Postal Services Amendment Bill: deliberations

Meeting report

COMMUNICATION PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
19 September 2001
POSTAL SERVICES AMENDMENT BILL:DELIBERATIONS

Chairperson:

Postal Services Amendment Bill[B63B-2001]

SUMMARY
The Postal Services Amendment Bill was unanimously passed with an amendment to the penalty provision of section 80 of Act 124 of 1998. The Committee raised the term for imprisonment from two years to five years. The Committee noted that the penalty is meant to act as a deterrent and that the two years term was too low to effectively achieve that purpose.

MINUTES
Ms Lesese and Mr Gideon Hoon from the State law office,Mr Ngcaba the Director General and Ms Ntombela-Nzimande deputy Director General were present at the meeting.

The Chair suggested, and members agreed that the submissions be forwarded to the members via e-mail. Mr Pieterse (ANC) moved the motion on the Bill and was seconded by Ms Mutsila (ANC) wherefore the Chair put the Bill on the floor for deliberations thereon.

Apart from paragraph 8 of the amendment, which is the penalty provision of the Bill, all the other paragraphs were endorsed without amendment.

Discussion
Ms Vos (IFP) asked why the draft bill made no provision for the monetary sum of the fine referred to in the Bill.

Mr Hoon replied that the procedure courts of Law have the schedules of the scales of fines that correspond with the term of the imprisonment. The Minister of Justice makes these schedules available to the courts.

The Chair said that the penalty provided for is supposed to act as a deterrent and therefore the fine that should be imposed must be one that can achieve that effect.

Mr Pieterse said that the Committee should make provision for the maximum penalty so that a clear message can be sent on the consequences of breaching the provision.

Ms Mutsila asked what the meaning of 'any person' in the section was.

MrHoon replied that in legal terminology 'person' referred to both juristic-that is corporate- and natural persons. It also covered a group of persons working in cohort.

The Chair pointed out that the principal Act is more elaborate on the issue. In addition to the penalty provided for, the Act says that the court should take into consideration the number of mails posted in breach of the Law.

The Chair added that the object of the principal Act, it seems, is to make the punishment proportionate to the gain obtained thereby. He suggested that the term of imprisonment be increased and not the fine.

Dr. Cwele asked why the State had previously settled for two years. What considerations were taken into account.

Ms Lesese replied that at the time of passing the principal Act, a two-year term was thought to be appropriate. Circumstances have since changed considerably and that two years may appear not to be of much deterrent effect.
The Chair said that in 1999, a law was promulgated which obligated private Postal operators to seek licensing. He asked if that law was implemented and if so are licenses required to operate these services.

Ms Ntombela-Nzimande replied that as of now no licenses have been issued in this respect. Although the legal structure is in place, the administrative machinery has not been put in place.

Mr Waters (DP) said that once Parliament promulgates the law it takes effect immediately.
Why had no licensing taken place since the relevant law had been passed two years ago?

Mr Ngcaba explained that although the law had mandated them to license Postal operations, the administrative mechanism for the implementation of this law is very crucial. It takes time to set up a new administrative structure. His office was working within the budgetary limits which dictate the pace of progress.

The Chair advised that the regulator should move first to implement the law once Parliament gives that mandate. He added that it would be futile to pass laws that end up being sterile.

Mr Magashule suggested that the term of imprisonment be adjusted upward to five years.

Members were in agreement and the Chair respectively endorsed the amendment.

The Chair then read out the report of the Committee, which passed the whole Bill with the minor amendment.

Mr Waters enquired whether there would be debate on the Bill to which the Chair explained that this should be confirmed from the House Whips. He desired that there be debate on the Bill to which the other members objected.

The Chair then put the question to vote in order to formalise the matter and with only one member for the debate and the rest against, the Chair ruled that there would be no debate on the Bill.

The meeting was adjourned.