Broadcasting Amendment Bill: deliberations

Meeting report

COMMUNICATIONS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
15 October 2002
BROADCASTING AMENDMENT BILL: DELIBERATIONS

Chairperson:

Broadcast Amendment Bill [B34-2002]

SUMMARY
The Committee commenced informal deliberations on the Broadcasting Amendment Bill. There was some dissatisfaction at the manner in which the Bill had been drafted, and it was agreed that the Bill would need to be cleaned up substantially. The DP hoped that the unconstitutionality of the Bill, particularly with respect to government control of the SABC and Ministerial decree, would be rectified. The IFP argued that the Bill was unconstitutional and should be withdrawn. In their deliberations, the Committee tentatively discussed possible alternative formulations of particular clauses.

MINUTES
The Chairperson noted that the SABC had surprised the Committee in the preceding weeks, with the manner in which they had listened to outside voices and the outside interests which had to be catered for, especially those who wanted programmes in their mother tongue. He asked each party to make opening statements on the Bill.

Ms D Smuts (DP) said she hoped that, in rectifying the unconstitutionality of the Bill, the Committee would concern themselves with government control of the SABC, Ministerial powers of decree and so forth. There also remained the transformed landscape of the SABC: the creation of two boards and SABC 3 being sold off. There was also a great deal of cleaning up. Preceding laws were repeated in the Bill and the provisions of the Public Finance Management Act were repeated. This repetition could not be tolerated: the Bill would either have to be cleaned up or be sent back to the Department. She noted, however, that there were a number of small things which needed to be done through the Bill, which prevented her from voting against the Bill. Juristic personality had to be restored to the SABC and certain amendments to the IBA Act had to be made.

Ms S Vos (IFP) stated the formal position of the IFP, which was that the Bill is unconstitutional and should be withdrawn. There were issues covered by the Bill which the IFP had long supported, for instance, regional services, but there was no clarity on how this would be funded. She noted that the Department was constantly handing over bills which were unconstitutional and the Bill was a mess.

Mr Pieterse (ANC) said he hoped that these comments were not an illustration of the mindset towards the Bill.

The Chairperson said that the role of the Committee was to ensure that the Bill reflected public input and was constitutional.

The Committee then began to informally consider the Bill clause by clause.

Clause 1 was passed over.

Clause 3
The Chair asked if there were any objections to adding religion in this clause, amending s3 of the principal act. He noted that there had been a strong lobby from religious groups.

Ms Smuts said she had no problem with this. However, she noted her concern with Section 3(5)(f) of the Broadcasting Act, in terms of which broadcasters must comply with the code of conduct of the broadcasting services. In terms of the IBA Act broadcasters fall under either the code of conduct in terms of Schedule 1, which is about to be rewritten, or if they fall under another code of conduct approved by ICASA. Therefore Section 3(5)(f) is conflicting with the Broadcasting Act and wrong. The word "if" could be deleted because the IBA Act deals with this.

The ICASA representative, Mr Markowitz, pointed out that the Code of Conduct was to be taken out of the Act. You could therefore say" as prescribed" and leave it there. The provisions of Section 56(2) could be followed: in terms of which another body's code is accepted if it complies with ICASA's code.

Clause 4
Ms Smuts said that Clause 4, amending s4, attempted to do something simple but was not drafted clearly. It was trying to say that any person wanting to provide a broadcasting service must obtain a licence. The other words included in the clause, such as the reference to transmitters and licence conditions introduce difficulties. Signal distribution services must not be examined here and conditions of licensing need to be referred to. The clause was also trying to say that any person without a licence should be deemed to have a licence until the authorities decides on the application. Subsection 3 was unnecessary since it repeated the idea of (2). Subclauses 6,7 and 8 simply mean that a broadcasting licence must say which channels are authorised and a bouquet is not needed. There also needs to be no reference to stations, conditions and so forth. The Bill needs to be technologically neutral. The entire clause needed cleaning up.

The Chair asked the State Law Advisor, Mr Kellner, what is in the principal Act regarding the provision of broadcasting, including distribution services. What was the material difference between referring to signal distribution services as opposed to simply distribution services?

The Chair asked the Department whether the Bill needed to stipulate satellite or transmitter signals, as Clause 4 currently refers to service by satellite or terrestrial transmitters.

Mr Kellner requested more time to look at this issue. On the question of prescription as opposed to determination by notice: by prescription means determination by regulation and by notice means by publication in the Gazette.

Mr Markowitz (ICASA) said that in the IBA Act there is reference to 'broadcasting distribution service' and in order to maintain conformity the Bill should refer to broadcasting signal distribution service instead of distribution service.

He noted that their submission had asked for the clause only to deal with broadcasting services because licencing is dealt with in another section of the Bill. He noted the need to avoid providing for an administrative procedure in Clause 4 (6) (b) for adding a channel. The process needs to be clarified rather than putting it into a section.

Mr Mjwara: Deputy-Director General, Department of Communications, noted that three years ago they were faced with the need to deal with how broadcasting is affected by globalisation and complies with domestic laws. At that time a European satellite firm had presented a right to operate in SA, while in terms of European law SA had no right to operate a satellite service there. It was important that anyone broadcasting in SA had a licence and channels needed to be defined. The broadcaster will say how that will be done, by prescription. There is a need to distinguish between broadcasting and signal distribution but more fundamental was how to ensure that everyone operates with a licence.

Mr Markowitz said that proposals made by ICASA during earlier talks were mostly incorporated into the Bill. However, the Bill needed to be cleaned up without losing the principles required by the Department.

The Chair noted that their approach to Clause 4 would be to look closely at the drafting.

A Sentech representative asked that the reference to distribution services be taken out of the clause. He pointed out that no unlicenced distribution service needed six months for a licence and this might open a window for unlicenced services.

An M-Net representative said that whoever provides a broadcasting service must be licenced but that framework must be very clear. The IBA Act contemplated that a channel will be authorised but not be licenced. Channels must not be specified in the IBA Act because it comes as part of a bouquet.

Adv Matthew Chaskalson: legal representative, SABC, said that the manner in which Clause 4(6)(b) was drafted was to cover all broadcasters, not only those which were unlicenced. In terms of ss6(b) all unlicenced broadcasters will be hit and they will not have been authorised by regulations contemplated in terms of Clause 4(8) for the authorisation of all channels and stations carried by broadcasting or distribution services. Would licenced brokers also have to go through a re-licencing process because this was not the intention of the clause?

Mr Mjwara said that on the reference to terrestrial transmitters referred to in Clause 4(a)(1): the broadcasting service was provided from a single source. The medium through which it is transmitted, be it cable, wireless or any other, is not important.

Mr Mamarelane noted Adv Chaskalson's point that Clause 4 seeks authorisation of channels in a multi-channel environment. This would not affect current broadcasting services.

The Chair said that the exercise was necessary for ICASA to implement the Clause. All reformulations of Clause 4 must ensure that there is greater clarity on ICASA's role.

Mr Abraham (UDM) requested that they look at Section 4(b)(5) of the principle Act. Section 39 of the Act had a very similar provision: why would this need to be repeated?

The Chair pointed out that Section 39 says that 'no-one may provide...'

Mr Mjwara explained that all broadcast service providers needed to be authorised in a multi-channel environment, which had led to the Broadcasting Act, in particular Section 39(2), which applies to anyone already providing a service. Section 39 was therefore subject to ss 2.

Clause 8
Ms Smuts noted that Clause 8 makes the same mistake. A convergence Act was needed but it was pointless since the IBA never uses Section 39(2), which categorises services. The Bill deletes some of these categories, but why not delete the categories altogether because they have become obsolete? For instance, Section 5(2) and (3) could be deleted. The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) proposed that licences be granted in one of three categories and the licence should contain a list of defining characteristics, whether terrestrial or digital satellite. The DP supported this suggestion.

Mr Abraham referred to the various categories set out in Section 5(2). He noted that advances in technology happen quickly and this might result in the laws having to be changed constantly.

Ms Vos pointed to one of the submissions which asked why Section 48 and not 49 and 50 of the IBA Act were referred to?

The Chairperson said the direction which is being taken was to amend what exists now. For instance, throughout the Act 'determined' is being replaced by 'prescribe', meaning notification as opposed to by regulation. Could ICASA operate if these amendments are made?

Mr Mamarelane said ICASA would want the proposed subscription satellite service to remain. If the definition of sound broadcasting service was considered, it was affected by the definition of 'radio', which was ultimately problematic. Was the Committee prepared to amend the definition of 'radio'? He said that (e) must follow the forumation of (f) so that it covers television and sound.

Mr Mjwara said there was a need to classify these categories of services because not all broadcasting services should have the same obligations and there might be overregulation.

Mr Mamarelane responded to the question on the use of Sections 49 and 50. Section 31 said that those sections did not apply until a recommendation was made to the National Assembly. Mr Markowitz added that in their written submission ICASA noted that an application for a licence must be made in terms of the IBA Act. It was unclear whether people would apply for licences under the IBA or Broadcasting Act. Ss 3 could be changed to stipulate that licencing was done in terms of the IBA Act.

Ms Smuts agreed with this, pointing out that all procedural provisions are in the IBA Act.

Mr Maziya (ANC) said that in his view, he thought Section 5(b)(3) was for people who did not know the IBA Act, which was why the sections were explicitly mentioned.

The Chair said they would return to that clause.

Clause 6
The IFP moved for the deletion of this clause, which would amend Section 6 of the principal Act with respect to editorial policies and fair reporting, which must be ensured by the Board.

Ms Smuts noted that ss1 was not needed.

Mr Magashule (ANC) responded that this clause was necessary and made sense.

Mr Abraham said that the current Section 6(2) should be retained as it stands as there was no cogent reason to change it. The independence of the public broadcaster can be compromised. There are constitutional provisions and broadcasting complaints directorate and ICASA, which are necessary instruments to guard the Charter, which governs the SABC, being carried out. There was no need to bring in a new Section 6(4) and (5), which would create an unnecessary burden on journalists. Journalists sometimes stepped across the line but are then brought into line by their own ethics.

Mr Lekgoro (ANC) said the ANC would not move for the deletion of Clause 6 from the amendment Bill but wanted it reformulated in certain areas. They had examined the UK, New Zealand and Australian broadcasting regimes and these had set a precedent in two areas. Firstly, to emphasis that the Board must ensure accurate reporting and secondly, when reporting, national interest must be taken into account.

Mr Magashule said that the independence of the SABC was important.

Ms Smuts said she took the reference to foreign jurisdictions to mean that the ANC meant to deal with accountability. Where would the concept of national interest be built in? How would the idea of it be consonant with the idea of freedom of expression, which the SABC also enjoyed? What kind of mechanism could be used when that standard has not been met? Many people see in the CNN coverage a clear national interest being expressed. But it is often invoked by dictators during war times. The national interest is not a concept which can be equated with Chapter 1 of the Constitution as this would be unconstitutional.

Mr Lekgoro noted that they would engage further during formal deliberations. There might be two extreme views but they would not agree to unjustifiably limit a freedom, although all rights could be limited. He agreed to put forward further examples from democracies such as the UK and Canada.

The Chairperson noted that the Charter is referred to in Clause 6. Where was the Charter of the SABC?

Ms Smuts said it could be in Section or Section 10.

Mr Kekana disagreed, saying that the Charter was clearly determined.

Mr Maziya noted that the SABC and all media components enjoy press rights, but what rights are being spoken of? Are they open-ended and not taking the integrity of the nation into account? The ANC is of the view that something is wrong with this. The SABC is governed by the Charter and not the Act. How would other parties view this Chapter?

Mr Magashule said that the example of national interest as dealt with in the US and UK could be cited.

The Chair said that the laws in the UK and Zimbabwe are identical but the question was how to apply them. Mr Magashule's point was that you could not be selective with your examples.

Ms Smuts said that the UK could not be used because they had no constitution.

The Chair commented that a new concept: that of national interest was being created. The ANC would move amendments when looking at Clause 6.

Clause 7
Adv Chaskalson said there was a technical problem in this Clause. The mechanism of conversion creates technical legal difficulties and needs to be submitted for finetuning. Rights, assets and liabilities must not be lost in the process.

Mr Peter Matlare: Manager, SABC, emphasised that a deeming provision was used by entities who have gone through similar processes. The deeming provision is needed in order for the corporation to progress.

Mr Mjwara asid he had no problem with the deemed conversion provision.

Clause 9
Mr Lekgoro commented that the three tenets must be met and spiritual enrichment must run through all of them.

Clause 10
A submission was made to delete this clause. If there is ever a change in shareholding, this could be returned to.

Clause 11
Mr Maziya noted that Section 6(5) must be replaced with Section 11(4).

Ms Smuts asked if the ANC wished to retain Section 11(3)(c). The Chairperson said that Section 11(3)(c) and (4) must be put under Section 6. Section 11(b) required the old corporation to submit a budget and three year budget plan. Certain provisions in the PFMA are repeated in the amendment Bill. Could there not simply be a reference to the PFMA? The fact that the SABC is a public body means that the PFMA applies, this does not have to be set out here. Is there not a case for making the SABC a Schedule 1 body, as are the Chapter 9 institutions, under the PFMA, especially if it will be publicly funded? Or such as the Canadians under the financial provisions, which state that nothing in the financial provisions can restrict freedom of expression.

The Chairperson asked whether the SABC is administering and accounting separately for its public and commercial services.

Mr Matlare said that they have sought to begin accounting separately but there were some cross-functional tasks and there are effectively still group costs. You could ask which group services would apply to which, but how much transparency would result?

The Chairperson said that the SABC could go the commercial route but there is unfair compettion. Money from the state could be used to jack up the activities of the corporation. Secondly, if the state is going to jack up the activities of the corporation, the Treasury would not take money away from Radio Metro, for instance. When government injects money, it must not be thrown into a big pot and then used to jack up and ailing radio station which is a commercial entity. It must be shown that the money generated by the commercial arms or entities will go into the public coffers and not vice-versa.

Ms Smuts noted that the Bill prepares the ground for selling off SABC 3.

On the question of why the PFMA was being repeated Mr Mjwara noted that the PFMA itself says that other legislation can do so. The PFMA is generic and standard across the board. However, a matter such as the separation of the SABC into two arms is not in the PFMA and it is therefore necessary to say so.

Another SABC representative added that the reality was that a public institution is required to implement the PFMA and there was no choice, whether it was written here or not.

Adv Chaskalson said that reproducing similar provisions is cumbersome today but the PFMA will be amended in future to keep pace with accountability and reporting standards and this might lead to the Broadcasting Act losing pace with the PFMA.

Clause 12
Clause 12 would be similar to Clause 11: its contents would go into Clause 6, amending Section 6.

Clause 14
Ms Smuts noted that this clause, amending Section 13, strips the Board of its powers. The role of the Board has always been to protect the integrity of the Corporation. Section 13(11) is problematic. However, the ANC had indicated that they were prepared to insert provisions on freedom of expression and so forth.

The Chairperson noted that if you retain Section 6(2), you would not need S13(11).

Mr Mwjara said they would not to relook at this. The day to day running of the corporation was done by management and not by the Board and this is why it was formulated like that.

Mr Matlare said they were asking that the Board control the affairs of the SABC.

Mr Gore (DP) said that the introduction of management boards should be retained. They needed to look at how Section 15(a), for instance, will work with respect to the principles of corporate governance.

Mr Matlare said they would meet with the Department to discuss how the amendment should look.

Mr Abrahams asked whether they could tidy the reference to 'old corporation'. Was the corporation still alive and operative?

Mr Matlare said that from a corporate perspective, the use of 'old' was acceptable.

Clause 15
Mr Mwjara noted that this clause sought to say that there are two divisions in the SABC and different Board members would be assigned to each. Since then management boards have come under discussion and the Bill has reverted back to standing committees.

Ms Smuts asked if he was also asking for the deletion of ss3(a) and (b), if they become standing committees.

Mr Mwjara said that they would need to change the formulation.

Mr Abrahams asked, with that type of nomination, whether the question of nominations by the Minister fall away.

Mr Matlare said they never thought that management boards were practical and it was therefore good that it was being deleted. He explained that there were various subcommittees which report to the board. How would they be formulated? He was of the view that neither standing committees nor management boards were feasible, given the role of the board in running the corporations.

Mr Mwjara said the division of the SABC into two is permanent and this Act is about that division. The BBC, for example, has two boards with two distinct functions because of the different regional functions and so has Canada. The standing committees will oversee certain functions and report to the Board: it is necessary and critical.

Mr Mwjara said that there has been confusion and there was no intention for the Minister to appoint Board members.

Mr Abraham said that in the corporate world, various committees will have different functions and one should merely ask if it is necessary to put this into legislation if it is standard practice.

Mr Magashule said that the BBC has two boards with original powers to make decisions.

Ms Smuts said that Section 15(4) in Clause 13 would also fall away if you are not going to write articles of association and so forth.

Mr Mwjara said that this also depends on the strengths of different committees. Do you equate public broadcasting with other activities such as human resources or elevate public broadcasting? The memorandums and articles of association will stipulate that the board does not need to attend to all of those issues.

Mr Matlare pointed out that when the Board looks at the affairs of the SABC it considers it in totality. In terms of its three-year strategic plan it would have entered into a shareholder compact, which will set out the priorities and set out how those priorities will be delivered on and it will have to demonstrated how they were delivered on. To put in place two extra committees which will consider the same things as the Board will create unnecessary work. He noted that public broadcasting is not only what goes over the airwaves but also technical issues. They strongly argue that the shareholder compact is the appropriate tool to ensure, on an annual basis, that deliverables are in place. The audit and remuneration committees, in terms of the King Report on Governance 1 and 2, are about governance, to ensure that the Corporation does not act against shareholders. The subcommittees consider particular issues, for example, the need to fund regionalisation and when that is done, the particular subcommittee may collapse.

The Chairperson said he was mindful that, as far as the 1999 Act goes, the concern is that a public broadcasting service is nothing but a commercial broadcaster. If you logically make a separation, the legislature can suggest that the committees are necessary for the board to oversee these other matters. The SABC is not adequately executing public broadcasting concerns raised by FXI and COSATU. They must consider how the Board will be able to exercise that particular control, given that they are being split into two. If the government says, for example, that they want to inject additional funds to public broadcasting, there will be people on the board who are involved at that level and not just have general knowledge of the activities.

Clause 16
Ms Smuts said that the original Section 16 in the Act refers to the Group CEO, while the PFMA says that the Board is the accounting officer.

Mr Matlare said that, given that there is a Board and a CEO, there should be reference to an accounting entity.

Ms Smuts noted that FXI raised an issue under Section 12: that the CEO, CFO and COO are still appointed by Cabinet under a public service regulation. FXI said it was necessary that the Board appoint these persons. Could this be removed?

Ms Vos noted that the FXI referred to this as a lacunae.

The Chairperson asked if this practical: how big is the Executive Committee?

Mr Matlare said it should be the CEO, CFO and COO and the Board will agree to how many others should be on the Executive Committee. This allowed for latitude in deciding which expertise should be on the Boards. Mr Matlare said that corporatisation of the SABC and the implementation of public and private broadcasting wings may result in needing particular expertise on a committee. The Bill should not prescribe, at that level, who should sit on the Board. Secondments are also not adequate.

An SABC representative said that caution was needed. From Clause 15 onwards the Bill becomes very prescriptive and this could make operations difficult. The BBC and CBC took long to arrive at where they are and they went from one different structure to another. When the principal act was passed in 1999 they agreed to the separation of the administration of functions to allow for accountability for the public service and public broadcasting service. This should allow Boards and Management to operationalise certain activities.

The Chairperson said they had reacted to what was inherited. There were many group executives and the concern was money. This made the structure very cumbersome. Creating two divisions led to the necessity to relook at these numbers.

Mr Mwjara agreed with the Chairperson. If the SABC introduced a ceiling to help them to limit moving up the ranks in the SABC, this would be good.

Clause 18
Mr Markowitz said that in principle they supported the Clause but it needed tidying up. There was no need to refer to Section 4(2) as it was not relevant in this regard. Only Section 74 was relevant. What is Section 22(3) attempting to do? They do not levy stamp or transfer duty? There must be a public process when licenses are transferred, and so forth. It will be gazetted. There needs to be regulatory oversight over the conditions of licences and so forth.

Mr Matlare said it was important for the Corporation's transformation but the manner in which they came before the regulator was important.

Adv Chaskalson said there was one important issue here. If the deeming provision applied, the old Corporation's licence becomes the new Corporations' licence. The old licences do not reflect the distinctions between the public commercial and public broadcasting divisions. The clause should be reformulated to require the SABC to apply to ICASA for its licence in terms of those two divisions.

The Chairperson said he would like to look at the SABC's licence.

Mr Matlare said that a number of those current licences went through an IBA process, including the licences of TBVC states which were incorporated and there was scrutiny at that point. Currently, television and radio licences are up for renewal and ICASA could then see the old licences and consider the issuing of new licences.

Mr Markowitz said that every broadcasting frequency must hold separate licences, compared to M-NET and Etv licences, the SABC falls short on what their obligations are. There have to be amendments to the licences to reflect clearly the obligations and bring them in line with current practice. He said there must be a certain time frame within months of the conversion to consider licences or it would have to happen before the conversion.

Ms Smuts said that there was another argument for amending the licences. In term s of Section 32 language diversity and regional services must be addressed. It may be that language diversity can be addressed better by issuing extra frequencies. This puts these issues back in the hands of the regulator, where they belong.

Mr Mwjara said that if licences are deemed, they remain as they were. If they need to be changed, application must be made o the authority. This is the principle.

Mr Matlare said the more constructive way forward is to argue that there is nothing wrong with having the deeming provision already. ICASA could later scrutinise the current conditions of the SABC licence.

Mr Mjwara referred to Section 4(2), which referred to those broadcasting without a licence. This will be taken into account.

The Chairperson said they would need to make licences more public. He suggested that they pose a question to the Minister in the National Assembly, asking to see the licence of the SABC, for example, or M-NET.

Mr Matlare said that the SABC was different from other broadcasters: it has a Charter and legislation with clear objectives, which feed into the SABC's licences.

Afternoon session
Clause 21
The deliberations started at Clause 21 that seeks to amend s27 of the principal Act. In terms of the proposed s27 (6)(vi) a licence inspector may enter upon land in order to exercise powers conferred upon him or her by the Act, provided that such powers are not exercised after dark without a warrant or the permission of the occupier.

Ms Smuts raised a concern with regard to the search provision, questioning whether it was proper to allow inspectors to simply enter premises without a warrant.

Mr Matlare explained that allowing inspectors to enter and search premises without a warrant only during the day provides the necessary safeguards. It was felt that to require a warrant would make the whole exercise cumbersome.

The Chairperson asked whether the SABC is a juristic person with the consequent capacity to sue and be sued. He also asked if the Corporation could interact with the public by way of asking the public to write comments to it. The answer to this question is important given the fact there are people who are not paying their TV licences.

The State Legal Advisors indicated that the SABC is a creature of statute and therefore can have only those powers conferred on it. Whether the SABC can interact with the public depends on the Act governing it. The Legal Advisor could not say if the SABC is a juristic person.

Mr Maziya complained that licence fees are too high. He indicated that most people in rural areas cannot afford to pay the amount of R208 each year.

Ms Newhoudt-Druchen indicated that blind and deaf people are also adversely affected. Deaf people, on top of paying the licence fee, have to buy DVDs because they have subtitles.

Mr Matlare noted that the SABC has not increased the licence fee for four years and it was absurd for Members to be complaining now. The Chairperson agreed with the SABC.

In terms of the proposed s27 (6)(f) the Minister must issue policy directives on the use of TV licences. The question was whether it is proper to allow the Minister to tell the SABC what to do?

Mr Mjwara indicated that in terms of the PFMA all monies collected from the public must be deposited into the National Revenue Fund. In order to ensure that the SABC receives the monies collected in the form of licence fees it is necessary that the Minister issues directives.

Adv Chaskalson indicated that the SABC is required to have a database recording all TV sets sold in the Republic. This an administrative function and the Department should do it. The Department on the other hand felt that it would perform this function if the licence fees would go to it. The Department was also of the view that the SABC is doing very well in this respect and should therefore continue doing the job.

Clause 23
Clause 23, which amends s30 of the principal Act, seeks to add a new subsection 8 in terms of which subscription television services must carry original programming with local content, the nature and extent of which is to be determined by the Authority through regulations.

Ms Smuts asked if it is fair to impose local content on subscription television services. She felt that ICASA was already dealing with this issue sufficiently in the process of issuing licences. M-Net indicated that it has detailed local content programmes and that it is irritating to hear people saying time and again that subscription channels are shying away from the responsibility of developing local content programmes.

Clause 26
Clause 26 seeks to insert a new s32A. The section proposes the establishment of two regional television services. The idea behind this is to accommodate indigenous languages programmes.

Ms Smuts supported the idea of catering for indigenous languages.

The SABC indicated that they would like to have some more details around this issue. Some of the things that they would like to know are whether the TV services would operate 24 hours a day and whether if they would broadcast in one language.

Mr Phadagi (ANC) alluded to the fact that blind and deaf people should be accommodated. The Chairperson also indicated that deaf and blind people constitute a very big constituency and it would be wrong not to cater for their needs.

Clause 27
The Chairperson felt that Clause 27, which seeks to amend s34, is too long and not easy to understand. The Clause provides for the efficient delivery of programming using the most effective technologies available at reasonable cost, considering prevailing market structures and in accordance with prescribed standards.

M-Net representatives proposed that the subsection should read: "provision of efficient delivery of programming using the most effective technologies at reasonable cost''.

Clause 31
Clause 31 provides that the amendments will come into effect on a date determined by the President.
The SABC submitted that some provisions should be deemed to have come into effect earlier so as to preserve the juristic personality of the Corporation.

The meeting was adjourned.