Films and Publications Amendment Bill: hearings

Meeting report

HOME AFFAIRS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
2 May 2007
FILMS AND PUBLICATIONS AMENDMENT BILL: HEARINGS

Chairperson: Mr H Chauke (ANC)

Documents handed out:
Films and Publications Amendment Bill [B27-2006]
Films and Publications Amendment Act (2004)
Films and Publications Act (1996)
Christian Action Network submission
Southern African Catholic Bishops’ Conference submission
South African Chapter of the Media Institute of Southern Africa submission
South African National Editors’ Forum submission Part 1 & Part 2
Print Media South Africa submission
Print Media South Africa PowerPoint presentation
Southern African Federation Against Copyright Theft submission
Media Monitoring Project submission
Media Monitoring Project PowerPoint presentation
Internet Service Providers’ Association submission
Publishers’ Association of South Africa submission
Wireless Application Service Providers’ Association submission
Centre for Constitutional Rights submission
Centre for Constitutional Rights media statement
Resources Aimed at the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect submission

Audio Recording of the Meeting Part1, Part2 & Part3

SUMMARY
On the first day of the public hearings the Committee received submissions from a number of stakeholders most of which represented the print media. While all agreed that child pornography should be combated, stakeholders from the media sector all feared that the proposed repeal of the media exemption would have a negative impact on press freedom and the ability to deliver news while it was still newsworthy. Comments were also received from two religious organisations, both of whom supported the proposed legislation - the Christian Action Network called for a total ban on pornography, while the Southern African Catholic Bishops’ Conference felt that the media’s fears of censorship were exaggerated. The Centre for Constitutional Rights argued that the Bill was unconstitutional, while the Resources Aimed at the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect submission supported the Bill and made recommendations that would further strengthen it in its objective to protect children. Wireless Application Service Providers’ Association and the Internet Service Providers’ Association assured the Committee that they had done everything they could to ensure that age-inappropriate material was not distributed to children via the Internet or cellphones.

The Committee made it clear that although it was mindful of the right to express oneself freely, its main objective was to protect children from child pornography and exposure to pornography in general. Questions were raised around the Film and Publication Board’s ability to implement the proposed legislation and the concern about the removal of the media exemption and that the new Section 16 on classification of publications would “open the floodgates” to complaints against the media. The consultation process was also discussed so as to assure stakeholders that their claims that there had not been sufficient consultation were unfounded. Many of the matters raised during the hearing would be discussed with the Department during the Committee’s deliberations.

MINUTES
Chairperson’s opening remarks
The Chairperson reminded all present that the hearings on the Films and Publications Amendment Bill had already commenced towards the end of 2006 when countrywide hearings on the bill had run concurrently with the hearings on the Civil Union legislation. Those who had not had a chance to make submissions during those hearings would over the following two days have the opportunity to have their views heard.

Aware that there had been some interaction between the Executive and some stakeholders such as South African National Editors’ Forum (SANEF), the Chairperson pointed out that the Bill was now before Parliament and the engagement between Government, SANEF and other stakeholders was “beyond the Committee’s line of operation”. Describing the legislative process he said that this processes governing a piece of legislation’s passage through Parliament were adequately outlined in the Constitution. The hearings gave the public and other stakeholders the opportunity to raise critical concerns for the Committee to consider in its deliberations.

The Chairperson said that he was aware that some of the presenters felt that the legislation posed a threat to freedom of speech and therefore were confident that Parliament would not be able to pass the legislation. He assured all present that the Committee, guided by the Constitution, would do “exactly what it was supposed to do in making sure that freedom of expression [and] of the press” was recognized and defended. He reminded everyone the liberties that everyone was concerned about had been hard won. Most of the members of the Committee had fought for them and all members of Parliament would defend them at all times.

Having said that he added that one also ad to consider the rights and protection of children and no one should lose sight of this aspect. Parliament would try to understand the challenges the Bill aimed to address and would try to find solutions together with stakeholders. He had hoped that the Committee would be able to show some of the input that had been received during the national hearings, but due to technical difficulties that was not possible. He thought that such an exercise would be useful considering that many of the stakeholders presenting that day did not interact with the public in the same fashion the Committee and Parliament did. While some stakeholders sat in their offices, Parliament engaged with the public at large and understood the frustrations the public had to deal with and aimed to address them.

Concluding his opening remarks he said that the interactions of the coming two days would be robust and everyone should feel free to raise anything they wanted to raise so that they would not again accuse the Government of bringing back censorship similar to that that had been practiced during Apartheid. He reiterated that the freedoms being defended that day were freedoms that were hard won and freedoms for which everyone that had fought for them were willing to die for.

Christian Action Network submission
The National Coordinator of the Christian Action Network (CAN), Ms Taryn Hodgson, made the submission that was in support of the proposed legislation. While making scant mention of the other objectives of the Bill, the central theme of the submission was that pornography should be banned in its entirety.

Discussion
Mr M Swart (DA) wondered what CAN’s opinion was of the fact that pornography could now also be accessed via cell phones.

Ms Hodgson pointed out that the sharing of pornography via cell phones at schools had been very well documented and felt that one was left with no choice but to simply ban this way of distributing pornography.

Mr S Swart (ACDP) appreciated the concerns raised by the presenter but pointed out that one of pornography with the constitutionally provided freedom of expression. He added that one had to ensure that what was provided for in the tables and schedules of the current legislation would be provided for in the new legislation too.

Mr Swart (ACDP) noted that much of CAN’s submission focused on pornography. The proposed legislation did however also deal with sexual conduct, propaganda for war, incitement to imminent violence, and the advocacy of hate speech about which the submission was silent. He also pointed out that the provisions related to hate speech were also much broader than those the Constitution provided.

Ms Hodgson said that the broadness of the provisions was what made broad interpretation and thus exploitation likely.

Mr F Beukman (ANC) asked whether CAN was satisfied with the legislation. He pointed out that those who were unhappy with the legislation might be able to go to court to have their concerns addressed.

Ms Hodgson affirmed that CAN would “not stop fighting” until pornography was re-criminalised. CAN had made many submissions to the FPB as well as the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) but their concerns were typically ignored. Rulings were always in favour of the advertisers or the broadcasters. CAN was thus appearing before Parliament that day because other channels were usually largely ineffective.

Responding to the Chairperson’s interest in the kind of work CAN did, Ms Hodgson explained that that the organisation was made of a number churches and missionaries across Southern Africa and they presented Christian views in a range of issues. They believed that they could change South Africa through Christian and pro-moral actions.

Mr Beukman asked whether CAN could supply the Committee with the details of any complaints they had made to the Press Ombud or other similar bodies.

Ms Hodgson responded that the ASA always ruled in favour of the advertisers or the broadcasters. She felt that the ruling that the ‘Emmanuelle’ adult films were only moved to a later timeslot but had not been removed was a good example of such rulings. She wondered how such a programme could have been broadcasted at all.

The Chairperson wondered whether CAN had at any point taken the initiative to meet with E-TV to engage on the matter.

Ms Hodgson said that the Emmanuelle matter had been addressed one or two years earlier. She had heard that other Church groups, had spoken with the programme manager at the station. She was not sure whether CAN had had any interactions with the E TV.

Mr Chauke said that he had asked the question because there were organisations that only engaged on matters when they had to come to Parliament but did not bother to interact with the stakeholders.

Ms Hodgson responded that CAN published a quarterly magazine and was dedicated to grassroots action.

South African Chapter of the Media Institute of Southern Africa submission
Mr Raymond Louw who was a member of the Council of the South African Chapter of the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA-SA) presented the submission, which raised a number of concerns including that there had not been a sufficient consultation process and dissatisfaction with the removal of the media exemption. In MISA-SA’s opinion the legislation would not pass constitutional muster.

Discussion
The Chairperson wondered whether MISA-SA suggested that the Bill should be withdrawn so that further consultation could take place. He wondered whether the organisation understood what stage the legislative process was at the moment and was not sure how a withdrawal of the Bill would assist matters.

Mr Louw reminded members that the Civil Union legislation had been withdrawn for further consultation. MISA-SA was proposing a similar process so that there could be adequate consultation with all relevant stakeholders. He did not think that the FPB or the DHA realised the printing industry and the public interest would be “severely damaged” by the legislation. While MISA-SA was in full agreement with the campaign against child pornography, it felt that the Bill would have a much larger than just on the child pornography rings and would have far greater implications for the media too.

The Chairperson said that although MISA-SA claimed to sympathise with the battle against child pornography, they did not demonstrate their commitment to the cause. He explained that the Civil Union legislation had not been withdrawn due to lack of adequate consultation. It appeared as though the presenter did not have confidence in the Committee’s ability to take the issues their submission raised into account.

Mr Louw affirmed that MISA-SA was confident that the Committee would take note of all the written submissions that were made by the industry and other interested parties. He felt that although the process was at such an advanced stage already, to tackle the problem properly a different approach would be required. He was aware that MISA-SA would
have to accept if the necessary changes could not be made but had thought that Committee could decide on the best course of action before the Bill went before Parliament.

Kgoshi Morwamoche (ANC) asked whether MISA-SA felt that because of freedom of speech child pornography should be allowed. He also wondered why MISA-SA was concerned that Clause 16 (1) of the Bill would “open the floodgates” to complaints against the media, while arguing that the media was acting responsibly. The submission also stated that no charges related to the listed offences had been brought against the media since 1994, and that neither the Press Ombudsman nor the Press Councils that existed before the FPB had been established, had received any complaints against the print media as far as child pornography or child abuse was concerned. He felt that many people were aware of these offences but did not report them to the appropriate authorities.

Mr Beukman sought clarity on what MISA-SA meant when he said that there had not been adequate consultation with the DHA. He wondered whether such concerns were not based on a Westminster understanding of Parliament. In the past there might have been one-on-one meetings wit the Executive, which resulted in a bill being tabled. Parliament was not a mere rubberstamp. He was of the opinion that the consultation process started at the portfolio committee level.

Mr Louw said that there had been consultation. The Bill was published in the Government Gazette in September 2006 but the industry had not been informed of its publication. MISA-SA had had three meetings with the DHA. They had made a submission but the DHA never gave them any feedback. He felt that the level f interaction that had taken place did not by any means represent adequate consultation.

The Chairperson asked if MISA-SA had ever made submissions during the drafting of a bill.

Mr Louw replied that while MISA-SA had on occasion made submissions on other issues of public interest they had no experience of consulting with a department during the drafting of a bill. The Films and Publications Amendment Bill however affected them directly and went directly to constitutional issues. It was also a matter of public interest.

The Chairperson pointed out that in addition to the issues the Bill aimed to address, it also empowered the FPB and the Classification Committee. He said that the Committee was concerned about press freedom too.

Mr Louw said that MISA-SA was concerned with the protection of freedom of expression, which for them was a fundamental issue. Press freedom was also the freedom of expression of every individual in the country. Therefore it was the freedom of the people that was at stake; press freedom was just the tip of the iceberg.

The Chairperson pointed out that freedom of expression was a freedom that many people had fought for and which they would defend. He added that the proposed legislation was now before Parliament and would not be sent back to the Department. There was documentation that proved that consultation with the public had taken place and that issues related to child pornography had been a central concern. The Committee would have to get clarity from the Department as far as who they had consulted at their level.

Mr Swart (ACDP) wondered whether the presenter was of the view that the Bill in its present form would fail to pass constitutional muster.

Mr Louw responded said that MISA-SA’s concern was that the Bill did indeed contravene the provisions of the Constitution and would thus end up at the Constitutional Court. That would be regrettable considering the Bill had such sound purpose i.e. combating child pornography.

Mr Swart (ACDP) asked whether the presenter could elaborate on the practical difficulties journalists had with Section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act (1977).

Mr Louw said that MISA-SA had been battling for a long time to get the authorities to accept that if they were to uphold Section 16 of the Constitution, which dealt with freedom of expression and the media clause, journalists had to be protected as far as the usage of Section 205. If this was not done the journalists could be labelled as potential police informers. Journalist in some European countries and many states in America enjoyed such protection.

MISA-SA felt that in most cases journalists had a just reason for not disclosing and that only as a last report should they be expected to reveal their sources. There was a memorandum of understanding between the Ministry of Safety and Security as to how the matter could be dealt with.

Mr Swart (DA) pointed out that the Committee shared concerns around press freedom. The submission indicated that MISA-SA had concerns about child pornography and that they were against. They also argued for no control other than self-regulation, which they claimed they said had worked well in the past. He wondered why, if self-regulation had been such a success, pornography still appeared in papers and asked the presenter to elaborate on the situation should be deal with if not through the proposed legislation.

Mr Louw responded that while pictures of nude or semi-nude women appeared, he was not aware of any child pornography appearing in South African papers. He said that of people wanted to lodge complaints they could make use of the available channels such as the Press Ombud or the Broadcasting Complaints Commission (BCC).

MISA-SA dealt with complaints everyday. No direct complaints about pornographic material in newspapers had so far been made to the Press Ombud. This was why they found it difficult to understand why the legislation aimed to remove the press exemption. There were nude statues across Europe and no one regarded those as pornographic. As far as MISA-SA was concerned, self-regulation was successful. He said that over 5 years only 28 officials from various government departments had laid complaints against the various newspapers. Some of these were dismissed while others were successful.

Mr Swart (ACDP) asked the presenter to elaborate on MISA-SA’s concerns around Section 24B (2) which required one to, when reporting any knowledge of an offence (as defined in the Bill), all information related to that offence.

Mr Louw responded that MISA-SA’s lawyers were of the opinion that this section was unconstitutional. It reverses the requirement for a person to proven guilty. The provision was similar to the provision contained in the anti-terrorism legislation, which required any person with suspicions of unlawful activity to inform the police. He pointed out that there was a big difference between knowing of unlawful activity and merely suspecting unlawful activity. The provision stood in conflict with the Constitution.

Southern African National Editors’ Forum submission
The SANEF delegation was led by its Chairperson Ms Ferial Haffajee and included Mr Mathatha Tsedu, from the African Editor’s Forum, Ms Gaye Davies from Primedia Broadcasting and Mr Mphumelelo Mkhabela of the Press Gallery Association (PGA). While SANEF supported the endeavour to protect children from exposure to child pornography, they were concerned that some of the provisions of the Bill “unjustifiably” infringed the constitutional right to freedom of expression. They feared that these provisions would amongst others encourage self-censorship and interfere with editorial independence.

Discussion
The Chairperson thought it interesting that the submission made no mention of the profits media bosses made. Ms Haffajee quipped that their “owners” were there to talk to that.

The Chairperson wondered what the presenters thought of the increased pornographic material that was published in tabloids such as the Daily Voice. He wondered whether they could inform the Committee of what other African countries did to address the matter.

Mr Tsedu responded that tabloid journalism was a phenomenon that illustrated the dynamism of the industry. He urged the Committee to have faith in the industry’s ability to regulate itself. The representatives from the Daily Voice would take the Committee through the measures they had put in place to deal with matters related to their internal controls.

He could think of no other country on the continent where such issues had been manifested. It was important that in each country the ability to regulate itself was strengthened. He emphasised that in cases of child pornography the law should take its course. There were parents among journalists too, and as all parents they were also concerned about their children’s exposure to pornography via cell phones, televisions, etc.

Ms Haffajee added that there had been discussion between ‘old media’ and the tabloid newspapers and there was a system of peer review whereby they tried to hold each other to account. She added that though there were many problems related to the increased number of tabloids one could not deny that they had increased the reading population.

Kgoshi Morwamoche concurred with Mt Tsedu’s sentiments that those who exploited children through child pornography should be criminally charged. He wondered what SANEF was doing to address the challenges the Daily Voice and other similar publications presented.

Mr Beukman wondered whether for SANEF self-regulation was the ideal.

Ms Haffajee felt that self-regulation would be sufficient provided the public had greater information regarding authorities such as the Press Ombud so that they could lodge complaints when they thought necessary.

Mr Swart (ADCP) wondered whether SANEF thought the legislation would meet constitutional muster. He asked whether, since the main problem related to the exploitation of children through child pornography, only child pornography should be provided for in the legislation. He wondered how one could legislate matters related to child pornography without infringing upon the rights of the media.

Ms M Maunye (ANC) acknowledged that freedom of expression was a constitutional right. The Bill of Rights however also stated that children had the right to family care etc and that they had the right to be protected from maltreatment and abuse. She said that with so many children being abused in South Africa it was vital to bear in mind that the Constitution protected both.

Adv Janet Mackenzie, legal adviser to Print Media South Africa explained that Section 16 of the Constitution protected certain forms of speech. Section 16 (2) provided that certain types of speech were not constitutionally protected and were thus subject to harsher text. According to Section 36 all rights were subject to limitations.

According to Section 16(2) of the Bill one had to notify the classification committee if one were to deal in any way with sexual conduct, propaganda for war, incitement to imminent violence, or the advocacy of hate speech. She pointed out that sexual conduct was not among the types of expression protected under the Constitution and reminded Members that it was important to always consider the context in which something would be published. She also advised that members might consider taking a closer look at Section 36 of the Constitution, which dealt with the limitation of rights.

She continued explaining that the provision relating to the advocacy of hate speech was far wider than that provided for in the Constitution and could thus be in violation of Section 16(1) of the Constitution.

She added that both the rights of children and freedom of expression were provided for in the Constitution according to which all rights were equal. The legislation aimed at combating child pornography would also “bleed into other areas”.

The Chairperson thought it necessary at that point to give Ms Shokie Bopape-Dlomo, CEO of the FPB, an opportunity to comment on what had so far been raised.

Ms Bopape-Dlomo responded that Ms MacKenzie had captured the essence of the Bill. She referred all present to Section 28(2) of the Constitution, which said that a child’s best interests were of paramount importance in every matter concerning it. She felt however that perhaps the Committee over emphasised the protection of children when the proposed legislation was about more than that.

It also aimed to improve the governance of the FPB. Some issues were not adequately addressed in the current legislation and thus caused governance related challenges. The legislation was aimed at protecting not only children but also others in the society. The DHA had tried to reach a balance between the rights of the media when it came to freedom of expression, as well as those of children. Similarly it was important to address propaganda for war and sexual conduct. The FPB had thought it important to talk of the principles of sexual conduct and were “naïve enough” to think that other issues such as regulations could be negotiated. She added that the FPB always consulted on the regulations. She assured all present that the FPB always judged matters within context. This had been the case under the old legislation too and she was surprised that there was now a fear that the FPB would do so under the new legislation.

Adv Deon Erasmus (Acting Assistant Director: DHA legal services) said that the DHA had a list of the 37 stakeholders who had received the Bill.

The Chairperson wondered whether SANEF had a forum where they could discuss issues with Government and enquired after the relationship between the two.

Ms Haffajee reported that the relationship was “cordial and good spirited”. That relationship resulted largely from the Sun City Indaba – SANEF and the Cabinet spent a week-end together to discuss issues of importance. They had subsequently tried to organize another such weekend but scheduling it proved to be difficult. She added that because the relationship had on the whole been good, the proposed legislation was “an aberration”.

The Chairperson was surprised that a relationship that was good had suddenly gone bad.

Ms Haffajee said that precisely because they had such a good relationship with Government, the media had thought that it would have been consulted on legislation which would have such a huge impact on their work.

The Chairperson asked whether SANEF believed that the process had been democratic.

Mr Tsedu responded that SANEF had no doubt that the Committee had the right to deliberate on the submissions they had received. Part of the discussion that had taken place and that had led to his and the Chairperson’s interaction on Khaya FM late last year, transpired from the fact that the media had wondered why the cordial relationship had degenerated to the point where they were “trading insults across airwaves and in news bulletins” when in fact they had a structured way of engaging with each other. The Sun City Indaba had led to “The Way Forward” which detailed the engagement processes between SANEF and the Government. He said that he found it interesting that on a bill that would impact so profoundly on newspapers, “the industry that produces the thing that was being regulated was expressly excluded”.

The Chairperson thanked SANEF for a detailed submission that raised a number of issues that the Committee would take into account. He reassured them that the Government was committed to press freedom of the press and freedom of expression. He did not believe that Government at any point would resort to the censorship the media feared. That was not the intention. SANEF could continue engaging with the Government on other issues, but should also bear in mind that the Bill was now before Parliament and that the Committee would take their suggestions into account when it deliberations.

Kgoshi Morwamoche wondered whether the Committee could have a copy of the “The Way Forward”.

Ms Haffajee explained that there was no document but that it merely referred to a meeting in which the issues raised had been discussed.

The Chairperson said that the Committee would still engage with the DHA as well as the Minister and would raise some of the issues that had been raised during the hearings. He emphasised that the democratically elected Government of South Africa should never ever be compared with the Apartheid regime. Many people had fought and died for the freedoms they were now trying to protect and the presenters should have confidence that Parliament would protect those rights.

Print Media South Africa & Magazine Publishers’ Association of South Africa submission
The submission, which was made by Mr Trevor Ncube, Mail and Guardian CEO and President of Print Media South Africa (PMSA), was a joint effort by the PMSA and the Magazine Publishers’ Association of South Africa. The PMSA felt that the consultation process had been inadequate especially since the media on whom the legislation would have a major impact should it be approved, had not been consulted. The submission argued strongly for the media exemption to be removed and that the media should regulate itself.

Discussion
Mr Ncube commented that he was a father too and that the issues that were being discussed were very close to his heart. He reiterated that to Parliament was the most important forum and they were confident that their submission would receive a fair hearing that the outcome would be to there satisfaction.

The Chairperson said that while the Committee accepted the apology that the Daily Voice had provided for their repeated depiction of children in sexually suggestive pictures. Members were interested in how the publication would desist from printing such images in future. The submission made much mention of self-regulation, which would be used as a self monitoring mechanism. He wondered whether self-regulation was as successful as reported, considering that similar matters arose time and time again. He urged everyone to bear in mind the amount of damage that was done to children who were exploited in that manner. He wondered what tabloids were guided by. It was clear that they covered stories not covered by “normal” newspapers. Their target market was the poorest of the poor and the Committee felt that because of the damage these papers did to already vulnerable communities, it should focus its attention there.

He said that the tabloid–concept was imported from elsewhere and wondered whether the countries of origin had had to deal with the same problems and, if that was the case, how they had overcome them. On a recent visit to the United Kingdom (UK) he had seen that tabloids were sealed and some were strictly for adults.

South Africa as a young democracy that needed to give its citizens information that was accurate and informative. He acknowledged that there was a desire to introduce new concepts but urged that the issues associated to them should be addressed. He did not know of any other countries within the Southern African Development Community (SADC) that allowed newspapers to publish pornographic pictures and wondered what kind of example South Africa set. Parliament had a responsibility to protect vulnerable members of society, not only children. Just over ten years into the democracy there were very indications of abnormal activity in society –these had to be addressed and vulnerable members of society had to be protected.

He was not insensitive to the fact that newspapers had to make profit but urged them to strike a balance and to do so in a socially responsible manner. The idea of moral regeneration emerged from the realisation that South Africa was sliding backwards. When he was young pornographic magazines was considered “top secret”. Today that was no longer the case. Hustler magazine published two editions – a general one that featured what would be considered “soft” pornography, while the other edition, specifically published for the South African market, featured more explicit photographs. He was sure that newspapers had to be aware of the current social situation and that newspapers were very influential. Parliament’s task was not to curtail the media’s activities, but rather to address social concerns. This roe related not only to pornography but also to violent material. South Africa had a “very very horrible past where violence was considered normal”. Solutions that would benefit all South Africans had to be found.

Mr Nazeem Howa (Independent Newspapers Chief Operating Officer) said that the Daily Voice did not want to be compared to child pornographers or abusers. Tabloids were new to South Africa and would, as they did in the UK, undergo a period of development. The UK tabloids of twenty to thirty years ago were “as wild as our own” were today, but they had now become respectable newspapers. He was concerned that the proposed legislation would “throw the baby out with the bathwater”.

He pointed out that between the Daily Voice, the Daily Sun and the Cape Son a total of 6 to 8 million new, previously marginalised readers to the market. The key issue facing the Daily Voice was the development of a code of conduct that made sure that they did not break the law and that their ethics were in place and that they understood their target market. They accepted that they would make mistakes along the way. The code of conduct would be an important tool in regularising the activities of the newspaper.

He said that the Independent Newspapers group felt that if tabloids by their very nature “pushed the envelope” the group had to make very sure that their journalists were better skilled than any other journalists so that they could understand what they were doing as well as the impact of their work. Training would thus play an important role.

The Daily Voice had now put in place a code of conduct to address the manner in which children were being treated within the publication as well as how children who were exposed to it would be impacted upon. They developed this code of conduct in conjunction with some of their other colleagues at other organizations.

They would like to argue that the beefed up self regulations of the Press Council would be a good way of measuring activity on an on-going basis. There were also several other remedies. Newspaper men and women had to abide by the laws of the country because they were corporate citizens too.

He stated categorically that while they wanted to make profits they were not about profits over everything else. They would not purvey pornography, abuse children or in any other way go against the law of the land just to make money but approached the matter as good corporate citizens.

Mr Ncube said that he could see that there was a bit of scepticism around the suggestions they had made. The PMSA thought that the biggest solution would be self-regulation. They knew that as an institute they had an obligation to themselves and the public. They survived on the trust the public had in them and did not want to erode that. He assured the Committee that their concerns were shared by the industry. Tabloids were about four years old in the country and they were battling to cope with the challenges this new publication provided. They took self regulation seriously and had such measures in place even before the proposed legislation. They had put measures in place that would make self-regulation work because that was in their own best interest.

He added that magazines were never exempt from the provision that were now being introduced for newspapers too. The Daily Voice was a good example of what could be achieved with sound internal processes. It was a good example of their commitment to a strong code of ethics and responsible publishing and journalism.

Mr Tony Howard (Independent Newspapers: CEO) thought it important to indicate that the industry had proved itself overtime. Many of the newspapers in South Africa were over 160 years old. The industry was very proud of the fact that it had over that period basically looked after itself and regulated itself. The tabloids were the youngest of the publications and had a different approach to editorial. They had started the process of trying to understand these new publications and their readership. The publications should then speedily be brought under a system of self-regulation and control similar to the ones that had made it possible for the other newspapers to grow and develop.

Mr Francois Groepe (CEO Newspapers and Digital, Media24) added that Media24 had its own in-house ombudsperson. All their newspapers including the tabloids Son and Daily Sun had their own codes of conduct that were on a par with those of their broadsheets. The organisation tried to adhere to these codes of conduct.

He had always believed that sustainable profitability was of major importance. One could not manage a business in a sustainable manner if one treated readers or the public with disrespect. Media24 were not prepared to compromise their integrity for short-term profit.

He drew the Committee’s attention to the fact that currently the Internet was not being regulated to the same extent that was envisaged in the legislation. The Internet was a pervasive, and boundariless medium. The legislation would create certain inequalities because the Internet, as a news medium, would increasingly be competing with other news media.

Kgoshi Morwamoche noted that the submission indicated that Clause 20 removed the right to appeal to the High Court. Section 21 of the principal legislation said that the minister or any person who had lost a complaint to the board or publication could refer it to a classification committee for a decision. He said that Section 21 had to be removed because the Minister could not appeal to his board. Upon having exhausted all other avenues a person could still go to the court.

Adv MacKenzie said that their difficulty with the removal of the right to appeal to the High Court specifically, was that the new provision was in violation of the constitutional right to access the court. Although there was an internal review procedure it did not allow for the independent right to have the decision determined by the judiciary itself. This in itself was problematic in terms of the requirements of administrative justice as set out in the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (2000), which gave effect to the constitutional provision of administrative justice and access to the court.

Mr Swart (ACDP) said that as far as he understood one would still, in terms of the provisions of the Administrative Justice Act, have the right to a court appeal.

Adv MacKenzie said that the right of appeal, which was provided for in the legislation, was slightly different from the right to review which was extremely limited.

The Chairperson said that the point would be noted and would be dealt with when the Committee met with the Department.

Kgoshi Morwamoche asked the DHA to clarify the different categories that would be present during classification. Kgoshi Morwamoche wondered what suggestions the presenters could make as far as dealing with child pornography.

Mr Ncube said that they could not offer suggestions for how classification should be done because they did not believe that classification was the solution. They believed in self regulation.

Ms Bopape-Dlomo commented that that the proposed legislation would undoubtedly have financial and human resource implications and would impact on the board’s capacity. The FPB would be going through the necessary processes with National Treasury to acquire funds for its implementation.

Mr Swart (ACDP) said that the Committee was concerned about the fact that the financial implications of the legislation had not been costed.

The Chairperson said that that point would be noted so that it could be discussed with the department in the Committee’s deliberations with them. That day’s proceedings were for listening to the public.

Kgoshi Morwamoche asked the DHA to clarify what their consultation process had been.

The Chairperson added that two organisations had so far raised concerns about the consultative process. He realised that some of the organisations had met informally and the Committee would like to have access to the minuets of those meetings so that they could see whether these interactions had been meaningful.

Ms Bopape-Dlomo admitted that there was no intention to disregard the proper procedures but that the failure to consult with the media industry had simply been an oversight brought on by the fact that they were rushing to meet the deadline. The FPB was not used to regulating for newspapers and thus did not have them stored on their system. That was why they had agreed that the newspapers could make their submissions after the deadline. She admitted that it was a serious oversight.

Adv Erasmus said that one of the procedures Government followed when preparing legislation was to publish it in the Government Gazette for public comment. Departments assumed that that publication brought the legislation to the attention of the public. He did not think that departments could be expected to contact each and every individual. In some instances there were lists of relevant stakeholders. Consultation was not done on a one-on-one basis. In addition to the public hearings the Department also received written comments, which they read and considered when they did their deliberations.

The Chairperson said that he thought it important to clarify the process. He added that the Committee Section also advertised and invited stakeholders to make comments.

Mr Ncube said that he thought it important to put on record that the FPB had indicated that they had made an oversight in not consulting with the newspaper industry. No effort had been made to do so. The PMSA had made an effort to meet with the Government when they learned that the legislation was in the pipeline but their request to meet had not met with a positive response. He said that the media would not be “making so much noise” if they had been consulted.

The Chairperson said that “that noise was finished now”. The public would now be informed that the Bill was before Parliament, that stakeholders and interested parties had submitted their concerns to Parliament and that the matter was now in Parliament’s hands. He did not want the Department to return to the consultation process. It was Parliament’s responsibility to engage with stakeholders rather than the latter “going to the constitutional court, investing millions there and still losing the case”. It was better to engage with Parliament now.

The Chairperson asked that presenters should forward copies of their codes of conduct to the Committee so that Members could understand their operation better and so that they could be certain that if the legislation was approved it was because organisations could definitely not provide for the Committee’s concerns through self regulation only. He thought it important to know what guided organisations in developing their codes of conduct especially in relation to matters that affected society. The Committee accepted the Daily Voice’s apology but would “keep watching them”. They wanted to see that what they sold to the public was improved. He reminded them that South Africa was not the UK; South Africans were different people who were very, very proud and certain things that were acceptable in the UK could not be copied here. He emphasised that the Committee was not trying to censor anyone but if there were things that they did not like they would raise those matters and would deal with them together.

Southern African Federation Against Copyright Theft submission
The CEO of the Southern African Federation Against Copyright Theft (SAFACT), Mr James Lennox made the submission. The submission, which amongst others supported a consistent application of a system of classification system of film and interactive games to enable informed choices by parents and consumers, focussed on the amendments to sections 15,18 and 30 of the Act. SAFACT questioned the FPB’s capacity to implement the legislation and was concerned that provisions dealing with the Internet were added almost as an afterthought. The submission argued that protecting children from abuse and exploitation would be better achieved through specific legislation with significant specialised prevention, protection, enforcement and prosecution resources.

Discussion
Mr Beukman thought the submission very helpful and found some of the proposals “quite good”. He thought that the Committee should find out whether the South Africa Revenue Service (SARS) and other relevant government departments would be willing to go along with some of the proposals.

Kgoshi Morwamoche Section 15(A) (1) asked how the powers of a compliance officer could be compared with those of a police officer.

Mr Lennox explained that the police, in the conduct of their duties, were regulated by the Criminal Procedures Act (1977). The correct way of enforcing legislation was laid down by the law. SAFACT felt that a member of staff of a state agency whose background they knew nothing about could not be given the right of entry on premises which may or may not include private residences. A police officer, in the course of his work, could not do that without the prior issue of a search and seizure warrant.

SAFACT did not want people to get away with a crime because they were unconstitutionally searched. He knew for a fact that there were a number of occasions and increasing resentments for going onto premises with the view of protecting someone rights with no consideration for the rights of the person whose premises they were entering. They did not want a situation where these cases were thrown out of court on technicalities. That would devalue and minimalise the credibility of the legislation. Clause 2 provided that they could call on the assistance of a police officer.

The Chairperson said that point would be noted. When the immigration legislation was passed similar issues were raised. Police officers could not simply assume immigration officers’ powers but had to apply for the. The same could be done for compliance officers. It would be discussed with the department.

Mr Swart (DA) asked whether a person who produced an ‘illegal’ film could somehow acquire the FPB logo and distribute the material.

Mr Lennox confirmed that that was what was happening. This jeopardised the classification system because consumers could no longer have faith in what the logo stood for. That was why it was necessary for the logo to be made a prohibited mark. The matter has not been addressed in the way it should be.

The Chairperson said that the matter too would be noted.

Ms Bopape-Dlomo said that they had worked with SAFACT on some of the issues. The FPB logo had already been registered as a trademark. For them to be able to fully implement the legislation they would have to have a central point. Some industry players felt that the FPB was a classification authority and that they should not interfere with other issues such as copyright. Copyright authorisation and distribution rights were areas that were very difficult to deal with. Some felt that they were being discriminated against because they required protection too but was not big enough and did not want to be part of SAFACT. The big question distributors and the FPB were asking was how the FPB would make sure that whatever was presented to them was authentic. They did not have the expertise or knowledge to determine whether documents were authentic. Parallel imports also remained a problem and the Department of Trade and Industry had still not made their position clear. People could thus still bring illegal DVDs into the country for distribution. There had not been much progress as far as dealing with these difficulties.

Media Monitoring Project submission
The director of the Media Monitoring Project (MMP), Mr William Bird made the submission, which detailed why the organisation objected to the proposed legislation. The MMP felt that the amendments to the “mandate and obligations of the FPB were unnecessary, far too restrictive and unconstitutional”. Like stakeholders in the media sector they felt that the Bill largely ignored constitutional aspects as well as the role of the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA).

Discussion
The Chairperson thanked the MMP for a submission that identified some of the gaps that needed to be addressed. He wondered where the presenter stood on issues of pornography. They had first interacted with the organisation inn 1996 around these issues. He commented that women were the ones who were being exploited by the porn industry.

Mr Bird responded that the presence of a “page 3 girl” in the Daily Voice was not so much an issue of audience desire or market intelligence but was related to advertising. From a human rights position child pornography should be opposed in the strongest terms and everything should be done to outlaw it. Young people should not be encouraged or be exposed to pornography. One should however not lose touch with what the reality was. At the moment the Bill was phrased around the term “sexual conduct” as though sexual conduct was inherently bad. “Sex between consenting adults could be a lovely thing” and if consenting adults wanted to film themselves, or watch erotic movies that should be allowed as it was a private affair. He suggested that one paid careful attention to the definitions of pornography, child pornography and erotica.

He added that tabloids were relatively new phenomena. At the moment there was a much talk of embracing tabloids mostly from “the significant media bosses - the Independents and the Media 24s particularly”. Very little emphasis was placed on the kind of role they should be fulfilling given that they were reaching new audiences. The Daily Sun reached 3.8 million people daily and could thus serve to inform and educate. He hoped that this particular process would make tabloid journalists aware of what they could and should cover. He thought that tabloids provided for media diversity. If people wanted to read invented stories and bizarre events that was their choice and it should be encouraged. Just as one expected certain publications such as the Mail and Guardian or The Argus to adhere to certain standards, the same should be expected of tabloids. If they did that the legislation would not have to apply to them in much the same way that it should not apply to any of the other newspapers.

The Chairperson recalled in that in 1996 concerns were raised about why DHA was handling the legislation when in fact it should be handled by the Department of Communications (DOC). This matter would also need to be clarified.

The Chairperson felt that it appeared as though more and more newspapers were moving in the direction of the tabloid.

Mr Bird agreed and commented that some of the print media had become more tabloid-like in style i.e. more dramatic in the way they reported. He felt that this issue should be raised on the reader-level though and felt that neither Government nor Parliament could get involved in these matters.

Ms Bopape-Dlomo said more than 80% of the FPB’s target group were children. Considering that they had very little resources, the FPB had no choice but to use it to empower children as far as what child pornography was and how to use the Internet safely. They had initially targeted children in urban areas because they had greater access to internet and cell phones etc. The research however showed that more and more cell phones could access the Internet and now he FPB was targeting rural areas too.

Mr Bird said that he had seen some of the publications and felt that they were very useful in that they offered definitions that were easily accessible. He did however feel that children should be given broader skills such as media literacy and that the Department of Education (DOE) too had to come on board.

The Chairperson said that the media e.g. The Star newspaper also advertised numbers that gave access to pornography via cellphones. This practice would perhaps have to be banned altogether.

Mr Bird responded that all citizens had to be empowered so that they knew that they could write to complain about these practices as most newspapers would welcome such comments.

Internet Service Providers’ Association submission
Mr Michael Silber, the Internet Service Providers’ Association (ISPA ) Regulatory Officer, accompanied by Mr Dominic Cole made the submission. The submission raised concerns about some of the definitions used in the bill and made specific comments related to Clause 24C. One of the ISPA’s recommendations was that the obligations in the proposed Section 24C not be imposed on Internet access providers or service providers but rather on the operator of the child orientated service.

Discussion
Kgoshi Morwamoche wondered whether the DHA had received any input from ISPA.

Mr Silber responded that ISPA had made a formal submission when they were given the opportunity prior to the publication of the Bill. They also responded to the draft bill before it was tabled before Parliament.

Kgoshi Morwamoche sought clarity on what the difference between a child-orientated service provider (SP) and an Internet Service Provider (ISP) was.

Mr Silber explained that one of the difficulties in trying to define an ISP was that “they came in very different flavours”. One of the key definitions was that they were people who facilitated access to the Internet. The Internet covered every continent and was owned by no one. It allowed you to transit sections of your own network onto other networks. The issue was that most ISPs were network providers and their key business was to build and put down networks. They very seldom provided additional services on top of that and they facilitated content companies coming into the Internet. Generally the people who published content on the Internet did not provide networks and applications. The ISP facilitated the service to the network, but did not necessarily know what the content was. If their clients were making a profit from the service of the content then maybe there would be an argument for them having to notify the classification committee. This was not the case.

The operator of the child-orientated service would generally be someone who had branded the service in some way and has taken it to the public. It used a separate service provider for assistance.
The Chairperson said that they would have to interact with the submission.

Mr Beukman doubted whether it was possible to apply the same standards that one applied to more traditional media to the new media too.

Publishers’ Association of South Africa submission
Ms Mpho Mathhews (Member of the Copyright Commission) and Mr Nicol Faasen (Chairperson of the Copyright Commission) made the submission on behalf of the Publishers’ Association of South Africa (PASA). PASA argued that certain publications should be exempt from the operations of the Films and Publications Act, that matters related to child pornography abd sexual abuse be made part of an overall strategy for child protection, that the objectives of the Act should remain focussed on classification and that constitutional provisions be upheld.

Discussion
Kgoshi Morwamoche wondered what the presenters, who advocated for self-regulation, thought the Government should do when newspaper publishers kept publishing pornographic material when they knew that the law did not allow it. He also wondered how they suggested the Department provide for the protection of children from exploitation and child pornography.

Mr Faasen responded that there were legal ways of dealing with publishers who persisted in publishing pornography. A number of newspapers and newspaper companies were doing just that and there had been much development in terms of dealing with such issues internally. The publishing company he worked for had very clear ethical codes and employees were disciplined quite severely if they transgressed.

He said that he was not too sure of what the DHA could do to address issues related to the protection of children from sexual exploitation through child pornography. He did feel that it would take a joint effort from a number of departments including education. The kind of interaction where government officials sat with reps from the media to look at specific issues and to see where they could meet each other half way was a wise route to follow and from he heard that morning many such constructive interactions had taken place.

Kgoshi Morwamoche sought greater clarity on the suggestion that the FPB should focus on classification and not on censorship.

Mr Faasen said that the objects of the 1996 legislation said that it was aimed at providing for the classification of certain films and publications and to that end to provide for the establishment of a film and publication board and a review board, to repeal certain laws that did further this aim. The primary focus of the act thus was to provide for the classification. Unless the bill aimed to change the function of the act it should still have classification as its main focus and not the “kind of broad […] censorship” that was in the bill at the moment.

He emphasised that PASA was aware of the concerns the legislation aimed to address but warned against the “chilling” effect the legislation might have.

The Chairperson wondered whether the presenters had a problem with any publication containing pornographic material having to be classified and whether they would call that censorship.

Mr Faasen responded that he would not even consider classification in such cases. He agreed with CAN that material that depicted the sexual abuse of minors or child pornography should not even be classified because it did not belong in society. They were not in favour of the type of classification that would impact on the newspaper and print media’s ability to make information available as freely and speedily as the nature of the business required.

Ms Matthews added that classifying pornographic material actually gave it a “pseudo legitimacy” saying that “it belonged somewhere when on fact it belonged nowhere”.

Wireless Application Service Providers’ Association submission
The Wireless Application Service Providers’ Association (WASPA) Chairperson, Mr Leon Perlman made the submission which advocated for a co-regulatory approach. WASPA worked closely with the FPB and proposed that amongst others the FPB tasked it, or another designated body, with the self-classification of content distributed over mobiles.

Discussion
The Chairperson was concerned that children were able to access pornographic material on their cellphones. He asked Mr Perlman to elaborate on the notion that a parent could block the cellphone from receiving such material.

Mr Perlman responded that there was interception legislation aimed at registering all cellphones so one would have to provide identification, which would reveal one’s age.

Mr Silber added that from his understanding of the discussions with the FPB, XX material could not be distributed on cellphones in any case. X18 material could not be distributed on cellphones either because there was no way of verifying the age of the purchaser as per the requirements of the law. He said that people were representing adult orientated content as pornography because it was easier to market it. They had made it clear to their members that it was illegal to distribute anything that had not been classified or anything that was classified as XX or X18.

What they had tried to do, and what Vodacom was trying to do on a server basis, was to say that with the cellphone, which had now also become a data access site, it was difficult to prevent access to the internet via cellphones. Additional filtering could be put in place at a server level. It was not perfect. Since many of the sites were not in South Africa, there was very little that one could do about it. The provider could however be required to provide the parents or anyone else with a lock down mechanism.

Mr Perlman added that the perception was that XX and X18 rated content was still available on cellphones. This might be due to late night television advertising that suggested it, but it was just a marketing ploy because it was illegal. Anyone who did so, did so illegally.

Mr Silber added that hat if ISPA found someone contravening their code of conduct, they reported them to the board for appropriate action and ISPA shut them down. The networks supported such action.

The Chairperson said that the Committee was interested in these issues. Schools were already complaining that cellphones were used to distribute pornographic material amongst learners. A solution needed to be found.

Kgoshi Morwamoche wondered who WASPA was accountable to.

Mr Perlman explained that the code of conduct was formulated in terms of the Chapter 11 provisions of the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act of 2000 (ECT Act). They developed a code of conduct that they hoped would be accepted by the Minister of Communications and that they would then have rights as an industry representative body (IRB) under the ECT Act. The code of conduct was a formulative document that would go to the minister for approval. It had been adopted and had been in effect since 2005. It was a formulative document for the DOC to utilise in assessing them as an industry representative body.

The Chairperson wondered when it would go the Minister.

Mr Perlman explained that the IRB regulations were only released a few months earlier and took four years to reach that stage. WASPA did not anticipate that the document’s approval would be speedy.

Mr Silber added that two major issues played a role. The document was formulated in terms of the IRB requirements of Chapter 11 of the ECT Act. Minor revisions to the document would be required. The regulations themselves were not toothless. MTN and Cell C required membership of WASPA, which involved compliance with a code of conduct and Vodacom required compliance with the WASPA code of conduct and adherence to the outcomes of any proceedings in terms of it. To some extent they held the power of content providers. If it was felt that they were not complying to the Code of Conduct they were kicked out of the organisation which meant they could not connect with the network which in turn meant that they could not make contact with the client. If someone was suspended for thirty days it meant that for those thirty days they had no revenue.

The Chairperson said that the Committee would engage on the issues. Despite what the code of conduct said pornography was still accessible by children via cellphones etc. He added that in Zimbabwe, which was just across the Limpopo River, and was a country in turmoil, the problem did not exist. The same could be said for other African countries.

Centre for Constitutional Rights submission
Mr Paul Hoffman delivered the submission on behalf of the Centre for Constitutional Rights and was accompanied by Adv Nikki de Havilland who was the Deputy Director of the Centre. The submission explained that because the Bill was vague and procedurally unfair it would not stand up to judicial scrutiny. The Centre raised concerns about amongst others the inclusion and regulation of print and broadcasting material within the scope of the bill and the independence of ICASA and the FPB.

Discussion
Kgoshi Morwamoche sought suggestions from Mr Hoffman as far as how the Department should go about dealing with the scourge of child pornography.

Mr Hoffman said that the Bill was not aimed at addressing pornography as such. According to Clause 2(a) it aimed to protect children from potentially harmful or age inappropriate material and against sexual exploitation and degradation in a range of media. The question of child pornography being an “onding” was accepted by everyone. The freedom of consenting adults privately making use of pornography was not an issue as that was a matter of personal choice that did not harm anyone. Regulating such pornography on the basis of classification was not unconstitutional provided that it was done with regard to the constitutional provisions.

Mr Swart (ACDP) said that he was not sure whether the presenters were au fait with the provisions of the Films and Publication Act (2004). Section 27 of the Act made it an offence to possess or distribute child pornography. He asked whether the Centre would have a problem with that provision being applicable to the press.

Mr Hoffman did not see how the suggestion would be seen as unconstitutional. In his opinion the chances of the press convincing the Constitutional Court that their exemption should be such that they should be allowed to publish child pornography was virtually nil.

Ms Maunye thought that she had heard Mr Hoffman say that there should be unconstitutional means of addressing the issues the bill aimed to address. She wondered whether he could elaborate on that statement.

Mr Hoffman said that the members might have misunderstood him because he was speaking to fast. What he had said was that part of the Committee’s duty was to ensure hat “the product of its labours complied with the Constitution”. There was no way that an unconstitutional bill would pass constitutional muster. The courts that had the final say as to whether a piece of legislation was constitutionally sound or not would strike it down. He reiterated that child pornography had to be dealt with I a manner that was constitutionally compliant.

The Chairperson said that the Committee was interested in finding a way of protecting children without impacting too much on the rights of the media. He added that rights were not absolute. He said that the Committee and the FPB was responsible for regulating the industry in general. He suggested that all presenters consider not only the constitutionally but also what they could suggest issues were addressed without contravening the Constitution.

Mr Hoffman said that the Centre intended to be a constructive participant in the debate. They made suggestions aimed at tightening the drafting, addressing the exemption of the press, and making definitions clearer. That some felt that the self-regulation of the press was dysfunctional did not necessarily mean that self-regulation was not the proper mechanism to follow.

Mr Swart (ACDP) said that the Sexual Offences Bill covered child pornography as well as its distribution quite extensively. He wondered whether the Centre had had an opportunity to look at this Bill that would be passed soon.

The Chairperson said that there was a need for the relevant committees to interact with the media. He said that in a SA fm interview that Sunday an editor had mentioned many pieces of legislation that he or she had felt amounted to censorship or repression of the press. He said that the FPB had been created to help the government to deal with some of these issues but it had to be empowered so that they could, within the confines of the Constitution, address matters more effectively.

Resources Aimed at the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect submission
The Resources Aimed at the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect (RAPCAN) advocacy manager, Ms Samantha Waterhouse made the submission which detailed why the organisation as in favour of the proposed legislation. RAPCAN made certain recommendations that they felt would strengthen the Bill even more. These recommendations included that those places that gave access to computers to children must be required to take all reasonable steps to block children’s access to sites containing child abuse or age-inappropriate material.

Discussion
In the absence of any questions from the Committee the Chairperson commended the Presenter for a submission that went straight to the point and raised useful interesting questions that showed that she had an understanding of the issues at stake. The Committee would take these into account during their deliberations.

Southern African Catholic Bishops’ Conference submission
Adv Mike Pothier represented the Southern African Catholic Bishops’ Conference who supported the proposed legislation and felt that the concern about the removal of the media exemption was exaggerated. He said that Parliament should never be scared to test what the Constitution actually said for fear that they might pass a law that was unconstitutional, or that one or two of the provisions might eventually be thrown out by the court.

Discussion
The Chairperson thanked Adv Pothier for a submission that gave the Committee much encouragement in terms of what they were trying to achieve through the legislation.

Kgoshi Morwamoche said that the Committee would take the submission into consideration when deliberating. He added that the Committee was aware of what the Constitution said but could not abdicate its powers so that pornography could continue being published and distributed.

Chairperson’s closing remarks
The Chairperson said that the Bill reminded him of the Civil Union bill proceedings, which had also been controversial. In the end the Committee and Parliament succeeded in passing it. The hearings would continue the following day. He thanked all presenters for their input, which the Committee would consider in their deliberations.

The meeting was adjourned.