Thank you very much, Chairperson and the hon Yunus Carrim. Let me just briefly deal with some of the specific issues that have been raised. The hon Van Dyk asked about the change in shareholding. This was brought about by some very specific aspects of the agreements between VSNL and its other shareholders and we were obliged to change our approach to that. However, it would be the intention for us to seek the same component of shareholding in another form as we move forward.
Secondly, with regard to cables, what the hon Van Dyk said about our being involved in cables all over the place is not correct. The specific proposals are the following: We would take responsibility to lead the process for a west coast cable. This would be a very large capacity cable and quite certainly bigger than the private sector itself would be prepared to invest in.
The reasons for this are as I indicated. We need a very large capacity for the Square Kilometre Array project and we are increasing our capacity for science and research in this country, which is, as the hon Chris Wang said, very important. So this is the kind of investment that is very unlikely to be made by the private sector.
On the east coast, the Minister of Communications has made it clear that we don't have principle objections to private sector participation but the precise role the state plays in those processes is very important and in line with the rest of the world. These are always strategic assets in which the state plays a role. Let me just say that the comments made about the Public Finance Management Act - hon Van Dyk, you do know better - are absolutely wrong. Just read the Public Finance Management Act. The Act is very clear on what is required of a Schedule 2 project. It has to put forward a business plan and a borrowing plan to the Treasury. Section 54 of the Act requires you to take certain actions. I will give you a lesson one day, because you are clearly abysmally ignorant about this matter.
On the question of Infraco and Sentech, the two departments are very clear on the role these two institutions will play. Hon Kholwane, I think it is correct. Maybe we will clarify that more in public but definitely these are complementary processes. They are in no way competing. And the point you made, that you don't want to get drift across these two areas, is an important point as it is also important that Infraco itself should not drift into the value-added services that are the domain of the private sector.
Hon Green indicates that we do need to explain the position on Infraco. We will continue to do that and I think our experience has been that as we have interacted with the major players and explained to them exactly what Infraco has been doing, there is a great deal of support for it. It is the kind of intervention that I think is, as you have indicated, the classic realm of public good type intervention and infrastructure.
But, as I indicated in my opening address, if our objectives are fully met in the foreseeable future, at some point, obviously, we have no particular requirement that this would automatically always stay in public hands but the objectives of getting affordable price-competitive broadband must be met and retained at all costs.
I thank members for their support and despite some of the critical remarks, I am very pleased indeed that all parties have supported this Bill. I think it is an important step forward for telecommunications in South Africa. I thank you. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Bill read a second time.
Business suspended at 14:45 and resumed at 15:03.