Sentech Amendment Bill: voting; SATRA Report

Documents handed out:
Democratic Party amendments to the Sentech Amendment Bill (incorporated into the minutes)

SUMMARY
The Bill was voted on by the committee and passed without amendments.

The Democratic Party proposed amendments were outvoted. The final one, which was in fact an amendment to the Principal Act, was noted as being beyond the authority of the committee and accordingly the committee could not even entertain discussion thereon. It was stated by the State Law Advisor, who was present, that such an amendment would have to be referred to the National Assembly. The DP agreed that the amendment would be submitted in the House.

MINUTES
It was noted that a delegate from the Department of Communications was present and also a State Law Advisor (SLA), Ms E van Schoor.

Proposed amendments
The DP was the only party who suggested amendments to the Bill.
Three amendments were proposed. These were the following:

1. Clause 1(b) in line 16: after (cabinet approves) insert (after consultation with the IBA).
An ANC committee member from the ANC objected to this amendment as he stated that as the approval of Cabinet was still needed, the consultation with the IBA would be insignificant as Cabinet would still choose whomever they liked.

Ms Vos (IFP) noted that the IBA did not have the requisite authority.

Mr Waters (DP) responded that the IBA are the regulators of the broadcasting industry and had to be consulted as they could not be ignored by Cabinet.

The Chairperson interjected to ask the SLA if this was indeed a role played by the regulator.

She responded by noting that with Telkom no provision was made for consultation with the IBA. She added that the IBA, as regulator, had not been unfairly excluded from any process as they still had the authority to issue the requisite licence to Sentech.

Dr Cwele (ANC) stated that Cabinet would not ignore the presence of the IBA as there were conditions attached to the licence that were covered in the Principal Act.

A vote was taken. The results were:
For the amendment: 2 (DP. Mike Waters and Vincent Gore)
Against the amendment: 8 (7 members of the ANC and Vos of the IFP)
The DP maintained their position and the Chairperson noted their objection.

2. Clause 2(1) in line 27: insert the words (at least) right before (three executive directors) and delete clause 2(1)(b).
Mr Waters noted that the purpose of this would be to make Sentech as attractive as possible to potential equity partners and also to create greater flexibility between equity partners.

Ms Vos noted that this meant that there would still be a Chief Executive Officer (CEO), a Chief Operations Officer (COO) and a Chief Financial Officer (CFO) but it would create greater flexibility for the appointment of another person if that was desired. Thus, the board would have an option and not be locked into a situation.

At this time the Chairperson asked the SLA if it was by design that the amendment had been drafted to refer to three executive and four non-executive directors. He asked how corporate governance could be ensured.

The SLA responded by suggesting that if the DP's amendment was allowed then a safety catch, stating that the non-executive members should always exceed the executive members, should be added. This would help to ensure corporate governance.

A member of the ANC objected to the proposed amendment stating that the executive within the whole company is accountable to the Board and that, to ensure the effective operation of the company the CFO must also be accountable to the Board. It was further noted that the clause as it stands achieves that.

In the DP's defence, Mr Waters noted that there must be flexibility to determine the functions of the Board.

Mr Pieterse (ANC) responded that the functions of the Board are clearly defined and proposed that the clause be accepted as it is.

Ms Vos of the IFP agreed to accept the wording as is but the DP maintained their earlier position. One vote was taken on both these proposed amendments. The results were:
For the amendment: 2 (DP, Mike Waters and Vincent Gore)
Against the amendment: 8 (7 members of the ANC and Vos of the IFP)

3. Insert clause 3(1) in order to amend section 9(1) of the Sentech Act:
The Company may, with a written approval the Minister and subject to this section, the provisions of the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act, the Broadcasting Act and the conditions of any license or regulations issued thereunder, expropriate any land or real right in or over land for the purpose of providing, as a common carrier, broadcasting signal distribution for broadcasting licensees in accordance with the provisions of the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act and the Broadcasting Act

The reason for this is that the DP was concerned that Sentech would have unchecked expropriation powers and wanted these powers to be subject to the IBA Act and the Broadcasting Act.

Ms Vos noted that the possibility of public investigation should be considered and that she did not think that the clause was one with ill-intent.

Mr Waters responded that he was aware that the clause was not drafted with ill-intent but that there should be a safety barrier between a company that can expropriate and one that cannot.

The Chairperson stated that this would be an amendment to the Principal Act whereupon the SLA noted that technically the committee did not have the authority to entertain discussion on such an amendment and that it would have to be referred to the National Assembly.

Dr Cwele (ANC) noted that if the DP did not withdraw the proposed amendment then it would delay the passing of the Bill. The Chairperson stated that the Bill's second reading would be on 11 November.

Waters indicated that he did not want to delay the passing of the Bill and it was agreed that the proposed amendment would be submitted in the House. No objections were noted to this.

The chairperson indicated that the DP's reservations were noted. It was moved that the Bill be accepted, this motion was seconded, and the Bill was passed without amendments.

The chairperson noted that the Bill will be debated on 11 November and added that he hoped that Sentech would be in a position to be a competitive distributor.

It may be noted at the outset that all their proposed amendments were objected to and they were outvoted. Accordingly, the Bill was passed without amendments.

SATRA report
The Chairperson stated that he would ask the law advisors about the SATRA report. He noted that they would meet on 8 November to consider that report and that today was the deadline for written submissions to the task team dealing with that report. He added that as yet the committee report was still very much a draft. On 8 or 9 November the report would be considered by the committee and only then would it be a document of record.

The meeting was adjourned.