Chairperson, I am rising to express the IFP's support for this Budget Vote for the simple reason that the people we represent need the services which have been placed under the custodianship of this department.
The Minister made very good pronouncements during last year's Budget Vote debate and we supported him in the hope that he would exercise strong political and ethical leadership to steer his department towards the implementation of those pronouncements. Admittedly, one year in office is a short time to pass harsh judgement on the Minister's ability to achieve what he announced his department was going to do.
I come from a political tradition that says it is better not to make promises that cannot be fulfilled, because all you do is raise people's expectations and heighten their sense of frustration when such promises cannot be achieved. In fact, when that happens, you are actually insulting the intelligence of the people to whom such promises were made. I hope it is not going to be the leadership style of the Minister to employ tactics of deception to carry along those people who wait in hopeful expectation for what cannot be delivered. [Laughter.] In fact, I trust the hon Minister is going to make good the promissory note he gave to South Africans, especially those who live in underserviced areas of the country.
We support this Budget Vote in the hope that people living in rural areas are soon going to see tangible results of the promises and good intentions expressed to them last year. But, hope alone is not going to suffice in the long run. It is solid delivery on the ground which, in the final analysis, will cause people to say, "Ah ha, indeed we can see things turning for the better".
We praise the hon Minister for the bold initiatives he took in forcing cellphone operators to reduce interconnection rates. We can only hope that such a reduction is going to be passed on to ordinary South Africans. Similarly, we praise the Minister for the leadership role he played in the resolution of the painful saga which engulfed the South African Broadcasting Corporation, SABC, by ensuring that his department provided the financial guarantees and necessary support to enable the interim board and, later, the new and current board of the SABC in their daunting task of turning around and stabilising the SABC, to save this country from possible embarrassment, which would surely befall us if the SABC disintegrated ahead of the Fifa World Cup, which will commence in 52 days. We hope all the budgetary allocations to entities such as Sentech and Telkom will be money well spent on the extension of the national wireless broadband network and for the implementation of the Information Communications Technology, ICT, access network. These allocations should also fund the information and communications technologies infrastructure for the 2010 Fifa World Cup. Similarly, one hopes that the budgetary allocations we are being called upon to approve will be worth the effort of making it available to the Universal Service and Access Fund to build capacity and to procure the necessary supporting infrastructure to expand ICT access to South Africans who live in underserviced areas as well as to complete the migration from an analogue to a digital technology platform.
We are mindful of the fact that in the 2010 Medium-Term Expenditure Framework, MTEF, this department was requested to include explicit savings initiatives in the strategic plan. This request to save was made with the proviso that existing, new and expanding frontline services would not be compromised over the next three years. This was done in the context of the painful fact that our country's economy was, like most other economies of the world, going through a difficult patch, which called for austerity measures from all of us.
It is very disappointing to say that this department has not gained the reputation of leading by example, especially on the part of the hon Minister. When all of us are called upon to tighten our belts, especially when even the poor are called upon to also make their patriotic efforts to moderate their demands and expectations, it flies painfully in the face of what we exhort people to do when we, and especially the hon Minister, have a reputation to the contrary.
It is, in fact, very disappointing for those of us who want the hon Minister to succeed when he hits the newspaper headlines for wrong and embarrassing reasons. We begin to wonder whether the savings projection reflected in this department's strategic plan is going to be achieved. Therefore, we make an earnest plea to the Minister to rise to the occasion of leading by example in this regard. I thank you. [Applause.]
Hon Chairperson, hon Minister, hon members, as well as members of the public in the gallery, the African National Congress rises to support the Budget Vote on Communications. Firstly, we live in a time when there is an ongoing evolution of technologies and when new priorities are emerging for which new types of creator-technicians are required. South Africa needs individuals who can play important roles in this digital age. Secondly, the right to communicate is a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. With the right to freedom of expression, which includes the freedom to receive and impart information or ideas, comes the right to access the means to speak and be heard.
In this speech I'm going to cover two state-owned enterprises, namely the National Electronic Media Institute of South Africa, Nemisa, and the Universal Service and Access Agency of South Africa, Usaasa, which are responsible to make sure our underserved population, which includes women, youth and people with disabilities, have a place of education and training to obtain production, technical and broadcasting skills and have access to ever-developing technology.
Nemisa is a state-owned enterprise which was established as a non-profit organisation in terms of the Companies Act of 1973. It provides much-needed skills training at an advanced level for the broadcasting industry. Nemisa was formed as part of a government initiative in 1998 and its fundamental purpose is to train previously disadvantaged individuals, particularly women, and equip them with the skills necessary to play a significant role in the broadcasting environment.
Nemisa has undergone a strategic shift from traditional broadcasting training to being a fully fledged multimedia training institution. It is accredited by the Council for Higher Education and offers diploma courses, short courses and internships in three subjects, namely TV production, radio production and creative multimedia. The emphasis is on equipping students to be market-ready in a wide range of broadcasting disciplines and to have the ability to work effectively in constantly changing conditions.
The budget allocation for Nemisa for 2010-11 is over R32,6 million. This budget will cover the following focus areas: content development for national heritage, more than R2,1 million; e-health R1,5 million; gender, disability, youth and child mainstreaming R1,2 million; broadcasting digital migration R3,3 million; community development R4 million; media industries new entrants development, more than R11 million; and information technology technicians development R404 000.
As the portfolio committee, we had the opportunity to do an oversight visit at Nemisa and it was nice to see first hand what the students were doing. Students staged a production led by a producer who was a former student at Nemisa. We were also able to see, from start to finish, from paper to screen, how animation was produced.
The vision of the Department of Communications is to make South Africa a global leader in harnessing information and communications technology for socioeconomic development. As a result Usaasa was established in 2006. Usaasa stands for the Universal Service and Access Agency of South Africa. This organisation was established in terms of section 58 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
The main role of this agency is to promote universal service and access to communications technologies and services for all South Africans. It also facilitates and offers guidance on evaluating, monitoring and implementing programmes that propose to improve universal access and service.
The Universal Service and Access Fund was established in accordance with the provision of Chapter 7 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 as amended, and its mandate, as stipulated in section 66 of the Act, states that the money in this fund shall be utilised for the following: assistance of needy persons towards the costs of the provision to or the use by them of telecommunications; to Telkom and to any other holder of a licence whose requirement is to extend telecommunications services to areas and communities which are not being served or not adequately served by the telecommunications services, for the purpose of financing such an extension; to public schools and public further education training institutions for the procurement of internet services and equipment necessary to access the internet; for the establishment of centres where access can be obtained to telecommunications facilities; for the establishment of public information terminals; and to facilitate the provision of multimedia services.
Usaasa is mandated to manage this fund and the operations contributed towards it. The budget allocation for Usaasa for the year 2010-11 is R20 million for infrastructure and R46,7 million as a contribution to operations.
Usaasa has the following focus areas for this financial year: mainly, the development of the Universal Access and Service Strategy; publication guidelines for the Universal Service Fund application; all Usaasa subsidised sites mapped in a geographical information system; and the development of measurable ICT access and impact indicators. It will also focus on the implementation of the set-top boxes scheme of ownership model; the development of a competitive bidding strategy and its implementation; the continued implementation of handover strategy; the development and implementation of an ICT hub model; and the implementation of the rapid deployment strategy.
The international definition of "universal service access" includes the concepts of availability, accessibility and affordability. Even though there has been good ICT growth in South Africa, the country is still a long way away from universal access to all. We support the work done by Nemisa and Usaasa, and as the ANC we support this Budget Vote.
At the same time, I would like to thank the department as well as the other stakeholders in the family of communications for their work. Thank you for making access possible to me as a deaf person. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
Voorsitter, ek wil net vra of die agb Van den Berg nie sy doos vir my wil leen nie, asseblief. [Gelag.] [Chairperson, I would just like to ask whether the hon Van den Berg would please lend me his box. [Laughter.]]
The ICT sector plays ... [Laughter.]
Wil jy vir my h, of wil jy dit h? [Gelag.] [Do you want me or do you want this? [Laughter.]]
The information and communications technology, ICT, sector plays a vital role in the development of our country and our people. Not only must it eventually provide all South Africans with access to various communications technologies, like television, radio, telephone and the internet, but it also has the potential to become a major economic driver by creating jobs and thereby reducing poverty.
However, there are a number of things we still need to do to achieve this. For example, the ID believes that the independent regulation of the ICT and broadcaster sectors is an essential component in ensuring access for all. Therefore, government should not be both referee and player in this sector. It is essential for competition to be introduced by promoting small and new operators. Such operators drive prices down.
South Africa also continues to lag behind with regard to connecting people to broadband. This has also been the case at educational level. In fact, Sentech's wireless broadband roll-out at 250 Dinaledi schools and surrounding sites remains an empty promise.
The Department of Communications' annual report says, and I quote:
While some capital funding was made available for this project, the operational costs of the services were to be carried by the clients on the network. Unfortunately, money was not available from the various departments for the service cost.
Another area of concern for the ID was the continued disregard shown by MTN, Cell C and Vodacom towards their 3G licensing conditions, which compel them to roll out internet connectivity and terminal equipment to institutions of people with disabilities. None of them had rolled out internet connectivity to a single IPWD by 6 November last year, according to a written response from the Minister.
In addition, MTN and Cell C have failed to roll out connectivity to 510 schools. The question is: Has the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa, Icasa, referred them to the Complaints Compliance Committee in accordance with section 17(d) of the Icasa Amendment Act? And if so, has Icasa taken action against the licensees in accordance with the prescripts of section 17(e) of the same Act? By lying to the Portfolio Committee on Communications and saying that they were complying with this agreement, those companies show how little social responsibility they have.
Finally, I want to convey my thanks to all the members of the portfolio committee for supporting the ID's campaign to reduce the interconnection rate. [Laughter.] [Applause.] The continued reduction of the interconnection rate over the next three years will bring some relief for ordinary South Africans and the economy as a whole. For me, the success of this campaign shows how effective Parliament can be in improving the lives of our people. We must remind our people time and again that the power lies with the ordinary consumer. All we have to do is use it. Thank you.
Dankie vir jou doos. [Gelag.] [Tyd verstreke.] [Thank you for your box. [Laughter.] [Time expired.]]
Mnr die Voorsitter, die Departement van Kommunikasie het baie uitdagings gehad en het nog baie wat in die toekoms voorl. Soos Minister Nyanda tereg ges het, die skep van volhoubare geleenthede en die daarstel van 'n platvorm om die ekonomie te laat groei, hang onder meer grootliks van di departement af. Sonder kommunikasiemiddele is gemeenskappe gestrand en afgesonder in 'n wreld wat vandag bekend staan as die globale netwerkgemeenskap.
Die VF Plus se siening was nog altyd dat gekonnekteerde gemeenskappe makliker uit armoede gelig kan word, en daarvoor is daar genoegsame getuienis.
Wat die positiewe betref, wil ons die Minister geluk wens met sy hantering van die kwessies van selfoonkoste. Sy politieke leierskap om selfoonkostes af te bring is noemenswaardig. Dit is inderdaad ligjare verwyder van die willoosheid en geploeter van die Mbeki-adminisistrasie. Trouens, ek kan onthou toe ek as regshoof by Dimension Data vele hofgevegte aangeknoop het met Telkom weens die monopolie wat di instansie beklee. Dit is verblydend om te sien dat die selfoonnetwerke eerder saam werk om billike tariewe daar te stel, alhoewel dit onder dwang geskied. Die Minister sal egter ook moet kyk na die steeds dominante posisie van Telkom, nieteenstaande die feit dat die regering steeds die meerderheidsaandeelhouer is.
Wat die negatiewe betref, wil die VF Plus vervolgens 'n paar kwessies aanspreek waaroor die Minister hopelik duidelikheid kan verskaf. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Adv A D ALBERTS: Mr Chairperson, the Department of Communications has had many challenges in the past and will face more in the future. As Minister Nyanda rightly said, the creation of sustainable opportunities and the establishment of a platform to promote economic growth depend mostly on this department. Communities are stranded and isolated without communication in a world that is currently being referred to as the global community network.
The position of the FF Plus has always been that poverty can be alleviated more easily in communities that are connected, and sufficient evidence exists for this. With regard to the positive: We want to congratulate the Minister with his handling of the issues of cellphone costs. His political leadership to reduce cellphone costs is worth mentioning. It is indeed light-years away from the passivity and slog of the Mbeki administration. Truth be told, I remember when I, as legal head of Dimension Data, was involved in many lawsuits against Telkom due to the monopoly of this institution. It is gladdening to see that the cellphone networks are rather working together to establish fair costs, even though they are acting under duress. The Minister will also have to look at the still dominating position of Telkom, notwithstanding the fact that the government is still the majority shareholder.
With regard to the negative, the FF Plus subsequently wants to address a couple of issues on which the Minister can hopefully provide some clarity.]
The Minister has set a goal to create an ICT Act. This seems quite impressive, but certain questions need to be asked: Will it be based on the South Korean, Malaysian or Indian models? What exactly is the purpose of this Act - in other words, will it fold all the existing legislation into one? Will government try to find loopholes to regulate that which cannot or should not be regulated, like internet content? [Interjections.]
Mr Chair, can I have your protection, please?
Concerning the SABC, we commend the Minister, the department and the new board for its turnaround strategy and the implementation thereof thus far. You must not relent until the public's trust has been fully reinstated. However, we do have a few further concerns.
The Public Service Broadcasting Act allows for the Minister to get too close to the management of the SABC by way of imposing general regulations. This must be frowned upon and one must ask: for what purpose? In no other parastatal do Ministers involve themselves too closely in board or management affairs. This looks sinister and one wonders further what this will mean for equitable party-political coverage during the coming elections.
Secondly, the Act's funding model, whereby citizens are given an additional taxation burden, is unconscionable. How can citizens - some who might not even own a television set - be taxed for this service? Further international models of best practice must be investigated.
The current board seems qualified. However, there is one glaring deficiency: there is no proper Afrikaans representation. One can only hope that the board will still act equitably with regard to all indigenous languages, including Afrikaans, but this is doubtful in light of the absence of a champion in that regard.
The same question arises in regard to the appointment of the Local Content Advisory Council. It is our view that, in all future appointments, more sensitivity should be had towards the diversity of the South African community.
Sterkte met die werk, Minister. Daar is 'n steil pad voor, maar ons hoop u pluk die vrugte van harde en regverdige werk. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[All the best with your work, Minister. There is a steep road ahead, but we hope that you will enjoy the fruit of your hard and equitable work.]
Thank you.
Chairperson, hon Minister, leaders of the industry and hon members, the concept of universal service in South Africa was included in the Reconstruction and Development Programme document of the ANC. We said, this is a basic, it should be a basic, and an affordable telephone service should be available to all South Africans who reasonably request it, regardless of where they live. We then said we noted that there had been some development within the industry, but we raised this concern: our quest for universal access and universal service had not been addressed in a co-ordinated manner. We needed to improve our co-ordination around these particular aspects, although various obligations had been imposed on operators by the regulator.
There is a need to ensure that the capacity of the regulator to monitor and enforce compliance with the existing obligations is strengthened, because, as we speak, monitoring remains the key challenge currently facing the regulator. An example of this is where you have one inspector or officer monitoring more than 20 radio stations. Consistent with the ANC's resolution taken at Polokwane and before that, in Stellenbosch, we said that we needed to capacitate the regulator, but we must be quick to say that intervention must not be limited to resources only. It must also seek to deal with the evaluation of the effectiveness of the current system, which is council led.
I am raising this matter because a sense of instability has just shown within the regulator, led by those who believe that the executive-led system will be the best one. If needs be, we should take some time to look into this system so that, as we move forward, we are able to evaluate the system. We are now able to venture into a system which, we think, will be able to assist us.
Rural coverage is an important aspect of rural development. Last year, on 18 February, there was a gathering in Louisville, Mpumalanga on ICT Consumer Day. Community members of Goba, Skukuza, Satara and Louisville indicated that as poor as they might be, they did own television sets. The problem they were having was that when they switced them on, there was no picture because there was no coverage. We appeal to the SABC, Sentech and Icasa to attend to this matter urgently.
We all know that Telkom's national and international network constitutes the basic infrastructure critical to the economy, security and social development of this country. The question is: How do we utilise this network to ensure that we fast-track the realisation of universal service access to broadband services essential for socioeconomic development, driving connectivity and helping the underserved?
The people's movement, the ANC, understands that the unity of our people is and was one of the cornerstones of the struggle and of liberation. In order to unite our people, they must have access to equal information, so that they are able to reverse the social engineering of apartheid. The key task of the SA Post Office was the incorporation of the former TVBC states and other homelands, including central government, to form one effective postal service entity. Indeed, Sapo has passed this test with flying colours and we must be grateful to them.
The issue of clarifying the "universal obligation" is important in order to clearly define the obligations of the Post Office. The future growth of the Post Office is in part dependent on clarifying this issue, especially in the light of a projected drop in subsidy support over the next three years, and the incapacity of the regulator, Icasa, to fully protect the reserved services. We know that with the so-called monopoly of Sapo, they have it, but people just transgress that when and if they want to. As I have indicated, the regulator is found wanting because of an incapacity to address that matter.
I promised you, Minister, that I will give you three minutes of my time. I hope I will be able to keep to that promise.
Maybe one needs to clarify one issue. The ANC is the only political party known for going to its national conference every five years to evaluate and assess its programmes and to take new policy positions and move forward. Cope knows that, too, so it is not correct that we don't know how or we can't evaluate. We know others have never gone to any conference, but they stand in this House and articulate policy position. They don't have a Polokwane, they don't have a Limpopo, a Stellenbosch. They have nothing.
Minister, I must say that you must derive comfort from the fact that effective leadership is not about making speeches or being liked. Leadership is defined by results, not attributes. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Chairperson, hon Minister, unlike the budgets of a number of other governments, which are allocated in order for the departments in question to spend their allocation on their own direct service delivery mandates, the Budget Vote under consideration today is essentially a transfer vote.
This is because, of the R2 billion estimated budget which the Department of Communications is seeking to have approved by this House, R1,6 billion, or 76,5%, is earmarked for the department's programme 4: information and communications technology enterprise development, which facilitates transfers and subsidies to the six state entities and state-owned enterprises that fall under the remit of the department. These include the SA Broadcasting Corporation, SA Post Office, Sentech; and the independent regulator, the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa.
This puts the Minister, as the shareholder of these public entities, in the unique position of having no role to play in their day-to-day management, while at the same time overseeing the transfer to them of over R1,5 billion in public money.
While this may seem like a conundrum for the department, the legislation that governs these entities in fact provides for significant audit, risk, compliance and financial management oversight on the part of the Minister. This is perfectly appropriate to his role as a majority shareholder on behalf of the South African government. It does not necessitate, as the hon Minister and Director-General Mamodupi Mohlala are in the process of trying to enforce, the creation of new loopholes in these laws to enable ministerial intervention where it is inappropriate and unnecessary.
There has been some to-ing and fro-ing over the past year between the DA and the Minister of Communications over the issue of whether the Minister has, in drafting certain pieces of legislation and in issuing certain ministerial policy directives, been attempting to micromanage the communications entities.
Time and again we heard from the Minister that he is not seeking to exercise greater influence or control over the SABC or the independent regulator. Yet the actions of the department tell a different story.
The Public Service Broadcasting Bill, which was gazetted by the Department of Communications late last year, is a case in point. The proposed legislation, whose principal intention is to make the Minister rather than Parliament and the SABC board the accountability authority of the broadcaster, seeks to confer upon the Minister wide-ranging powers to intervene in the functioning of the SABC, in addition to its controversial proposal of levying a 1% personal income tax on working South Africans to fund the SABC.
While the DA appreciates that the proposed legislation arises in some measure out of the Minister's concern about the recent financial and management crisis faced by the SABC, we nevertheless believe that the SABC's problems are being used by the ANC government as a fig leaf to justify state interference in the functioning of the public broadcaster, which is supposed to be the pride and the voice of all South Africans, not just those who support the governing party.
The Bill spells out clearly the areas in which greater ministerial control is envisaged and includes clauses granting the Minister greater control over the SABC's finances. Elsewhere in the Bill, section 37, for example, the Minister is allowed to, and I quote:
... instruct the board to take any actions specified by the Minister if the corporation is in financial difficulty, unable to perform its functions effectively or fails to comply with any law.
Effectively, this allows the Minister to usurp the board's authority and independence. In addition, the proposed charter of the corporation contains the startling provision that the board may only appoint the group chief executive officer, CEO, chief financial officer, CFO, and their equivalents after consultation with the Minister. This would have the effect of granting the Minister control over the appointment of senior management of the SABC.
Minister Nyanda and the director-general, DG, have argued that there is nothing untoward about these provisions and that they afford the Minister more leeway to oversee the public broadcaster while also ensuring that he or she can intervene in times of a crisis.
This assertion is not only contradictory to the position of the Minister of Public Enterprises, Barbara Hogan, who has repeatedly warned state-owned enterprises to remain accountable to their boards and not their Ministers, but its folly is most clearly demonstrated by a recent appointment by the Minister to a state entity whose legislation grants the Minister the very power to appoint the boards and nonexecutive directors which he seeks to be granted in respect of the SABC.
In the 2009-10 financial year, the national signal distributor, Sentech, incurred a loss of R123 million, following unconfirmed allegations of financial mismanagement and as a result of discontinued business operations which included MyWireless, BizNet and Very Small Aperture Terminal, VSAT. Surprisingly, this amount, which represent a R24 million increase in its net losses from 2008-09, was not disclosed to the Department of Communications by Sentech in its corporate plan.
One would have expected that, given the massive financial crisis in which Sentech now finds itself, the Minister would be sure to appoint to its new board only members who were fit for the purpose of turning around this crucial state entity upon whose infrastructure broadcast media producers all over the country are so heavily reliant, in particular considering South Africa's impending switch-over from analogue to digital terrestrial television, DTT.
Yet Zanele Hlatshwayo, the disgraced former mayor of Msunduzi Municipality in Pietermaritzburg, KwaZulu-Natal, has been appointed by the Minister not only as a member but as a director of Sentech's board of directors. Formerly a nurse and a teacher, Ms Hlatshwayo has no technical expertise in the field of communications and signal distribution to recommend her to the post.
As the mayor of Pietermaritzburg, Ms Hlatshwayo presided over the mismanagement of the city on a grand scale, to the extent that she left the city reportedly bankrupt and indebted to the tune of R115 million. She was ultimately fired, along with the entire ANC council executive, by the ANC leadership in KwaZulu-Natal. This was not long ago. The crisis in the city came to a head just three weeks ago when municipal services in Pietermaritzburg were brought to a standstill because of the massive financial and management problems in the municipality.
Leaked findings of the ministerial task team review, which were kept under such lock and key that not even this committee has been allowed sight of them, indicated that Sentech was in a freefall.
Yet the ANC, instead of recognising the urgency of the situation by appointing a board which is fit for the purpose of turning it around, chooses to redeploy a failed cadre with no industry or management experience. They chose someone who mismanaged the last mandate she was given into bankruptcy and who was fired for her troubles.
This is what comes of ministerial prerogative in crucial appointments such as this. The needs of the party, the ANC, override the responsibility of the state to deliver efficient and effective services to the people of South Africa, as well as to manage their finance. No transparent public process would have placed such a wasteful candidate on a shortlist, much less elevated her to the position of board director. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Chairperson, hon members, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the ANC, I rise in unconditional support of this Budget Vote. Obviously, when we say "in unconditional support" it does not mean that we do not think there are challenges in this Budget Vote. It does not mean we think there are no problems in this Budget Vote, but we take the approach of Rev Zondi, which is a simple one, and that is that we are building a new democracy. To build a new democracy, you have to make resources available to pay for those things that we identify that government must provide as services to the people.
Once you've come to that conclusion, it is highly irresponsible to then actually say that you are not going to support a Budget Vote. What you are doing is saying to people of this country that, because of mistakes that may be made or because of challenges that may exist in a department, we do not think you deserve those services. That's what you are saying to the people of South Africa. [Interjections.] Not rubbish! Listen, why don't you go and talk about foreigners again? Why don't you start swearing in Parliament again? You are a disaster, man. You are an embarrassment!
Order, hon members.
I've been asked to respond ... You're an embarrassment, man!
Hon De Lange! Hon De Lange! Just a minute! [Interjections.] Hon De Lange, can you just hold on? Hon members, running commentary is not allowed, and I think that is what I am observing. Heckling is allowed, yes, but once it becomes running commentary, it is not parliamentary. So, could you heckle without providing running commentary? Hon member, you may continue.
... the people of this country to kill foreigners, like you did last time. You're an embarrassment, man! [Interjections.] One of the interesting things in today's debate is the content of the debate. I think that some very valid points have been made ...
Point of order, please.
... some of which we've agreed to.
Chairperson, on a point of order: I have never in my life told anyone to kill anyone, unlike members of the ANC. I would like the hon member to withdraw that immediately. [Interjections.]
Please check who is sitting with you here. I will withdraw it.
Hon De Lange, I heard what you said, but I didn't know whether it was directed at any particular person. Did you direct it at somebody?
Yes, specifically at her.
All right. [Interjections.] Now, having heard that, can you withdraw it?
I withdraw. The record speaks for itself, so I withdraw.
Thank you very much. He has withdrawn the comment.
Excuse me! I would like this member of this committee to refer to me as "hon member", not as "her". That is not how we address each other in this House.
All right. Hon De Lange, she is an hon member. Could you just respect that fact, please?
Absolutely. [Laughter.] There are quite a few things I want to comment on, though.
Order, Chair! Order, Chair!
Somebody is shouting "order" and you can't do that while seated. I think you are out of order by doing it while seated. Please, let us respect the Chair, too. You may state your point of order.
Chair, I just want to check whether this is parliamentary: The point of order made by the hon member was that she never told people to kill anyone, "unlike the ANC members". Who has done that? Who are those ANC members? [Interjections.]
Hon members, could you conduct the debate in an honourable way? References that begin...
Can't do it with such a fool in the Chair.
I am addressing the House now, and you cannot tell me how to do it. Please, let us respect each other. I was referring to references that are beginning to be out of order. Can we avoid them? Heckle as you want, but let's respect the decorum of the House. We have guests who are watching and looking at you as hon members, adult as you are, and I don't know - we need not give that impression of Parliament. Please continue, hon De Lange.
I just want to say that, after all of these disruptions, this thing has been running. I hope that it was stopped. [Interjections.] I have only a few minutes.
Let me first start with my comrade, hon Niekie van den Berg. I wasn't going to comment on any of the opposition, but I have to comment on you. Jy weet, ou Niekie, wanneer jy behep is met ideologie, wanneer jy daaroor praat en dit op die manier doen wat jy dit gedoen het, lyk dit lelik, man. [Gelag.] Jy lyk soos een van daardie ou Ministers uit die apartheidera. Vir hulle ideologie was die ding van kommunisme en sosialisme belangrik. Wanneer jy so praat oor ideologie, en jy probeer dit demoniseer ... (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[You know, Niekie, whenever you become obsessed with ideology, whenever you are speaking about it and you are doing it in the manner that you have done, it looks rather dreadful. [Laughter.] You look like one of those former Ministers from the apartheid era. Communism and socialism were central to their ideology. When you speak about ideology in that manner and you attempt to demonise it ...]
... that is exactly what the apartheid government did against black people in this country and against democrats in this country. It was to try and demonise people and put them in boxes on the basis of the ideology they may believe in. Just understand this. What do you think your party does? Do you think your party is not driven by an ideology? Of course it is. It's a terrible ideology. [Laughter.] It is conservative, it is staid, and it is very unattractive to most people. [Interjections.] To most people, it is unattractive. [Applause.] However, the point is that a party is driven by ideology, and if you go to any country in this world, it is driven by ideology. What is this old "foefie" debate of yours between philosophy and ideology? The problem is when you do these things, you sound like an apartheid Minister with "rooi gevaar" [red threat] and "swart gevaar" [black threat]. Leave it! Stop it! Don't do those things. [Applause.]
I also want to say that I'm absolutely stunned that we got through a whole debate without mentioning Julius Malema. I must say I am amazed, and I really thank the opposition for that. [Interjections.] We're not talking to you, man. Just keep quiet! [Laughter.] I want to thank the opposition for at least keeping the content at a high level.
One of the issues I wanted to raise is that of - and I think hon Mabuza touched on it ...
HON MEMBERS: Mazibuko!
I apologise unconditionally. I apologise!
It sounds the same!
The member on that side ... [Laughter.] It is the issue of where we draw the line between policy formulation, which, if you were to read the Constitution, at any time is the prerogative of the executive in all areas of government. And if you go and look at schedule 4 of the Constitution, you will find communications there. It is something that has to be regulated by government. The problem, I think - and many people have raised it in various ways - is that, clearly, in the last 15 years - and it is the view on this side of the House - is where that line has been drawn.
In some of these institutions we've created ... again, the hon member is correct in saying that most of the services which have to be provided in the communications area are provided by people, organisations or institutions other than government. The provider is not the department, but either the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa or the SABC, or Sentech, etc. The problem is that if you do not have policy formulation, as the Constitution asks us within the preserve of government, and you have the implementation of that policy as an independent structure, whether it's the board of Sentech, Icasa, and so on, you will run into problems such as the ones we've experienced recently.
Of course, there are many reasons for the problems we've experienced. Some of them stem from personal fights among people, and some from a whole lot of other causes. However, if you go and look at the real problem, a structural problem exists in the way in which we envisage these relationships. You cannot work in a whole area of government, which is communications, and not give government a central role in the policy formulation. Then those structures have to independently - in terms of the precepts of "independence", as we understand it - implement those policies.
The effect would be that we would absolutely have given the power to four or five individuals in this institution to make policy on behalf of the whole South Africa. That would be the effect. If government didn't set those policy parameters and guidelines, then a few individuals would be making policy on our behalf, and they are not public representatives. They are members of a board. The Minister has reiterated in his speech that he is busy looking at policy, but this is one of the fundamental issues that we have to address: the relationship between government - and by government I mean both Parliament and the executive - and those institutions.
So, this is a vital area, and I think the interconnection fee showed us how many problems there are in this regard. On the one hand, it showed us the incredible weaknesses in Icasa, who basically just did not have the backbone, or did not want to, actually tackle the industry. We said that to them. All of us said that to them. It was very good that in the past year of our interaction with Icasa, they have really turned the ship around. I think it is really great. When we dealt with the Budget Vote, we did not see the same Icasa that we saw a year or a year and a half ago. Icasa actually started looking at all the things it had to do, putting plans to it, and now we can all interact with it. But the policy parameters are still spelled out by Icasa; they are not spelled out by government. This is the huge problem we have, and that is one area we need to look at carefully.
I heard a lot of good things about the cellular industry. I agree with the Minister, whenever the media is around and issues are raised for the cellular industry, they are very quick, upfront, and they want to get involved and talk about things. The problem is that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. At the end of the day, we have not seen one benefit coming to consumers in this country because of the cellular industry, not one. I think that if the cellular industry wants to be part of this ship, of this sector, and wants to make it grow, they can't continue to always be in conflict and putting profits before the basic interests of what is important in this industry.
The costs of communication, as the Minister has identified, are vital to this country. Our cost of communication, compared with some other countries, is atrocious. The industry has to come on board, and it has to be honourable and bona fide. The kinds of agreement that we saw signed in the end, where they tried to get an agreement to stop Icasa from doing its work - and that that had to be part of the agreement - is atrocious. I don't know who the lawyer was who gave them that information, but that person should definitely be barred from ever being a lawyer again. [Laughter.] It is so basically ...
[Inaudible.]
It is probably you and your family, yes. [Laughter.]
The next issue we have to raise is that of the interchangeability of personnel within the industry and between institutions in the industry. It creates a very bad perception if one day you find a person working in the cellular industry; the next you find them on the Icasa board. After two years, they find themselves back in the industry again. One doesn't want to point fingers in this regard, but the perception it creates is very bad. Some people go much further than perceptions, but I am not going to repeat what they say about these things.
The problem is that we have to start thinking of how we create firewalls. You don't have to be a genius to know that, clearly, it is people from that industry who will be in the institutions. [Interjections.] Well, you are definitely not a genius, far from it. [Laughter.] The issue is that we have to create firewalls, and we have to create measures to make sure that there isn't inappropriate behaviour.
That brings me to conflicts of interest. I don't know how the policies were agreed to previously, but the conflict of interest that was dealt with in this industry - and it's in the legislation - basically says you can go and do what you want to. If you want to be an employee with the SABC and you want to enter into contracts for services in the SABC, all you have to do is to declare. Clearly, that policy decision is wrong.
It is wrong, and the chairperson has outlined it. People who are either board members or employed by an institution and their close families cannot be involved in delivering services for that same entity. It is completely and utterly wrong. Merely declaring interest is completely inappropriate. We declare an interest, and we go ahead! So, of all the issues our chair raised, it is very important that this becomes part of the policy issues as well.
Then there is the issue of financial management, and others have raised it too. This is a very serious point, and I do not know how we are going to solve this issue. Two things are the problem. The one is the lack of systems. My logic tells me it should be easy to put systems into place for getting things done. However, for some reason we are just not getting it right. If you look at the problems in all the institutions ...
Hon member, your time has expired.
Thank you very much. Can I lastly say that ... [Interjections.] Are you finished?
Hon member, can you complete the one sentence you wanted to say and then sit?
Can I just say, shame! And can I say good luck to Bafana Bafana? [Applause.]
Chairperson, on a point of order: Maybe, before you proceed, ...
Sorry, we can't hear you.
I am saying, Chair, that I need your indulgence before we proceed. We need to make a correction for the sake of the Hansard record. It was said here that the Minister appointed the corrupt Ms Zanele Hlatshwayo. The person who was in that municipality is not the person who has been appointed by the Minister. There is a similarity in the name and surname, but it is not the same person. So, I am raising this matter so that it can be correctly recorded in Hansard and not mislead the public, as the hon member has done. Thank you. [Interjections.]
Thank you! Order! We will take note of that issue in Hansard so that such a correction can be reflected. [Interjections.]
Chair, hon members, I'm fortunate to have limited time because several people wasted a lot of time saying sweet nothing. [Laughter.] Hon member Mazibuko, of course, has made a very big booboo. It was a very big mistake to accuse me of appointing somebody that I didn't appoint. I urge the opposition to really make sure of their facts in future so that we discuss things that exist, not things that seek to needlessly besmirch the reputation of people. I'm also happy that... [Interjections.]
I will also not respond to the issues raised by hon Nondaba because he generalised. He didn't say anything except in areas in which I also have a keen interest, for example, ensuring that the rural poor have access to information and communications technology services. I did indicate in my speech that one of the areas in which we congratulate the SABC and Sentech for their inputs is in the provision of low-powered generation so as to make broadcasting accessible to rural areas. Kwazulu-Natal, by the way, is one of the provinces where we are pursuing this effort. [Interjections.] [Laughter.]
Regarding the task team's recommendations, we have said we put the report of the task team under wraps because we were interested in solving a problem of governance which has been intractable for a very long time. There was very little or poor governance and very little financial management. I substantially addressed the issues relating to the SABC, highlighting how we have tried to turn the institution around using those recommendations. We also ensured that the new board, with the recommendations that came from the interim board, is able to get a handle on things and turn the SABC around.
The capacity that was in the task team will continue to be used by the board. I had a request indicating that they still needed to use that resource, not as the task team that existed in the past, but as individuals who have the knowledge that can help the board in turning around the SABC. I think that with the new board at Sentech we may perhaps receive a similar request, so that we can use this capacity to turn things around at both institutions.
We were not interested in witch-hunting. However, where there have been findings of wrongdoing, the Auditor-General recommended that people should be investigated and, where necessary, disciplinary action should be taken. The current SABC board is doing exactly that. So it is not as if we are sitting on these recommendations and doing nothing.
With regard to the Public Service Broadcasting Bill, we are putting issues up for discussion so that people may advise us on how we might do things differently. We have made these issues public for discussion. Also, I will forward the proposals that members are making to Cabinet. In the end, if anything like a Money Bill is the result, we won't be responsible for that. However, as Parliament we can't try to stifle debate about issues. When we discuss the Bill, members will be free to make inputs, for example, whether they feel that the Minister is trying to be overbearing or is trying to control boards. We are quite open to views that might be expressed by the public and this Parliament. Everything will come here and we will then discuss it.
Regarding comments made by hon De Lille, in my speech I said that we were reviewing those obligations because we understood that there were so many obligations that had not been carried out by the "telcos". In my report I stated that we had set up a review mechanism in the department which, among other things, resulted in the contribution we are making to the SA Police Service and other agencies for 2010 of ensuring that they have the capacity to use the cellphones that the "telcos" are going to give them.
We are really trying to close a gap that has been in existence and we have looked at such things as the deficiencies and obligations that people have not carried out. We will get to all the other ones because this is just the start. Furthermore, there is very little that we can do within the period that we have been in office. I thank you. [Applause.]
Hon members, before you go, I have a ruling to make on behalf of hon Ndabandaba. Prof Ndabandaba indicated earlier that he will give a ruling on a point of order raised by hon Ben Turok. Prof Turok had contended that Mr Van den Berg's speech was irrelevant. The presiding officer has the right in terms of the Rules to direct a member who persists in irrelevance to discontinue his or her speech. Mr Ndabandaba, who is not here at this moment, indicated that he is satisfied that Mr Van den Berg did not persist in irrelevance and was, therefore, not out of order.
Debate concluded.