ICASA Council Vacancies: Shortlist deliberations

COMMUNICATIONS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
23 August 2006
ICASA COUNCIL VACANCIES: SHORTLIST DELIBERATIONS

Acting Chairperson: Mr G Oliphant (ANC)

Documents handed out:
Schedule of nominees, as drawn by Committee Secretariat
Shortlist of candidates to be interviewed (listed in minutes below)

SUMMARY
The Acting Chairperson tabled a schedule of nominees, drawn by the Committee’s secretariat, which reflected the names of nominees, by whom nominated, whether they had been included on the shortlist of each political party, and whether their applications complied with the formal requirements of nomination and had enclosed a CV and a letter of nomination. The schedule was fully discussed, and the parties stated the principles that they would like to see applied when considering the nominees to be shortlisted. Members agreed firstly on the nominees who would not be interviewed due to lack of compliance or lack of support, and then discussed and narrowed down the shortlist to 20 candidates. It was agreed that the 20 interviews would be arranged, and that the Committee would travel to Johannesburg to interview candidates who resided there, and were available for interview, on Monday 28 and Tuesday 29 August. The remaining interviews would be held on Friday 1 September or on other convenient days.

The Committee briefly discussed the draft Film and Publications Act amendments and amendments to the legislation on the Regulations of Interception of Communications. The Acting Chairperson agreed to raise both matters with the relevant Portfolio Committees seized with the Bills and to find a way, provided this was within the Parliamentary Rules, of collaborating in order that this Committee’s input was made, as both Bills affected the communications industry. Other concerns were raised and discussed on the logistics of travel arrangements for the Committee.

MINUTES
The Acting Chairperson reported that the schedule produced by the Committee’s secretariat showed whether the candidates had fulfilled the requirements relating to nomination, submission of CVs and letters of acceptance, and whether each candidate had been shortlisted by the political parties represented by Committee members. He pointed out that a previous meeting had decided that any CVs received up to Friday 18 August would be accepted, provided that they were accompanied by a letter of acceptance of nomination and a proper nomination. Of the CVs then outstanding, only one had now been received, and although there was not a formal acceptance letter, it was sent under cover of an e-mail which stated that the CV was sent through pursuant to a nomination.

Committee members discussed and agreed that the CV sent under cover of an e-mail constituted sufficient acceptance of the nomination. Two errors were corrected, where the candidates had been nominated by one of the parties, but this had not been marked on the schedule. It was clarified that one candidate, whose CV was not in the possession of the DA members, had in fact submitted the CV and letter, and the necessary documents were given to the DA members.

There was some discussion on how best to proceed, and it was agreed that the first item to be debated was the schedule of 20 nominees who were either self-nominated, had not submitted a CV and / or an acceptance letter by the extended date of 18 August, or who had not been shortlisted by any of the parties.

It was agreed that none of those nominees would be included in the shortlist.

The Committee then considered the schedule of nominees who had complied with all nomination requirements and who had been supported by at least one of the parties.

Adv P Swart (DA) noted that Mr R Muller’s CV had been received but no letter of acceptance was forwarded. He therefore did not appear to have met the minimum requirements. The remainder of the Committee agreed that his name should not be included on the shortlist.

The Acting Chairperson suggested that members, rather than discussing the merits of each candidate, should try to narrow down the list to those candidates who were generally supported.

This was done and a list of eight names was agreed immediately, to carry forward to the shortlist.

The meeting then held some discussion on matters of principle. The first matter was the possible conflict of interest. The Acting Chairperson reminded members that at the last meeting it had been decided that the relevant legislation clearly stated that a person would be disqualified if, at the time of appointment, he or she occupied listed positions or was subject to listed disqualifications.

Ms D Smuts (DA) pointed out that some of the candidates held positions in the Department of Communications, were members of Parliament, or had business interests in the industry. One candidate, although employed by another Department, had a connection to the Department of Communications through a broadcasting project.

Mr R Mohlalonga (ANC) commented that the advertisement had specifically called for nominees with experience of the industry. This experience could not be gained outside the industry and therefore links and connections would invariably exist as they were forged through experience. He suggested rather that members focus on the strengths of the CVs. Some candidates who had specialist skills that were needed on the Council, such as public policy and development, might not have the experience in the industry.

Mr R Pieterse (ANC) added that the CV of one of the nominees did not disclose any particular skills in telecommunications. However, that candidate met other considerations and showed skills that would be useful to the Council as a whole. For this reason the nomination had been supported by his party.

Mr R Pieterse (ANC) further commented that the Freedom Front had shortlisted two candidates, and he was concerned that Dr Mulder had not attended the meeting to motivate for those candidates. He accepted the Chairperson’s assurance that Dr Mulder had given an apology.

Mr K Khumalo (ANC) expressed succinctly the views of all members that they would not support an appointment if there was any danger that the person appointed would advance the interests of any commercial organisation, manipulate any decisions or use the appointment as a stepping stone to further his or her own interests.

Some discussion ensued on whether a person who had, in the past, followed instructions of his or her superiors should necessarily be excluded from the shortlist. Some members felt strongly that past actions could point to a lack of independence. Other members felt that such actions could be justified in the circumstances. It was clear that there was a strong difference of opinion among members, which could not be resolved, and the nominees whose past actions were questioned were included in the shortlist that would be interviewed.

Ms Smuts raised the question, in principle, whether existing or former members of parliament should be permitted to sit on Chapter 9 Institutions.

The Acting Chairperson reminded her that the Committee had already dealt with the disqualification procedures and that, provided the disqualifying interest had been relinquished at the time of appointment, there was no provision against this. He pointed out that other Chapter 9 Institutions had made similar appointments.

Ms Smuts noted that the provisions differed for some other Chapter 9 Institutions.

Ms D Smuts requested, through the Chairperson, that where a particular nominee had been supported by a party, sufficient members of that party should be present when conducting that interview.

Mr Khumalo pointed out that the interviews might well show quite a different picture from that in the CVs. Those people attending the interviews would basically be given the opportunity to expand on their CVs and prove their worth to the Committee.

The Acting Chairperson indicated that he would like to set aside at least 45 minutes for each interview. About 17 of the nominees had given a Johannesburg address. Therefore, in line with the Committee’s previous decision, the Committee would travel to Johannesburg, and conduct as many interviews as possible on Monday and Tuesday. Anyone not being able to attend would be interviewed on another day. It might be possible for the Committee to consider interviewing also in the evening on Monday. He accepted that some logistics may not work exactly as planned, but would leave it to his secretariat to arrange as best as possible.

No interviews would be held on the forthcoming Friday, 25 August, but it was possible that some interviews would be conducted on 1 September.

Mr Swart requested that interviews be arranged in the hotel where the Committee members would be staying.

Mr Khumalo queried whether it was still financially better to fly the Committee to Johannesburg rather than calling the candidates to Cape Town.

The Acting Chairperson confirmed that he had already done an estimate and this was the most cost-effective route. Confirmation of venue and times would be forwarded to all members on the following day.

Mr Pieterse made the point that he had not been satisfied with the travel arrangements made by the agents on the last trip. On this point, Adv Swart indicated that there was a parliamentary office dealing specifically with travel, and suggested that this Committee should use that office rather than an agency. The Acting Chairperson noted the suggestions.

The Committee members finally agreed to call the following candidates for an interview:
Ms W Mayimele
Mr H Tshabalala
Mr M Tom
Dr G Boloka
Ms D Love
Ms I Wilken
Ms M Mohlala
Mr A Barendse
Ms M Matlala
Mr R Nkuna
Mr A Nkomo
Adv A Alberts
Ms B Ntombela
Prof J van Rooyen
Dr M Socikwa
Mr L Ncetezo
Ms L-A Cassie
Mr M Lekgoro
Ms N Gila
Ms J Wagner

Film and Publications Amendment Bill
Ms Smuts reported that a Bill was apparently about to be tabled by the Department of Home Affairs, containing an amendment to the Film and Publications Act of 1996. She believed that the nature of the amendments brought the matter more appropriately within the purview of the Communications Portfolio Committee. Firstly, she was concerned that the Department of Home Affairs appeared to believe that the Film and Publications Board was able to regulate broadcasting which, in terms of the Constitution, was vested in the Regulator. Secondly, the draft amendment required that a broadcaster submit to the Film and Publications Board Classification Committee anything that could be questionable in terms of its sexual content or “hate speech” as newly defined (which she believed infringed on “free speech”). She said that this amounted to a form of censorship, which was not permitted outside exceptional circumstances. Ms Smuts stressed that this Portfolio Committee had spent much time and effort setting up a proper regulatory system, and that any other Committee would have difficulty in understanding the full dimension and background to the system. She asked members to give consideration as to how best to interact with the Home Affairs Committee.

The Acting Chairperson undertook to speak to the Chairperson of the Home Affairs Portfolio Committee and discuss how the two committees could engage with each other. He would also check the parliamentary rules of concurrence.

Mr R Mohlalonga believed that it would be appropriate to make the approach only when the Bill was actually tabled.

Regulation of Interception of Communication and Provision of Communication-Related Information Amendment Bill

 Mr Mohlalonga noted that there was another Bill of relevance to this Committee. The amendments to the legislation concerning interception of communications were also of interest to this Committee as they had a bearing on the industry. He agreed that the Acting Chairperson should ascertain what was provided for in the parliamentary rules and requested him to engage with the other portfolio committees.

The Acting Chairperson confirmed that he would then engage also with the Chairperson of the Justice and Constitutional Development Portfolio Committee.

ICASA exit reports
Mr Swart raised the issue of the exit reports from ICASA. The Chairperson confirmed that they were due to be sent to the Committee on Friday, and he would try to ensure that members received them the same day. He noted and understood, but did not share the DA’s concern that the exit reports should be coupled with the interviews. The Committee had already decided that the issues would be treated separately. Nonetheless he was prepared to allow that the interviews of existing Councillors would be scheduled for the Tuesday, if at all possible, to enable members to peruse the exit reports beforehand.

Other Committee business
Mr R Pieterse was saddened to hear about the passing of veteran parliamentary journalist, Mr Barry Streek, and suggested that the Committee, even at this late stage, send condolences through to his family and acknowledge his contribution to this Committee. The Acting Chairperson agreed that this would be done.


The meeting adjourned.