We also acknowledge that some of the presentations were informed by the fact that most of those who made the submissions were against intervention by the state. They suggested an approach where the state does not intervene in this industry.
Of course, they based their argument on the fact that government intervention through Telkom could not yield the expected results and, therefore, government should fold its arms, watch and rely on the goodwill of the market to provide solutions - a fact we disputed and still do even now. Our view is that we should learn from what happened with Telkom and ensure that it does not happen again.
The Bill provides an opportunity for government to intervene on infrastructure investment whenever deemed necessary in order to enable government to address some of the significant challenges, such as improving on government service delivery and supporting the objectives of the Accelerated and Shared Growth Initiative for SA, Asgisa, and to provide the much-needed bandwidth for strategic projects and consumers at large in order to fast-track development.
We should accept that we could not find the logic to limit this intervention only to Infraco, whilst we all agree that ICT, Information and Communication Technology, is a dynamic industry. However, we should note that the current provisions of the principal Act do not cater for the facilitation of strategic intervention by government in the ICT sector, hence the proposed amendments.
In order to ensure that the Minister intervenes in accordance with the strategic objectives, the Minister needs to consult or get Cabinet's approval before initiating and facilitating intervention. This would ensure strategic infrastructure investment and also provide for the framework for the licensing of a public entity by Icasa in terms of chapter 3. Indeed, it is regrettable that my colleague in the Portfolio Committee on Communications thinks that the Minister wants to usurp the powers of Icasa, which is not true. In fact, we confirm that Icasa has to deal with licensing. The Minister provides the framework for licensing so that Icasa could perform its task without any fear or favour.
We should also emphasise the point that during the Infraco debate, we indicated that there is a need for both Ministries to ensure that they develop policy to regulate both Infraco and Sentech, because if they are not regulated, we might find a situation where there are duplications. Linked to that is the matter of scheduling, which Sentech has continuously raised. We think that it is a very important matter that we need to take up.
As I have indicated, we are of the view that as a developmental state, we must intervene. Whatever happened with the Telkom intervention, we must acknowledge and learn from it as we move forward. Since I arrived here, I have heard people talking on this platform, still complaining about the Telkom issue. I wonder when that matter would be left in the past. Maybe at one point, it will be so that we can focus ahead in a manner that would be productive for our society at large.
In conclusion, one would like to extend one's appreciation for the industry on the input it has made during the public hearings, which were robust and challenging. We would also like to extend our appreciation to the state law advisers, committee researchers and the department's officials who have made sure that our work became easier in terms of co-operation and so on. Without any hesitation and doubt, the ANC will support this Bill. Thank you. [Applause.]
Chairperson, once again the Portfolio Committee on Communications has turned the potentially problematic drafting of law into acceptable law and the IFP will support these proposed amendments to the