Chairperson, you caught me off guard with the change on the Order Paper.
It is my pleasure to report on the progress that the Portfolio Committee on Communications has made on the Broadcasting Amendment Bill. Hon members will remember that this Bill was introduced and approved by the NA earlier this year.
Essentially, the Bill provides for the resignation of a member of the board or for the removal from office of a member of the SABC board. It further makes provision for a resolution of the NA calling for the dissolution of the board if the board fails in any of the following: discharging its fiduciary duties; adhering to the charter of the corporation; or properly and judiciously managing the affairs of the corporation.
The original Bill empowered the President, in conjunction with the Speaker, to appoint and remove the SABC board if recommended to do so by the NA. It also made provision for the appointment of an interim board. The Bill was then referred to the NCOP.
It is important to note that the NCOP held its own public hearings on the matter, and it wisely introduced two key amendments. The first is that the President remains the appointing authority of the SABC board. While the original suggestion was that the appointing authority should be the President in conjunction with the Speaker, the NCOP said it should be the President only. This is a sensible amendment as it eliminates the possibility for the constitutional ambiguity that relates to the original clause. It reaffirms the principle of the separation of powers that underpins our constitutional order.
The second amendment introduced by the NCOP sets a quorum for an interim board. This was an oversight on our part which has now been corrected. The portfolio committee therefore welcomes and accepts all the amendments proposed by the NCOP and commends the revised Bill to the House. If this Bill is approved by the House today and is assented to by the President, a lawful mechanism will have been created to act against the SABC Board if it displays any signs of dysfunctionality and if it fails in discharging its statutory responsibilities.
The truth of the matter is that the current SABC board, for various and different reasons, lacks popular credibility, even though it was established through a legitimate process. At present there is widespread dissatisfaction with the board over the manner in which it carries out its corporate governance responsibility. Important voices in civil society, the media and political formations have, therefore, either called for the resignation of members of the board or for their removal from office.
Parliament cannot be deaf to these growing concerns. However, the law, as it stands now, precludes that from happening. Well, the law is now being amended and a legal basis is being created for acting against the SABC, should it be deemed necessary. In this regard, I wish to counsel the House that if it institutes any proceedings against the board in future, the administrative processes must be fair, just and legally defensible. Simultaneously, the reasons for such action must be cogent and consistent with the legal conditions set out in this Bill. If these conditions are met in an open and transparent manner, I have no doubt that there will be significant public support for the decisions of the NA.
With these few words of introduction, the ANC supports the Broadcasting Amendment Bill and recommends that the House adopts the Bill. Thank you.
There was no debate.
Declarations of vote.
Chairperson, the NCOP has removed one of two constitutionally offensive provisions from this Bill. It has removed the redefinition of the appointing authority that would have forced the President of the Republic to appoint the SABC board in consultation with the Speaker.
That provision offended against the doctrine of the separation of powers. It is now gone; so is Mr Thabo Mbeki, which is the real reason for the change. Still, it is a vindication of the position taken here by all opposition parties, and we obviously support the NCOP amendment in this respect.
However, the NCOP has not changed the second constitutionally problematic provision. We will therefore not vote in favour of the Bill in this, its final form. We will vote against it. We will also petition President Motlanthe not to sign it but to send it back to this House because the proposed purge of a duly appointed board without due inquiry is unconstitutional. Mr Blade Nzimande can pontificate as much as he likes on public platforms that the board cannot remain in office for, I quote, "another day". He can terrify the SACP and Members of Parliament into trying, against their better judgement, to pass meaningless motions of no confidence in the board, as they tried again yesterday until we stopped them in their tracks and allowed the board to give what I thought was a very good account of itself on the fiduciary front and in respect of its duties under the charter.
You are not going to be able to evict this board! These are the same Members of Parliament who removed the requirement for due enquiry after the SACP's Mr Malesela Maleka, in a submission, called such due inquiry "a counter-revolutionary attempt to protect bourgeois space with legal concepts".
The proposition that an entire board may be dissolved is intimidatory, as I have said before. It is destructive of the independence without which the SABC cannot protect its editorial staff and the right of the public to be informed. The proposal that this can be done without an inquiry is obviously unconstitutional.
The SACP is already ventilating the names of the five lefties it thinks it is going to install without due process as an interim board in terms of this Bill. This isn't going to happen, Mr Nzimande, not before the election and certainly not after it. [Applause.]
Chairperson, the IFP supports the amendment to this Bill that comes to us from the NCOP because we opposed the clause in Parliament when the Bill was first debated here.
Nevertheless, the IFP opposes this Bill in its entirety for all the reasons we have previously stated. It is a bad law. It is motivated by the ANC alliance wishing to control the SABC Board and hire and fire its members without any semblance of administrative justice - without due inquiry. We believe that this is unconstitutional. That is what the chairperson, Mr Vadi, told us there today from this very podium. He has told us that this is in fact their intention. Their intention is to fire the current SABC board.
However, we also intend to petition the President of the Republic not to sign this Bill into law. Thank you.
Chair, the ID certainly supports the removal of the clause in this Bill by the NCOP as we opposed it in the NA.
The ID is still vehemently opposed to this Bill, however, as it allows for the removal of the board without due inquiry, which is in complete contravention of all the rules of administrative justice. We must avoid drafting laws simply to satisfy changing political dispensations. The ID opposes this Bill. Thank you. [Applause.]
Chairperson, let there be no doubt that we are in the middle of a very serious fight for the soul of the SABC. The elections make it more serious for the moment as the ANC, for the first time, experiences being on the receiving end of biased reporting. We are used to this as we have been experiencing it for many years! This is what this Bill is all about.
Die SAUK is 'n openbare uitsaaier, nie 'n staatsuitsaaier nie. Mag hy nooit dit word nie, want dan het ons moeilikheid in Suid-Afrika.
Die harde werklikheid is dat die SAUK tans grootliks 'n nuus-monopolie het. Daar is SABC 3 wat jy met eTv se Engelse nuus kan vergelyk, maar al die ander nuusbulletins het net die SAUK in die bulletin. Daarom is dit belangrik dat hy objektief moet bly, neutraal moet bly en niemand beheer oor hom moet kry nie.
'n Onafhanklike regstelsel is net so belangrik soos 'n onfahanklike openbare uitsaaiser wat oor nuus beheer het.
Ek wil u nie terugvat na Zimbabwe toe nie, maar gaan kyk maar wat daar verkeerdgeloop het. Vanaf 1980 het Robert Mugabe onmiddelik die uitsaaistelsel beheer. Dit het gelei tot waar ons vandag met die moeilikheid sit.
Hoe kry jy beheer oor 'n uitsaaistelsel? Jy kry dit op 'n subtiele manier. Jy hou 'n swaard oor die kop van die mense daar. Jy dreig hulle met afdanking op die geringste die-kant of daardie-kant. Sonder om hard te praat, weet elkeen dat hulle uiteindelik moet doen wat van hulle verwag word, want daar is base oor hul koppe.
Regters word aangestel sonder enige moontlikheid om van hulle ontslae te kan raak; dit verseker dat hulle onafhanklik is. Die SAUK behoort in dieselfde posisie te wees, dat iemand aangestel moet kan word, volle vetroue geniet en in sy posisie kan aanbly.
Ek ken die argumente van onbekwaamheid, van probleme hier en daar, maar ek s vir u, hierdie maak eintlik van die SAUK 'n skoothond na alle kante toe.
Ek praat nie eers van die feit dat dit nie so maklik is om van 'n Parlementslid hier ontslae te raak sonder 'n ingewikkelde regs- en administratiewe proses nie. Gaan probeer maar 'n bietjie om van u mense hier af te dank. Hierso, maklik soort van, gaan ontslae geraak word van SAUK raadslede, om sekere politieke doeleindes.
Die VF Plus gaan teen die wetgewing stem en neem graag deel aan die petisie uiteindelik om dit by die President te kry en dit daar te stop. Ek dank u. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[The SABC is a public broadcaster, not a state broadcaster. May it never become one, because then there will be trouble in South Africa.
The harsh reality is that the SABC to a large extent presently enjoys a monopoly on news. We do have SABC 3, which one can compare to eTv's English news, but the other news bulletins are all SABC throughout. That is why it is important for it to remain objective and neutral, while nobody gains control of it.
An independent judiciary is just as important as an independent broadcaster in control of news.
I don't want to take you back to Zimbabwe, but just take a look at what went wrong there. From 1980 onwards Robert Mugabe immediately gained control of the broadcasting system. This led to the problems we are faced with today.
How does one gain control of a broadcasting system? You do it in a subtle way. You hold a sword over the heads of the people there. You threaten them with instant dismissal at the least sign of divergence. Without any voice being raised everybody knows that in the end they must do what is expected of them, because there are bosses at their heels.
Judges are being appointed without any possibility of getting rid of them; this ensures their impartiality. The SABC should be in the same position, that someone can be appointed, enjoy full confidence and remain in his or her post.
I know the arguments about incompetence and problems here and there, but I am telling you that this is actually turning the SABC into a lapdog on all sides.
I am not even talking about the fact that it is not so easy to get rid of a Member of Parliament here without an intricate legal and administrative process. Just try to dismiss some of your people here. In this instance, kind of effortlessly, certain SABC board members are going to be done away with for certain political purposes.
The FF Plus will be voting against this legislation and would like to support the petition in order ultimately to present it to the President and to stop it there. I thank you. [Applause.]]
Chairperson, the ACDP shares the sentiments expressed by the opposition parties. Whilst we support the NCOP amendment that removes the need for consultation with the Speaker on the appointment of the board, we clearly still maintain on record our opposition to the Bill in its entirety, which seeks to control the appointment of the members of the board without fair administrative action and their firing in terms of that.
In our view, there would be endless litigation if this Bill is passed in its present form. The intention is clear - to fire the board without what would be due administration. The ACDP, therefore, will not support the Bill in its entirety. I thank you. [Applause.]
Chairperson, the first object of the Bill is, of course, to allow for the Speaker to assist with appointing the SABC board. This should not have been a consideration worthy of the time spent on the matter in the portfolio committee. From the outset, the content of the Bill was unconstitutional and undemocratic. The portfolio committee should have then made a decision in principle not to consider the Bill.
The NCOP in having considered the Bill has come to the conclusion that it will be inappropriate of the executive to be directly involved with the selection of the SABC board. The amendments to the Bill by the NCOP reverse the one adopted by the NA and recommends that the powers of the executive will be limited with regard to the SABC board.
We must applaud the second Chamber for taking a stand in this regard. The FD, a member of the Christian Democratic Alliance, has always maintained that public broadcasting enterprises should not be used for purposes of political gain.
The purposes of the executive, in particular, in this regard must be subject to public scrutiny; and since the people have entrusted Parliament with that responsibility, it is our duty to exercise appropriate controls over the executives.
The elections in 2009 demand that the SABC we want is one that is committed to editorial independence and which ensures that election coverage is done without any bias towards any political party. This morning the SABC board met with political parties and promised that we can expect equitable and fair coverage of the 2009 elections. The Bill we will support will be one that informs the democratic principles of an open and transparent public broadcasting system. Anything less remains unacceptable. The FD will therefore not support the Bill.
There was no debate.
Chairperson, I move:
That the Bill, as amended, be passed.
Motion agreed to (Democratic Alliance, Inkatha Freedom Party, Independent Democrats, African Christian Democratic Party, United Christian Democratic Party, Freedom Front Plus and Federation of Democrats dissenting).
Bill, as amended, accordingly passed.