Postal Services Amendment Bill [B22-2006]: Department briefing

COMMUNICATIONS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
12 September 2006
POSTAL SERVICES AMENDMENT BILL [B22-2006]: DEPARTMENT BRIEFING

Acting Chairperson: Mr G Oliphant (ANC)

Documents handed out:
Postal Services Amendment Bill [B22-2006]
PowerPoint presentation on Postal Services Amendment Bill
Proposed Committee Programme for Fourth Quarter

SUMMARY
 
The Department of Communications briefed the Committee on the Postal Services Amendment Bill, which would amend the Postal Services Act of 1998 in line with the Electronic Communications Act and the Independent Communications Authority of SA Act. Most of the amendments were technical. A new section would be inserted in the principal Act to provide that the Minister may make policies applicable to the ICT sector, and Section 16 would be amended to provide for the licence procedure. Members queried why the new section made reference to the ICT sector rather than the postal sector and it was explained that the postal services would be expanding into new fields and wanted to try to align the legislation as closely as possible with the Electronic Communications Act. It was agreed that this question could be debated further.

MINUTES
Committee business
The Acting Chairperson tabled the proposed Committee programme for the fourth quarter and noted that this programme made provision for public hearings on the Postal Services Amendment Bill, although he did not feel that the Bill was contentious.

The Acting Chairperson read out a letter that he had received from MultiChoice, who would shortly be launching a black economic empowerment deal, and requested to brief the Committee on it. MultiChoice had suggested that 10 October might be an appropriate date, and had invited Members to a function later. The Chairperson suggested that the Committee could hear the presentation at 09:00 and then proceed with the public hearings. Members agreed to his suggestion.

Mr M Mohlalonga (ANC) noted that Sentech and the SA Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) were scheduled to make presentations on 31 October on the state of readiness for the 2010 Soccer World Cup. He wondered if other committees dealing with ICT requirements for 2010 should not also be invited. He further suggested that it might be desirable for the Independent Communications Authority of SA (ICASA) to make a presentation on its findings on the cost of telecommunications to the Committee during the next term.

Ms D Smuts (DA) asked what exactly Mr Mohlalonga had in mind as ICASA had an established procedure for pricing, as set out in the Electronic Communications Act. She believed that the Committee should make any such requests more specific.

The Acting Chairperson replied that ICASA would be tabling a report in any event and it would make sense to ask ICASA also to report on all outstanding matters, including a pricing report-back. Members agreed with his suggestion.

The Acting Chairperson asked how many Members would be attending the People’s Parliament in Oudtshoorn, and stated that it might be possible to arrange some visits to post offices in the area. The Committee secretariat would coordinate the meetings and inform those Members attending.

The Acting Chairperson recorded the apology of Mr V Gore (ID).

Finally the Acting Chairperson advised Members that the report (as corrected) of the Portfolio Committee on the shortlist of candidates to fill vacancies in ICASA would be considered in the House that afternoon for adoption. The report did not yet include the Minister’s views and she would revert to the Committee in the following week.

Postal Services Amendment Bill [B22-2006] Briefing
Mr Norman Munzhelele (Chief Director: Policy, Department of Communications (DoC)) gave a brief background to the Postal Services Amendment Bill. The ICASA Amendment Act had already made some amendments to the Postal Services Act (No. 124 of 1998). However other amendments were needed to bring it in line with the Electronic Communications Act (ECA) and the ICASA Act.

Mr Munzhelele pointed out that the mandate of the Postal Services had broadened. It had an intensive infrastructure and aimed to deliver to all communities. A full consultative process had been carried out before drafting the Amendment Bill.

Mr Munzhelele went through the Bill, clause by clause. He pointed out that many of the amendments were technical and corrected definitions no longer applicable, or terms that no longer matched other legislation.

Clause 1 made changes to the definitions of “Director General” and “Regulator” and inserted a new definition of “ICT”. All these definitions were now in line with the definitions in the ECA and the ICASA Act. The definitions of “officer” and “postmaster” had been deleted as these job descriptions were no longer used.

Clause 2 was a purely textual amendment of the heading to Chapter II.

Clause 3 inserted a new section in the principal Act to allow for the making of Ministerial policies and policy directions. The postal sector was using increasingly advanced technology and policy directives were required. This was in line with similar provisions in the ICT sector legislation.

Clause 4 aligned the provisions of the Postal Services Act with the rest of the ICT sector legislation and reflected the increased role of the postal services in other ICT areas.

Clause 5 provided for an amendment of Section 15 of the Postal Services Act, making reference to the new section inserted by Clause 3, and brought the Act in line with the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act (ECT Act).

Clause 6 inserted the words “subject to the approval of the Minister”, which was necessary since the Minister now had responsibility to ensure the servicing of under-serviced areas.

Clauses 7, 9 and 10 contained purely textual amendments to bring the legislation in line with other legislation in the sector.

Clause 8 repealed Section 65 of the Postal Services Act, which was no longer applicable since similar provisions now appeared in Section 17 of the ICASA Act.

Discussion
Ms Smuts asked why Clause 3 made reference to the Minister making policies on “national policy applicable to the ICT sector” rather than “national policy applicable to the postal sector”.

Ms Smuts also noted that the insertion of a new subsection under Section 16 was probably not necessary since the Minister had jurisdiction to give policy directions on reserved postal services anyway.

Mr Munzhelele replied that Ms Smuts had raised a valid point and this could be debated further. However, the wording was deliberately chosen. The postal services would be the ideal infrastructure to ensure that ICT was made available to all people in South Africa.

Mr Alf Wiltz (Director, Legal Services, DoC) added that the drafters had been trying to achieve some consistency in wording with other legislation. The current wording of the Postal Services Act was very far removed from its related legislation, and the drafters were attempting to move it more in line with the ECA. Postal Services were moving away from restricted postal work to a more E-communications approach. Other services were now being emphasised so that Postal Services could develop and survive. If post offices could embrace other types of services they could be the hub of facilities such as smart cards and pension payouts. In line with this it was felt more appropriate to use a wider wording.

Ms Smuts noted that the ECT Act already made the postal services a preferred provider so that rights existed under that Act. She believed that the approach was excellent and showed great potential.

The Chairperson noted the comments and said that this wording could be debated, but either wording would suffice – there was no urgency to settle the matter now.

Ms Smuts raised a further point about her inability to obtain an answer to a query which she had taken up on behalf of the Postmaster at Robertson.

The Acting Chairperson pointed out that there were no representatives from Postal Services present at the meeting and suggested that perhaps the matter could be discussed after the meeting.

The meeting was adjourned.