Speaker, I move:
That the Bill be passed.
Declarations of vote:
Madam, you will allow me the time, I hope. The DA petitioned our President to send this Bill back, because it tried to write an unprocedural political purge into the law.
There are three provisions dealing with the removal of SABC directors: The first is the old one, under which the board itself can ask the President to remove a member for misconduct or incapacity after due inquiry.
The second is the new provision, which I first proposed a year ago, under which Parliament, as the institution that selects the board members in the first place, may resolve, after a finding of misconduct, incapacity or ineligibility, that an individual member should be removed.
Nothing more than this is needed, as I have said before, for any bona fide case where a member is found unfit. However, this Bill creates a third removal provision: The National Assembly may by simple resolution decide on the dissolution of the entire board for failure to discharge its duties and, by a further vote, recommend five persons, hand-picked, without public nomination or participation or any transparency, as an interim board, which the President must then appoint within ten days - in time for the election, of course.
The absence of any explicit requirement for procedural fairness in this third removal clause stands in stark contrast to the requirement for due inquiry in the two proceeding provisions. In legal terms this may therefore be read to be intentional and thus, constitutionally speaking, to exclude the right to fair procedure. It is this that formed the basis of our petition and it is this that has caused our President's reservations and the sending back of the Bill.
In practical terms, we may remind the House that not only may this omission be read to be intentional, it was intentional: Due inquiry was actually removed from the draft after the SACP's submission. This had been tried before. An unprocedural purge has in fact been tried before.
When you undertake administrative action, you must inform the affected people of the nature and purpose of the proceeding and you must give them a reasonable opportunity to put their case. The unsuspecting board, however, last April at the age of four months, was subjected to a kangaroo court, which I have described here before and which resulted in an attempt at passing a motion of no confidence which failed, thanks to the hon members.
This dissolution clause is a further attempt to achieve the same end. This Bill has been rendered constitutional, thanks to the fact that the President has sent it back, and that we welcome, but the dissolution provision is still unnecessary, it is undesirable and therefore we will still vote against this Bill and also against the idea of an interim board to be appointed for the purposes of the election.
I suspect my ANC colleagues are very relieved that this has been corrected and that they will now have to abandon the attempt to unseat the board. [Interjections.] [Applause.]
Deputy Speaker, if ever there was proof needed that South Africa requires strong and principled opposition political parties, the amendments to the Broadcasting Amendment Bill, forced on the ANC alliance here today, are a shining example.
If ever there was proof that South Africa needs a strong and principled President of the Republic, willing to return legislation supported by his or her own party, which he or she decides is problematic, here yet again is an example.
We thank President Motlanthe for considering the petition of the IFP, the DA and the FF Plus not to assent to signing the Broadcasting Amendment Bill into law, and for sending it back to require this Parliament to effect crucial amendments, which have now been effected.
We thank the Chief Whips of these parties for making it possible for expert legal opinion to be obtained at considerable cost to assist the President in his deliberations. This honourable House perhaps needs reminding that President Nelson Mandela also returned the first version of the Broadcasting Bill to Parliament in the early 90s when the IFP and the DA petitioned him to do so due to its then quite clear unconstitutionality before correction. At that time we also appended expert legal opinion.
There is a history to the ANC alliance wanting to control our public broadcaster, and the Broadcasting Amendment Bill before us today was yet again a direct and deliberate attempted assault on the independence of the SABC as a public broadcaster, which the ANC tried to ram down the throats of the opposition in this Parliament and the people of South Africa. It failed yet again. While the IFP supports the amendments to allow due inquiry before the board of the SABC can be sacked - due inquiry, which the ANC alliance resisted vigorously in the communications committee - we nevertheless do not support the intention of the Bill, which is to give the ANC an opening to turn the SABC back into an apartheid style state broadcaster, controlled by its own ANC party-political hacks. Thank you. [Applause.]
Madam Deputy Speaker, the word democracy is abused by many countries that are not democratic at all. Communist East Germany was called the German Democratic Republic.
It is also easy to call yourself a democrat when your party has 70% of the vote. The real test comes when your party might lose power in the next election or might lose control of a province and has to hand over the keys of the Union Buildings.
Do you keep to the rules and accept this, or do you start all sorts of undemocratic actions to ensure that you stay in power? [Interjections.] Mr Mugabe is a very good example of how this is done. This Bill must be judged against that background.
The SABC is South Africa's public broadcaster; it is not the ANC's or the government's broadcaster, it is a public broadcaster with the public paying licence fee. This Bill enables the ANC to get rid of the SABC board. Public interest is not the same as government interest or ANC interest. The FF Plus supported the amendment, but will vote against the Bill.
Die VF Plus het 'n brief aan die President geskryf oor daardie aspekte van die wetsontwerp wat ons as ongrondwetlik beskou het. Daarom is ons dankbaar dat die President die wetsontwerp terugverwys het en dit inderdaad daardeur verbeter is.
Die feit dat die wetsontwerp so verbeter kon word, bewys weereens die belangrike rol wat opposisiepartye in die Parlement speel. Ongelukkig is die wysigings nie genoeg om die kern van die probleem van hierdie wet reg te stel nie.
Demokrasie is nie net die reg om gereeld te mag stem of jou mening vrylik te kan uitspreek nie. Instellings soos howe, die media en spesifiek die openbare uitsaaier is belangrike instrumente wat 'n reuse rol speel om ware demokrasie instand te hou.
As 'n regering met hierdie instrumente begin peuter, met die spesifieke doel om die instrumente gedienstig aan die regering van die dag te kry, dan begin die alarms afgaan - en dis presies wat met hierdie wysiging gebeur. Die ANC kry met hierdie wetgewing die reg om 'n swaard oor die kop van die openbare uitsaaier, en spesifiek die SABC raadslede, te hou. Tree enige van die SABC raadslede nie op in belang van die regerende party nie, dan val hierdie swaard en dan word daar van die betrokke SABC raadslid ontslae geraak. Dis onaanvaarbaar. Dit laat rooi ligte flikker en dit behoort nie toegelaat te word in 'n ware demokrasie waar jy nie bang is vir verkiesings en demokrasie nie. Daarom sal die VF Plus daarteen stem. Ek dank u. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[The FF Plus wrote a letter to the President concerning those aspects of the Bill that we regarded as unconstitutional. We are therefore grateful that the President referred the Bill back and that it was indeed improved because of this process.
The fact that the Bill was improved in this manner once again demonstrates the important role of opposition parties in Parliament. Unfortunately, the amendments are not sufficient to rectify the essence of the problem of this Bill.
Democracy not only implies the right to vote on a regular basis or the right to express your opinion freely. Institutions such as the courts, the media and specifically the public broadcaster are important instruments which play a huge role in maintaining a true democracy.
If a government starts tampering with these instruments, with the specific goal to have them become subservient to the government of the day, then the alarm bells start ringing - and that is exactly what is happening with this amendment. The ANC, by means of this amendment, acquires the right to hold a sword above the head of the public broadcaster, and specifically the SABC board members. If any of the board members of the SABC do not act in the interests of the ruling party, the sword falls and the member concerned is sacked.
This is unacceptable. The red lights start flashing, and this should not be allowed in a true democracy where elections and democracy are not feared. The FF Plus will therefore oppose the Bill. I thank you. [Applause.]]
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have listened very carefully to what the opposition members have said. But I think that some of the fundamental questions that they are failing to address are the following. What must the government do or what must this institution, Parliament, do when a board of a public entity fails hopelessly in discharging its responsibilities, is unable to carry out its legal mandate, is locked in conflict with its executive management and is unable to provide effective corporate governance over a public entity? What must we do?
There is a challenge that not only faces the SABC - I want members here to listen very carefully - but also faces SAA at the moment. It is a challenge that faces Iscor and Eskom, with the power failures. It's a challenge that is facing Armscor. A colleague of mine, Mr Benjamin Ntuli, indicated to me last week that the service contract of the CEO of Armscor has still not been signed, after six or seven years at the helm! The question is: What are these boards actually doing to exercise effective corporate governance over public entities that utilise public resources? We have to answer that question. It's pointless saying here that we are threatening the independence of the public broadcaster, in a generalised way, without actually dealing with the challenges facing us.
With respect to the SABC itself, we have recognised - and I think that members of the opposition accept this - that there is a legal vacuum; there is a weakness in the legislation because while provision is made for the removal of a single member, there is no provision that deals with the board as a collective entity.
I don't think it is the intention of the ANC to cripple the board unilaterally. It's not its intention to manipulate it politically. The intention is to strengthen corporate governance and to ensure that the board discharges its fiduciary responsibilities effectively and honestly, and that is not what is happening.
We are gripped in a crisis at the moment; the SABC is facing a crisis. You may have seen a few weeks ago in the media that the current SABC might be facing a deficit of R500 million, and the financial year is not over yet! We haven't had an opportunity as the portfolio committee to summon them here and deal with this particular matter.
You can't have a situation where people overrun their budget by half a billion rand and the board doesn't exercise responsibility. So, those are some of the challenges that face us, and I think we have to deal with these things in an honest and an objective manner.
The portfolio committee and the ANC welcome the fact that the President has returned this Bill. Whilst he has declared the Bill to be not unconstitutional, he has expressed his reservations. We think his reservations are valid. These deal largely with the due process when you institute any proceedings against the board. We think it is a sensible suggestion and we agree with the President.
We think that this is a good example of the executive head exercising independent scrutiny and review of the work of the National Assembly so as to test the constitutionality of its legislative proposals. It also demonstrates to us the value of the principle of separation of powers between the executive and Parliament. So, we want to thank the President for applying his mind and referring the Bill back to us. How have we dealt with ... [Interjections.]
Madam Deputy Speaker, the ANC commends this Bill and we hope that the Assembly will pass it so that this matter can be put to rest and we can deal with the problems at the SABC. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I move:
That the Bill be passed.
Motion agreed to (Democratic Alliance, Inkatha Freedom Party, African Christian Democratic Party, Freedom Front Plus and Independent Democrats dissenting).
Bill accordingly passed.