Hon Chairperson, let me first acknowledge and convey appreciation for the contributions that have been made by all the speakers in the House today and those representing the various political parties. Your inputs have certainly enriched the debate and deliberations on this Bill. In particular, I want to express appreciation to Mr Zondi from the IFP, the UDM and those parties that have given their unqualified support for the Bill.
I also want to acknowledge the comments of appreciation made by Mrs Kilian from Cope, although her support for the Bill has been qualified. We accept that and I will attend to the issues that she has raised. In respect of the hon Natasha Michael from the DA, let me say that we also appreciate the fact that you recognise and acknowledge that the SA Post Office has been a truly remarkable achievement of the Department of Communications. That statement of yours is indeed significant and we appreciate your comments on that.
It is rather unfortunate, though, that the DA has sought not to support this particular Bill. If I listen very carefully to the comments made by the DA, it is not because you do not agree in substance with the content of the Bill, but rather that you have certain issues concerning the removal of the element of concurrence with the Minister of Finance with respect to financial issues. So, in a sense it is a qualified no-support position.
However, let me address that matter. I think in the first stages of the Bill that matter was included but as it subsequently went through, it was clear to us that to write into the law an element of concurrence between two Ministers really makes for bad lawmaking. It means that you distribute an administrative power between two Ministers and you don't say who is really in charge. In this way we recognise the principle that when it comes to matters pertaining to financial decisions, we have to engage in some collective decision-making with the Minister of Finance but we leave that to the Cabinet process. We leave that to the process in government because when the Minister of Communications has to take some policy decisions, even with respect to the management of the entity, he or she has the authority to take that to the Cabinet.
When it goes to the Cabinet, it becomes a government decision and no longer that of a department. In that process of deliberations all Ministers are given the opportunity to deliberate and make a contribution which sums up the collective views of government as a whole. It is at that point that we seek to get not only concurrence between the Minister of Communications and the Minister of Finance but, in fact, concurrence with all the Ministers with respect to the administrative responsibility of the Post Office.
We recognise that in the day-to-day management of the Post Office you have to have a streamlined operation because decisions will need to be made on a swift basis so that the board of the Post Office can be guided. If you then hang the board on a concurrent way of functioning between two Ministries, we might take an extra-ordinarily inordinate time to get an appropriate decision that can guide the board. It is for that reason that we argued that this concurrence element in the way the law is administered has got to be taken out and the responsibility squarely placed in one Minister who is accountable to Parliament. That Minister has to account to this House for what goes on with that particular entity.
We have replaced concurrence with consultation on financial matters. We think that word and that mechanism is more appropriately placed in discharging the responsibility to make sure that there is collective decision-making on matters pertaining to finance. We agree with the DA that when it comes to matters pertaining to finance, it is critically important that the Minister of Finance or the Ministry of Finance has a say in them. It is for that reason that we have accepted the principle that, when it comes to matters pertaining to the financial management of the Post Office, the Minister of Communications will act in consultation with the Minister of Finance.
Let me just conclude by saying that we are passing this law in a historically very important and very different context. We are doing it in the context of setting in place the platform for the new digital revolution in this country. We have accepted that by 2020 we have to ensure 100% Internet coverage in the country and 100% broadband coverage. The efficient Post Office is pivotally placed to play quite a crucial role in ensuring that we turn the dream that Natasha is talking about into reality ... [Interjections.] ... when she says that there must be Internet access for all. [Time expired.][Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Bill read a second time (Democratic Alliance dissenting).