Copyright & Performers Protection Amendment Bills: Negotiating Mandates

Meeting report

The Select Committee was locked in a closed meeting and the meeting was delayed.

Members of the Provincial Legislatures (MPLs) and members of the public entered the Committee Room after the closed meeting had ended.  

The Chairperson greeted Members in attendance and outlined the key agenda of the meeting.

He explained that in terms of the NCOP’s legislative process, the Select Committee would be hearing from MPLs and MPs on the negotiating mandates from the Legislatures on the Performers Protection and Copyright Amendment Bills.

The Chairperson acknowledged the presence of Mr P Ndamase (ANC), Chairperson of the Standing Committee in Economic Development, Environmental Affairs and Tourism in the Eastern Cape Provincial Legislature. He tended an apology on behalf of the Chairperson of the Economic Development Committee in the Gauteng Provincial Legislature, who was attending another meeting.

The Chairpersons as well as a few members from the relevant committees in the North West, Free State and Mpumalanga were present as well.

The Chairperson indicated that the KZN permanent delegate on the NCOP, Mr T Brauteseth, was absent and asked Committee Members if they would be fine with him reading the province’s negotiating mandates.

Ms B Mathevula (EFF, Limpopo) asked the Chairperson why the Member was absent.

The Chairperson said that Mr Brauteseth was attending a by-election today and the provincial legislature Chairperson was busy attending a budget vote.

Negotiating Mandates on the Copyright Amendment Bill and Performers’ Protection Amendment Bill

Eastern Cape

Mr Ndamase presented the negotiating mandates for the Eastern Cape.

The Eastern Cape province voted to support both bills with amendments proposed.

(Refer to Mandates)

Free State

The Free State voted to support both bills with amendments proposed.

(Refer to Mandates)

Gauteng

Mr M Dangor (ANC, Gauteng) presented the negotiating mandates for the Gauteng Provincial Legislature.

The Gauteng province voted to support the bills and hoped that the province’s 70-page submission would be considered.

(Refer to Mandates)

KwaZulu-Natal

The Chairperson presented the province’s negotiating mandates to the Committee.

The KZN provinces voted to support both bills with amendments proposed.

(Refer to Mandates)

Limpopo

Ms Mathevula indicated that the Limpopo province voted in favour of the bill with amendments proposed.

(Refer to Mandates)

Mpumalanga

The Mpumalanga province voted to support both bills.

(Refer to Mandates)

Northern Cape

Mr M Mmoiemang (ANC, Northern Cape) indicated to the Select Committee that the Northern Cape voted in favour of the bills with amendments proposed.

(Refer to Mandates)

North West

The North West province voted in favour of both bills with amendments proposed.

(Refer to Mandates)

Western Cape

Mr J Londt (DA, Western Cape) remarked that although other provinces had supported the bill, they nevertheless proposed so many recommendations and amendments which might as well be an objection to the bill. He added that he needed to check with legal advisor on the issue.

Mr Londt indicated that the Western Cape Parliament objected to the bills.

(Refer to Mandates)

The Chairperson explained to Mr Londt that similar to the process of the National Gambling Amendment Bill, the majority support from those eight provinces does not guarantee the support in the voting of the final mandates. Those concerns as raised by provincial legislatures would be considered and then the outcome would result in the E list of the bill which provinces would still vote on. Only the outcome of that voting would determine if the bill would be accepted or not. So he assured Mr Londt that there was nothing wrong with a province that voted in support of the negotiating mandates whilst proposing a number of amendments simultaneously.

The Chairperson explained to the Committee what would happen next since provinces had all presented their negotiating mandates. He asked if the parliamentary legal unit and the Department of Trade, Industry, and Competition would have sufficient time to respond to those concerns and amendments that were raised by provinces by 30 May. If that is the case, then the Committee would deliberate and vote on the negotiating mandates on 13 June. The outcome of that voting would be sent to provinces in order to allow them to consider and develop their final mandates.

Adv Charmaine van der Merwe, Senior Parliamentary Legal Advisor, Constitutional and Legal Services Office, indicated that the parliament’s legal service would be ready to address all those concerns raised in this process by 30 May. So would the DTIC.

The Chairperson then opened the floor to Members for clarity-seeking questions.

Mr Londt urged his colleagues to re-consider their approaches and bear the interests of their provinces at heart to guide them in their voting. For instance, something that affects coastal provinces might be different from those of inland provinces. That was exactly the reason why the National Gambling Amendment Bill was rejected by the NCOP. So he urged his provincial colleagues to adhere to their mandates which stipulated that should one or several of those conditions be withdrawn, those provinces might not have supported the bills.

The provincial member from the Eastern Cape clarified that there is overwhelming support for the bills in the Eastern Cape. If those recommendations and amendments were the reasons that the province could not support the bill, then he believed that the Eastern Cape would withdraw all those conditions in order to support both bills.

A similar sentiment was expressed by provincial legislature members from the Free State and the North West.

The provincial colleague from the Free State indicated that although the Free State had requested more extensive economic research on both bills, there can be no doubt of the province’s support of the bills. The province is of the view that the country needs the bills and the current state of affairs was designed to disadvantage certain people. The Committee must not delay the passing of the bills due to diverse views.

The provincial member from North West reiterated the province’s support and highlighted that some of the inputs which were raised by members of the public can be included in the regulations.

Mr Dangor reaffirmed that extensive public hearings had been held in Gauteng.

Mr Mmoiemang urged Committee Members to expedite the process given the complexity of those two bills as well as the limited time left for this Parliament before the elections.

The Chairperson commented that since Parliament’s constituency period began at the end of June and the legislature only reconvened in September, that would be sufficient time for provinces to consider the NCOP inputs before sending their final mandates.

Adv Van der Merwe sought clarity on which amendments would be adopted by the Committee that the legal service would use to work on the E list.

The Chairperson replied that that version would be voted on 13 June because the Committee would still have to consider the inputs from parliamentary legal service and DTIC. Only after that, there will be an E list.

Mr Londt requested the consolidation of provincial inputs from the Committee Secretariat.

The Eastern Cape provincial member urged the Committee to not delay the passing of those two bills as it was already behind schedule and there was no luxury for time.

Mr Dangor informed the Committee that Parliament’s Programme Committee urged Committees to prioritise and expedite bills on both the National Assembly and the NCOP sides.

That concluded the business of the day and the Chairperson adjourned the meeting.