Broadcasting Bill: discussion

None

SUMMARY
SATRA interviews are scheduled for 15 and 16 February and the budget vote for the 17 February.

Adv Meyer clarified problems attached to Sections 40 and 13A of the Broadcasting Bill. The parties narrowed their differences with regard to Section 40. The committee will most probably deliberate on this bill only at the end of next week or the beginnig of the following week.

MINUTES
Section 40
Prior to the arrival of the Parliamentary law advisor, Adv Meyer, the NNP presented their Section 40 proposal which followed the same line of thinking as the ANC proposal presented the day before. In addition they wanted to change "consider" to "adhere" in S40 (3).

This was followed by the DP proposal: delete S40 (a) and (c). Further Ms Smuts pointed out that (b) would not require regulations to effect.

Adv. Meyer introduced his comments by saying he needed more time to study the bill but on initial scrutiny, it was immediately apparent that the following underlined words needed to be inserted in Section 40 (1) (a) in order for it to be at all acceptable:
(a) any matter that is required or permitted "to be prescribed" by this Act.
He agreed that regulations were not needed to prescribe notices in Section 40 (1) (b). He would need to look at the Bill in-depth to clarify "administrative or procedural matter" referred to in Section 40 (1) (c).

All parties were satisfied that Adv Meyer’s suggestion for S 40 (1) (a) suitably narrowed the scope.

Mr Kekana (ANC) asked if the committee were moving towards the following suggestion:
becomes part of the general clause of S 40 (1);
and (c) are deleted;
plus insert the ANC proposal for S 40 (2).
There was agreement that this would be acceptable. Adv Meyer said that this suggestion was legally in order.

It was agreed that parties submit the issues needing explanation in writing to Adv Meyer so that he could give a precise response. The chairperson thanked Adv Meyer saying the committee had definitely narrowed the gap in their differences with regard to S 40.

Section 13A
The NNP proposed deleting (d) and (g) in toto.

The DP and IFP referred to the legal opinion they had obtained which said that Parliament cannot give policy-making powers to anyone other than an independent body. Though Ms Smuts (DP) agreed that (d) and (g) were the worst clauses in this regard – deleting them only would not solve the problem.
She said all the clauses, except the reference to special ad-hoc investigations, were unconstitutional.

Adv Meyer said that he could not grasp the rationale for S13A and needed time to study it. He agreed with the president’s concerns. Looking at S13A (a), he said his reading was that "determine" is a very broad provision which, in effect, means to take the final decision and gives full power to the Minister.
He found (d) and (g) problematic as it attempted to empower the Minister to prescribe to the IBA on policy issues.

Chairperson Moeti asked Adv Meyer and the State Law Advisor, Mr Kelner, to go through the bill and see if the any items constitute policy-making. He urged parties to begin drafting their proposals on S40.