Broadband Infraco Bill: deliberations

PUBLIC ENTERPRISES PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
5 September 2007
BROADBAND INFRACO BILL: DELIBERATIONS

Joint Chairpersons: Mr Y Carrim (ANC); Mr C Wang (ANC), Mr E Kholwane (ANC)

Documents handed out:
Broadband Infraco Bill Working Draft
Broadband Infraco Bill [B26-2007]

Audio recording of meeting [Part1]&[Part2]

MINUTES
Introductory remarks by Chairpersons
Mr Kholwane stated that there were some outstanding issues which would not be finalized at the meeting. The first issue was licensing, for which the Committee was awaiting Cabinet’s final decision. The second issue was the scheduling to which the Committee was still trying to apply its mind. There were also some clauses with grammatical concerns which still needed to be finalized, and the finalization of the issue of Infraco’s commercial agreement with Neotel was still pending.

Mr Carrim added that the commercial agreement between Neotel and Infraco was not an issue that a Parliamentary Committee had to deal with. The Committee had been pleading with the Department of Public Enterprises (the Department) to come to an amicable agreement with Neotel. He hoped that the negotiations would be resolved before Wednesday 12 September. The scheduling issue was not in the hands of the Committee. The Committee planned to vote on the Bill on either Wednesday 12 September or Friday14 September.

Clause By Clause Deliberations of the Working Draft
Clause 4: Main Objects and Powers of Infraco
Members debated certain grammatical elements of the various clauses, and it was decided to accept the clause subject to certain amendments.

Clause 5: Borrowing Powers of Infraco
Members debated certain debated certain grammatical elements of the clause, and it was decided to accept the clause subject to cross referencing by the Parliamentary Legal Services unit.

Clause 6: Servitudes
The Committee decided to delete the original clause, and consequently all other clauses moved up in number. Members debated certain debated certain grammatical elements of the clause, and it was decided to accept the clause subject to cross referencing by the Parliamentary Legal Services unit.

Clause 7: Expropriation of Land Rights by the Minister on behalf of Infraco
Members debated certain debated certain grammatical elements of the clause, and it was decided to accept the clause subject to cross referencing by the Parliamentary Legal Services unit.

Clauses 8 – 10
Members decided to accept the clauses, without amendments.

Clause11: Amendment of laws
Mr Carrim asked for clarity on the differences between the two types of scheduling.

Ms Sandra Coetzee, Department Legal Services Directorate, replied that the reporting requirements of Schedules 2 and 3b were the same. The difference was the regularity of cash management. A Schedule 2 company had borrowing powers, which could be exercised through the Board. The Board may also take decisions on borrowing and any other financial transactions. A Schedule 3b company on the other hand may only borrow through its Board if authorized by the Minister of Finance. Key decisions were subject to the terms and conditions set out by that Minister.

Mr Kholwane stated that the Committee was still looking into the issue of scheduling and no final decision had been made to date.

Clause 12: Short Title and Commencement
Members decided to accept the clauses, without amendments.

The meeting was adjourned.