FILMS AND PUBLICATIONS AMENDMENT
BILL SECOND READING DEBATE (NATIONAL ASSEMBLY)
[Unrevised
Hansard, 14 June 2007]
Mr H P CHAUKE: Deputy Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. It is a
privilege again to stand before this House to address the issues of films and
publication. Since 1996 these issues have been very controversial. From the
beginning when we decided to lift the ban on pornography in the name of freedom
of expression we had problems throughout.
Therefore, in 2005 a conference was convened by the Department of Home Affairs
in consultation with the Film and Publication Board in Port Elizabeth to
address the current challenges that the board faces with regard to the issues
distribution in particular on child pornography. That report was tabled in this
Parliament and it was noted. Comrade Andries this reported was noted and not
adopted. This means we still have to go back to that report at some stage.
The report addresses a number of areas that need to be looked at. Part of it
addresses the issue to capacitate the Film and Publication Board. Clearly, this
board could not cope with the work that it was faced with. Therefore, the board
had to be capacitated. The confusion that has been created within the
structuring of the board is that examiners were members of it and the people
who were checking on how films are classified were themselves part of the
board. Therefore, the Bill was proposing that we establish a separate body to
look at the issues of governance.
When this Bill was tabled before that committee last year we decided to go on
public hearings as a normal practise that the committee does, and we visited
all the provinces in the country. Members of the public were given an
opportunity to make their inputs. It was clear from their inputs that the issue
of pornography on newspapers, televisions and cellphones was of great concern.
If you look at the kind of gadgets that we use today, young children as young
as ten can easily access pornography on their cellphones.
When you look at the television nowadays you have to sit with a remote control
if you watch it with your children because time and time again pornographic
material will be shown and you will have to switch off the television, or you
will be embarrassed.
The problems of the media, and in particular what the Minister has referred to,
the so-called tabloid newspapers. Here in the Western Cape we have the Daily
Voice, where they deliberately distribute child pornography of children
that are raped. Nobody condemns that and it is fine because it is in the name
of freedom of the press.
The committee called the very newspaper to appear before it and to account for
that, and they apologised. The same applies to the renowned newspaper called
the Star. It advertised a black 12-year old, curvaceous Brazilian woman. The
committee again called the editor of the Star newspaper and he appeared
before the committee and apologised.
Clearly, this problem comes in the name of the freedom of the press; it comes
in the name of freedom of broadcasters and cellphones. Therefore, even whatever
we have tried to address in this Bill we have not as yet addressed the problem.
Part of what the conference resolved was that there is a need to have a
national debate on issues of pornography, because from 1996 when this whole
thing started, it came in as an amendment.
Therefore, much time was not given on the issues that we have to grapple with
today which you saw as Members of Parliament that even in front of Parliament
there was an attempt to open this kind of business. It is a very big business
that involves trillions and trillions of rands and I am not surprised that when
we try to address this problem the DA will object. I am not surprised that it
is only the DA that objects on what we try to address because of the interest
obviously of business. [Interjections.]
The issue of consultations between the executive and the print media came in
during the public hearings that we organised in Parliament. It was very clear
that between the executive and the media there was no co-ordination in the
manner in which they deal with the issues pertaining to the media. The
committee has really made a call that there must be wider consultations between
the print media and broadcasters generally with the executive in which the
Minister in the Presidency has confirmed that they are engaging with Sanef.
But the broadcasters, the print media and the cellphones service providers in
fact agreed that in their self-regulation they are going to look at this matter
which is quite serious. We engaged with Icasa, and it agreed with us that it is
not much of the terrain of Home Affairs to deal with issues of code of conduct
because Icasa is in place to deal with issues of broadcasters. But, in the new
development of a code of conduct Icasa is going to take into account the issues
that we have raised as Parliament to make sure that within the code of conduct
they address the issues as we see them.
The watershed period which e.tv insists very much that it is their terrain,
therefore nobody should come in and advise them is something that is of a
concern that as we engage e.tv and other broadcasters, either we need to extend
it that this kind of material can only be shown at three in the morning or
unless it has to be debated in the House here that the issue of pornography in
free-to—air television is it necessary or not. These are things that we must
engage on because if you look at the material that comes out of e.tv, not of
same-sex marriages, but of e.tv, you will find that it is material that is
harmful and abusive especially to woman. What one finds most of the time it is
women who are at the receiving end, in particular white women. [Interjections.]
She says she doesn’t mind. I thought that is what she says. [Interjections.]
Shut up.
Therefore, if you don’t mind, for us it is a concern because as the ANC we have
a responsibility to build a society that is free from this kind of harmful
material that we expose and abuse our women and children. Therefore, the call
that I want to make in the minute I still have, is that let us a national
debate on these issues, and the Minister has rightfully said that it is the of
us trying to address this problem. Let us have a national debate and debate
these issues of pornography. We need to debate whether there is a need to have
pornography in the name of freedom of freedom of expression? Is there a need
to have pornography in the manner in which we see it and its impact that we see
in the country?
The media agrees that it is a problem that is why that within their own
self-regulatory framework they will try to address this problem, but their
interest is one, profit. Their interest is nothing else but profit. Therefore,
as legislatures .
IsiZulu:
... baba, kufanele ukuthi senze imithetho ezokwazi ukuvikela izingane zethu
nabantu besifazane ngoba yibo kakhulu okutholakala ukuthi bayasetshenziswa
kulezi zinto ezinjena. Ngesintu, akuvumelekanga ukuthi ungabona umama ehamba
nqunu laphaya emgwaqweni bese kuthiwa, “Hhayi, indlela ekahle futhi inkululeko
yokuzenzela okuthandayo.” Akusilo isikompilo laseAfrika ukuthi umuntu
osekhulile ahambe enqunu emgwaqweni noma enza lezi zinto abazenza komabonakude,
phambi kwezingane zethu.
English:
Sex is something sacred and children should not be exposed to it. This is
what we now do, we cry of child rape and all things we complain about and we
forget that the people who distribute these things do that in the name of
freedom of expression and the DA will stand up here today and reject this
amendment because it encroaches on the freedom of expression and of the press,
which is not true.
Currently, the print media and broadcasters are very happy of the outcome of
what we have done. I am not sure as to whose behalf are you going to speak
today, but they are happy that we were able to address their concern without
infringing into the rights of media and the rights of broadcasters. [Time
Expired.]
I want to thank members of the committee for the wonderful contribution you are
making. Let us have this debate and let us engage. Thank you very much. [Time
Expired.]
Mrs S V KALYAN: Madam Deputy Speaker, the core mandate of the FPB is to ensure
the protection of children by the classification of films, interactive games
and publications which go out to the public. So when this amendment Bill was
first presented in draft form, and the reasoning behind it was that it was
aimed at rooting out and eradicating child pornography, one could not help but
applaud the noble intention. No right-thinking person would support or condone
any form of child pornography. [Applause.]
However, upon a closer, detailed reading of this draft Bill, it became clear
that the original intention was not so honourable after all and that there
seemed to be an attempt on the part of the drafters to muzzle free speech. The
principal Act of 1996 exempts newspapers and broadcasters from having to submit
material to the board for pre-publication approval. The proposed amendment
wanted to end the exemption. This intended censure on newspapers and
broadcasters was nothing short of the old style censorship typical of the
apartheid era. Many public submissions spoke of a possible hidden agenda on the
part of government to clamp down on media freedom.
The comment by the CEO of the FPB that it was her intention to create a regime
to police the industry was indeed cause for concern and helped to confirm this
perception. Broadcasters are regulated by Icasa, the Newspaper Press Union
regulates newspapers so why the FPB felt the need to extend his own mandate,
give itself extraordinary new powers and unconstitutionally at that, was beyond
the comprehension of many.
Yet another mystery is how did the State Law Advisors certify this Bill? Do
they not go through a basic check list first? It was always the contention of
the DA that the removal of the exemption was unconstitutional and we declared
that to continue deliberating the Bill as it was, was an exercise in futility.
Fortunately, good sense prevailed and sanity as well, and the exemptions in
respect of newspapers and broadcasters were reinstated and the right of appeal
retained.
Clause 16 of the Bill requires that all films be classified. The manner
suggested introduces prepublication censorship and this is unconstitutional.
Classification of a film as a refused publication would prevent that film being
broadcast on television and this is equivalent to a prior restraint on
expression and constitutes a limitation on the freedom of expression. A film
may be classified as refused if the film contains depictions or sequences of
child abuse, propaganda for war or incites violence or advocates hatred based
on any identifiable group characteristics, unless the film judged within
context, is a bona fide documentary or a film of scientific merit on a matter
of public interest. So virtually every movie or documentary of World War II
would be refused or banned under this Bill. How ridiculous is that. The Bill as
it stands increases quite substantially the scope of publications which must be
submitted for classification. A pamphlet, which may have the mildest form of
erotica, for example, breastfeeding or breast examination for cancer or a
pamphlet on sexual health would be required to be submitted for classification.
Those HIV/Aids pamphlets issued by the Department of Health showing how to fit
a condom would need to be classified. What about the life orientation booklets
issued by the Department of Education? Pamphlets around sexual violence will
need to be classified and will limit public discussion on vital issues. Surely
this cannot be the intention of the Bill.
As the Bill stands, a simple publication disseminated by Sactu or Cosatu
calling for their workers to engage in a strike or in mass action could be
construed as incitement to imminent violence. It is unfortunate that the FPB in
seeking to eradicate child pornography has altered classification categories
and criteria so significantly that it could lead to self-censorship and stifle
important sociopolitical debates central to a functioning democracy. The hon
Minister of Housing spoke about which side of the road we are on. Minister, I’d
like to tell you: It is a stop sign. The broadness of the classification
criteria and the fact that it is so subjective and moralistic in that it
decides for any liberal adult what is harmful sexual behaviour and classified
accordingly, will, in reality result in many sexually explicit films surfacing
on the black market. We should be promoting healthy sexual attitudes rather
than encouraging people to break the law.
The principal Act was good enough as it was. A single amendment regarding the
Internet, cellphones and its impact on child pornography would have been
sufficient. Instead, the department chose to contaminate the principal Act and
bring in provisions, which are already more than adequately covered in the
current Act, the Constitution, the Sexual Offences Bill and the Equality Act.
In doing so, free flow of information is significantly restricted.
The DA is not opposed to the introduction of tighter measures to control child
pornography, but the Bill as it currently proposed does not actually achieve
its objective and is open to constitutional challenge. Furthermore, the reality
is that the FPB does not have the capacity to deal with own ambitious proposals
in the Bill and is actually on the road to nowhere.
We note the absence of both the Minister and the Deputy Minister. If they are
that serious about child pornography, they should have been here. And I would
like to say that video outlets countrywide have voiced their concerns at the
functioning of the FPB. A petition was drawn up and I was asked to forward it
to the Minister. I will send it to her house.
The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: On a point of order, Chairperson, it is well within
the Rules of Parliament for a member of the executive to request another member
of the executive to represent them in a matter in the House. It is within the
Rules. To suggest that the member of the executive for Home Affairs is
abrogating responsibility, actually denies ... I am speaking to the presiding
officer and not to the loud voices on the roof. It is within the Rules.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON: I don’t think there is a dispute whether it is within
Rules. I agree with you but I don’t think it is a point of order.
Mr W P DOMAN: Madam Chair, may I also address you on the point.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON: Excuse me, hon Doman, but the hon Minister was already
there.
The MINISTER OF HOUSING: This is a point of order. I think it is completely out
of order that the hon member should stand up there and not even have the
hindsight of why these members are here and say the kind of things that she
said. It is completely out of order. You are impugning the integrity of these
members and they would not have made the necessary arrangements if they did not
care.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, hon Minister. It is not a point of order.
Mr W P DOMAN: Madam Chair, I just want to point out that it is absolutely in
order for the hon member to express her view on how she feels about the absence
of the Minister and the Deputy Minister responsible for this portfolio.
[Applause.]
Mrs I MARS / END OF TAKE
Mrs S V KALYAN
Mrs I MARS: Chairperson, we all know and we do not have to go into this, how
the original draft of the Film and Publication Bill caused enormous concern and
debate not only within the affected media but within the public in general. On
the onset of this debate we would like to reiterate our commitment to the
constitutional definition of freedom of expression contained in section 16 of
the Bill of Rights and also its limitations.
We would also say that we entered the debate wanting to exempting content in
section 22(3) of the existing Bill to be retained. In our discussions with the
media, and I must agree with the Minister, they were very robust, very
informative and I for one felt that there was a very sincere commitment and
possibly because of the amount of publicity this Bill has already received of a
commitment by the print media to enhance itself regulatory processes and I
would suggest to the committee and to all of us that we pursue this matter with
them and stay in contact with them and share the discussion around this matter.
All the discussions we had were very open and constructive. We would like to
say that despite all the extra meetings that were necessary to arrive at the
conclusions we have today because the Bill extends child protection laws,
criminalises creating distributing and possession of child pornography through
internet and cellphones, internet and cellphones providers not longer being
self-regulatory and subject to offences for noncompliance with regulations we
can agree with it.
I would like to separate issues here. Children pornography is a major issue not
only in South Africa. It is a global issue which most of the country and I have
looked at legislation, looked at debates on the subjects of pornography the
answers are not there yet.
On behalf of the IFP, I would want to record our commitment to finding workable
solutions to limiting access by young people to all forms of pornography and I
must say there is somewhat cynical description, we hope during our discussions
that there was real pornography which should be stopped but it was alright to
have virtual pornography. I mean all these things our children are affected and
we have a duty to protect our children.
So, I have given you the reason why we support the Bill but I need to
concentrate this. On the things that the Bill is doing and the things it does
not do. And I am of course referring to controlling juvenile access to all
pornography, of course, especially child pornography. We know juveniles have
found ways to bypass existing access systems which are meant to prevent them
from viewing pornography on the internet or cell phone. We have to realise that
what ever new control systems will be designed they will try their utmost of
bypassing them too. [Time Expired.] [Applause]
Mr L W GREYLING
Mrs I MARS
Mr L W GREYLING: Hon Chairperson, this Bill attempts to balance the rights of
freedom of expression with the protection of children. This was never going to
be an easy task and it must be said that there have certainly been some
improvements made to the original Bill such as the restoration of exemptions.
These exemptions however, only apply to the members of the Newspaper
Association of South Africa. There are roughly 500 other publications in the
country who are not members and have to comply with very honours conditions
laid down by the act.
As the ID, we fully support the objective of the act to deal with the scourge
of child pornography but we question whether this act will, firstly, adequately
deal with the scourge and, secondly, whether the right to freedom of expression
will not be severely curtailed. We therefore at this stage cannot support the
Bill and believe that its constitutionality should be tested in a court of law.
The ID agrees with the assessment of the chairperson that we need a national
debate on this issue and that legislation like this should emanate from this
debate rather than the other way round. This is the approach of the ID is
taking towards Mixit. We will be holding an international conference soon, to
obtain the views of all parties on this issue. I thank you
Adv S N SWART
Mr L W GREYLING
Adv S N SWART: The ACDP has emerged as the unlikely champion in fighting to
protect media freedom considering our opposition to all forms of pornography.
In our view pornography is the theory but rape is the practise. In view of this
approach one would have expected the ACDP to have supported the Bill as tabled.
However, we shared grave concerns expressed by the media that the Bill as
tabled would have amounted to prepublication state censorships of all print
media and broadcast material. This would have severely restricted the media
from being able to report on news items.
Television and radio broadcasters would have been required to submit all
programmes to the board before broadcasting. All live news, parliamentary
current affairs, sport and music coverage would have ceased.
The common good is best served by free flow of information. It is a vital
function and indeed and duty of the press and other media to make available
information of every aspect of public, political social and economic activity.
The Constitution guarantees the right to freedom, of speech and expressly
includes freedom of the press and other media. The media has a duty to
investigate and be a watchdog of society and more particularly of government.
It has played a crucial role in exposing crime, corruption, mismanagement and
nepotism in both the public and private spheres. It is only where competing
ideas of freely aired debated and challenged that the truth can be attained. As
South African National Editor Forum pointed out, I quote: ‘The restriction on
dissent opinion impoverished the search for truth’.
Vast of the majority party did not agree with all the ACDP’s proposal
particularity to reinstate the total exemption with the media being subject to
criminal suction relating to child pornography, we were able to persuade member
do of the portfolio committee to accept certain vital amendments, not only
exempting the press from private classification and criminal sanctions but also
to strengthen the fight against pornography. We were however still concerned
about the very broad hate speech provisions, and whilst the additional test was
insisted we still believe that there could a constitutional challenge on this
aspect.
In conclusion, we wish to express our gratitude to the chairman of the
portfolio committee for being so indulgent and even allowing the ACDP at a very
late stage to argue for the insertion of a very vital amendment. Whilst we
still have reservation regarding constitutionality, we do believe that the Bill
in its present form should be supported particularly in view of its fight and
its aim for fight child pornography. We therefore, as the ACDP will support the
Bill. I thank you.
Ms S H NTOMBELA / END OF TAKE/ES/ JH
Mr S N SWART
Ms S H NTOMBELA: Chairperson, I don’t think that there is any rule that
requires any Minister to explain his or her whereabouts. I just wanted to
mention that one. Aristotle said: “At his best, man is the nobles of all
animals. Separated from law and justice, he is the worst”. As the ANC led
government we have long said that we are on a noble course and we will never
allow our little beloved one to be exploited and corrupted by ruthless,
irresponsible and careless people out there.
This Bill is long over due, in Sesotho
*** Language spoken has changed to Sesotho ***
E sehilwe ke nako.
*** Language spoken has changed to English ***
The noble objectives are to protect our kids from the potential dangers of the
digital technology, especially pertaining to child porn. If we do not stand up
as parents and responsible adults and say: “enough is enough” we are busy
destroying ourselves and the future of our children. I don’t know what is DA
doing.
If this government does not put its foot down of child pornography, displayed
in the internet, cell phones, films, computer games and magazines we will go
down as the most irresponsible government, which ever ruled this country, and
we cannot afford that.
Language spoken changed to Sesotho.
Ha re no
idumella ntho eo.
*** Language
spoken has changed to English ***
Furthermore, the Bill seeks to bring the broadcasters of the films within the
scope of the Act so that there is a compliance. There should be a compliance
officers who will monitor this business, which produces such dangerous
material. These officials should be given authority to enter any premises of
distribution at any given time, for a purpose of requesting certificates of
registration.
IsiZulu:
Akuna“mangamanga” lapha.
English:
This Bill further seeks to provide to the compliance of officers authority
to examine or inspect the premises used for conducting businesses, ensuring
that they comply with conditions stipulated by the Act. In addition, compliance
officers should be given the powers to examine or inspect any film or computer
game offered for sale.
One of the objectors to the Bills says: ”The proposed legislation is unconstitutional
it reminds us of the past, it threatens the democracy and freedom for which
many South Africans fought and lost their lives”. Is it true? It cannot be
true. Chairperson, please, our brothers and sisters did not fight and die for
the so call “democratic freedom” in order to corrupt our children. they did not
die for the so called “democratic freedom” for a sexual exploitations, surely
they did not die to make our beloved kids canning folders for the unscrupulous
business people. It cannot be right, we are not going to allow it.
*** Language spoken has changed to Sesotho ***
Batho ba heso, re keke ra kekisa bana ba rona jwalo ka Judas Siskariota
lebitsong la tjhelete. Re keke ra e etsa taba eo.
*** Language spoken has changed to English ***
*** Language spoken has changed to Sesotho ***
Modulasetulo, bekeng e fetileng ha ke ne ke dutse le setloholo sa ka, se se
kabang dilemong tse tsheletseng ho isa ho tse supileng, re shebeletse
televishene. Ha re ntse re bohile, ha hlaha thobalano e tshabehileng, setloholo
sa ka sa mpotsa sa re: “Mama, baetsang, na ebe ba ya lwana”?
*** Language spoken has changed to English *** What kind of a fight is that
one. She also said:
*** Language spoken has changed to Sesotho *** Mama ke a kgolwa hore ena ha se
resling.
*** Language spoken has changed to English *** It is embarrassing! How are you
going to explain that to a six year old? Please, I do give my children an
advise, so I do not want anyone to destroy them.
*** Language spoken has changed to Sesotho *** Modulasetulo o tla ntshwarela,
ka Sesotho manyala ke manyala, ha a dumellwe, mme ho tla dula ho le jwalo.
*** Language spoken has changed to English *** One little child said: “Parent
you have a right to reprimand us, but please do not abuse us, as our mothers
and fathers do not turn yourselves into our ememies”.
*** Language spoken has changed to Sesotho Ka Sesotho re re: “Thupa e kojwa e
sa le metsi” setjhaba se sa hlompheng bana ba sona, se sa rateng bana ba sona,
se tla ya timelong jwalo ka bona bana ba tseleng e yang timelong. Le ya ba bona
le lona. ***
*** Language spoken has changed to English ***
Most of our objectors, especially business, are mostly worried about the effect
of the Bill to their businesses. This government is more worried about building
the society that is stable. I don’t want to comment about the dissatisfaction
that a pick up from the members in here, because the very same person who is
busy shouting “Ka bana ba mang mebileng?” because that person knows the reality
very well, the person is just doing this to satisfy somebody.
CHAIRPERSON: Hon Member please take you seat.
POINT OF ORDER!
Mr M B SKOSANA: Thank you Chairperson,
Language spoken changed to Sesotho:
Ke tshwareha hampe ha ke utlwa kgono are sheba ka mona, a re jwale reya
timelong. Ke ne
ke batla ho tseba hore na le mme Feiki o ya timelong na? Ho bane o dutse ka
kwano le ena.
Ms S H
NTOMBELA:
*** Language spoken has changed to Sesotho ***
Modulasetulo,
setjhaba se sa hlompheng bana ba sona lebitsong la thobalano se ya timelong.
*** Language
spoken has changed to English ***
A certain Mr Hamon puts it right when he says that children in South Africa a
exposed to pornography and violence on television and in advertisement.
Attention should be given to the future generation, since they are to be our
future Presidents, governors, public representatives.
Instead of producing x-rated publications, which are degrading to human being
and sexual explicitly. The service providers such as Telkom and others, should
develop more packages for kids, especially designing to improve their
education. Those who oppose this Bill, should not stand here and pretend that
the infringement of freedom of expression, whereas they know very well that it
is not the intention of the government to delve into media censorship, but it
is indeed the intention of the government to protect children against sexual
implicitly publications.
I wish those people who oppose the Bill in their submission of concense should
also have race as a counter measure. What actually constitute a moral society?
Madam Speaker, please let us not instil a culture of pornography especially in
the minds of our kids. It is immoral, it is evil, it is irresponsible, it is a
shame, it is cruel, it should not be allowed. It ends here, today. Thank
you.
Mr R B BHOOLA
Ms S H NTOMBELA
Mr R B BHOOLA: Chairperson with the rapid pace of development and advancement
of digital technology comes a responsibility to ensure save and morally correct
accessibility of services. It is however a fact that access to elicit sexual
degrade in an inappropriate site from the internet, cell phones, film and
interactive compute games are also accessible to children.
The MF is pleased that this Bill serves to put in a place a number of
provisions that should address the situation. While the MF believe that parents
and guardians also have a very important role to play in controlling the kids
from accessing such material, we think that service need to come up with
firewalls that will filter such access to pornography.
The MF also feels that in view of cell phone, parents should be equipped with
means of blocking their children from access to these sites. The MF supports
this Bill.
Mr C M MORKEL
Mr R B BHOOLA
Mr C M MORKEL: Thank you Hon Chairperson. The objectives of Amendment Bill are
Claire, the capture editing and transfer pornographic material amongst children
as well as from adults to children as well as from adults to children is a
measure challenge. Technology already exist to address some of the problems
identified and it is possible for programmes like internet based and mobile
instant messaging to filter pornographic material, which may find its way to
children. However, this is only to a limited extend, especially on mobile
phones. One mobile instant messaging service, I will not mention its name, has
no auto filtering mechanism based on a clear link between the registration
details of such users and their date of birth in particular. The identity
number or the age of registered mobile phone users, should be recorded in terms
of the ECT - Electronic and Communications Transaction Act, and the
interception and monitoring Act with its amendment Bill.
Such a filtering and linking mechanism can be introduced through appropriate
regulations under the Amendment Bill with the assistance of the EST Act and the
interception and monitoring Bill, which is being considered by the Portfolio
Committee on Communications at the moment. The warrens application, service
provider, association wasper, the film and publication board and the independent
Communication Authority of South Africa must co-regulate this over site with a
light touch approach.
Another measure challenge that needs to be regulated by the FPB, Ecasa and the
Broadcasting Complains Commission of South Africa is the broadcasting of
certain music videos that may fall foul the definition of child pornography or
erotica. Freedom of expression does not justify ones rights to abuse children
in pornographic profiteering.
These finat rights must be limited when it posses a threat of child abuse as
this other legislation protects children such as the Divorce Act and the Child
Care Act amongst others. The Progressive Independent Movement will therefore
support the film and publications Amendment Bill and I dedicate this to my
children who are aged three and two. Thank you.
Ms K W MORWAMOCHE / RM / ss (isiZulu)/SW /END OF TAKE
Mr C M MORKEL
Sepedi:
Mnar K W MORWAMOCHE: Modulasetulo le maloko ao a hlomphegago, Molaokakanywa
wo o bolela ka taba ya go šireletša ditokelo tša bana; o bolela ka taba ya go
šireletša gore bana ba se ke ba bontšhwa tša phaku; gape o tlogea o bolela ka
taba ya gore bana ba se ke ba bontšhwa tša bošilo.
Seboledi sa go tšwa ka lehlakorieng la DA, mohlomphegi Sandy, ga a mmakatše ge
a be a bolela mo pele ga lena a laetša gore yena ga a thekge taba ye ka ge e le
motswadi e sego mmelegi. Ka moka bao ba rego ga ba thekge Molaokakanywa wo ke
bao e lego batswadi e sego babelegi. Motho yo a belegago e le motswadi, ga go
ka mokgwa wo a ka se thekgego Molaokakanywa wo.
Mohlomphegi Sandy wa DA o laeditše gore go ya ka mokgwa wo pušo ya rena ya ANC
e bušago ka gona, ga e ba kgotsofatše. O a rereša ka ge maekemišetšo a DA go tša pušo e le
go šireletša mahumo a bona.
*** Language
spoken has changed to English ***
Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Chair, on a point of order: I am prepared to accept that
there is a kind of cultural difference, perhaps, between the speaker and myself
and I’m not quite sure the point he is making, but it seems odd to me...
[Interjections.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms C-S Botha): What is the point of order?
Mr M J ELLIS: I am making a point of order. It would seem odd to me that a
person can talk about being a parent without being the giver of birth. [Interjections.]
I am asking...
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms C-S Botha): Hon Ellis, honestly, it cannot be a point
of order.
Mr M J ELLIS: But it is a point of order, Madam Chair. I am asking you to look
into this, because I don’t understand what the point is that he is making.
[Interjections.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms C-S Botha): But, hon Ellis, excuse me, but if you
don’t understand what he is saying, that doesn’t make it a point of order.
Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Chair, may I ask you something? Do you understand it?
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms C-S Botha): Hon Ellis, that is certainly not under
discussion.
Mr M J ELLIS: It is under discussion. I am asking for an explanation.
AN HON MEMBER: Don’t argue with the Chairperson!
Mr M J ELLIS: I can’t believe this woman.
Mr H P CHAUKE: Chairperson, on a point of order: I think you need to be
respected as the Chair. The DA, it is their strategy. Always when we bring very
serious issues, they want to divert those issues.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms C-S Botha): Hon Chauke, I appreciate you support and
protection of me, as I must protect you, but I think it is in order and we will
continue with the debate. Thank you.
Mr W J SEREMANE: Chairperson, may I please ask a question? Is it parliamentary
to actually attack the parentage of any member of church? I understand the
idiom used. It is uncalled for and it is unparliamentary to speak that way to
another adult. [Interjections.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms C-S Botha): Hon member, I will refer you to the
rules, to both persons who have raised a point of order: It is not for the
Chair to judge the accuracy of a statement. This is a matter for debate and not
a matter of procedure and it is out of order for a member to rise on a point of
order to contest the truth of a statement by the member speaking. Please, may
we now proceed? Hon member, please continue.
Afrikaans:
Mnr K W
MORWAMOCHE: Voorsitter, die DA kan maar lê en gaap en droom, die ANC gaan
regeer! [Interjections.]
*** Language spoken has changed to Sepedi ***
Modulasetulo, ANC e thekga Molaokakanywa wo gobane o ganetša mekgatlo ya
dikuranta le dithelebišeni go laetša bana tšeo di tlago senya dikgopolo tša
bona. ANC e thekga Molaokakanywa wo gobane ga o dumelele botšhupša golola tša
dinaka di hlabane. Gape Molaokakanywa wo o ganetša bohlaga-swa-re-je tša
bopilo. Molaokakanywa wo o ganetša bohuwane molapo’a ditaba ba rego ba kwele ba
re ba bone. [Legofsi.]
Ke na le kgatišobaka ya molao yeo maina a bao ba boletšego mo pele ga lena ba
le botša ka ga ``constitutionality’’ a sego gona ka go yona. Ke kgatišobaka ya
bao ba šomago ka melao ya molaotheo.
Molasetulo, ANC
e a buša gomme ebile ga e kgopele tumelelo ya go dira bjalo go motho yo mongwe.
ANC ge e kwele gore setšhaba se lla ka taba ya gore dilo tše di amanywago le
lepono di se laetšwe mmušong wa yona, re ka se kgopele tumelelo go Seremane; re
ka se kgopele tumelelo go DA gobane ga se seboleledi sa boradikuranta.
Seo ba bego ba swanetše go le botša sona, Modulatulo, ke gore ka ‘tšatši leo
Komiti ya Phothofolio go tša Selagae e kwanego le boradikuranta ka tšeo di sa
nyakegego gomme gwa be gwa hlongwa khansele yeo e tlago hlokomela gore melao ya
maitshwaro a bona e šome gabotse, bona ba ile ba ngala ditherišanong tša ntshe.
Ka fao, seo ba bego ba swanetše go le botša sona mo ke gore ba tšwile ka
ditherišanong tša komiti.
Morena Greyling, yo le yena a boletšego mo, ke tšea gore ke yo mongwe wa bao ba
ngwalelago bangwe tšeo ba swanetšego go di bolela dingangišanong tša Ntlo ye.
Le ka ‘tšatši la mohlolo ga se ka ke ka bona a tlile komiting ya rena go tla go
ikwela ka tša gagwe gore kgoro e sekaseka bothata bjo bja lepono la bana bjang.
Modulasetulo, mohlomphegi Sandy o boletše mo gore Molaokakanywa wo ka mokgwa wo
re o boilego re le ANC o mo gopotša melao yela ya go bewa mehleng ya apartheid.
Seo se
makatšago ke gore dikonokono tša DA lehono ke batho ba go tšwa go apartheid. O dulelang le bona ge e ba o
a rereša gore ga a kwane le apartheid?
ANC e thekga Molaokakanywa wo gobane “manyala” ga re a tsome. Di ile le muši wa
dikwekwele.
Ke a leboga, Modulasetulo. [Legofsi.]
Mr W P DOMAN: “YOU ARE UNDEMOCRATIC WE KNOW IT”
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms C-S Botha): Hon Minister, members, before I call the
hon Minister to address us, I would just like to indicate that on account of
discussions I have had with the table, I am going to consult Hansard on the
issue raised by the two Ministers and will come back to you in this House on
it. Please, the two Ministers who raised points of orders, which includes the
Minister of Education and the Minister of Housing. Thank you.
The MINISTER OF HOUSING (on behalf of the Minister of Home Affairs) Mme/keh(Sepedi)/NP
(Afr&Eng)
END OF TAKE
Mr K W MORWAMOCHE
The MINISTER OF HOUSING (on behalf of the Minister of Home Affairs): Thank you,
Chairperson, I am very aware of the fact that I have very serious time
constraints here. I had waived my right to come back and close this but I
thought that after listening to the debate, it was important for me to come
back here. I want to thank the hon members who have participated in this debate
constructively. I was very disturbed by the bile that was spewed out by the hon
member of the DA. It is understood that perhaps the DA might have their own
views but I think that the spirit in which she conducted the debate, was so destructive
that I needed to come back here and indicate that, in fact, it is completely
unacceptable. I would like you, Chairperson, to consult Hansard and actually
rule on the matter. [Interjections.]
I want to point a number of things that had been distorted here because it is
important that we leave this House understanding what it was that we were
saying. We have a Constitution that this House was passed and to which we all
share allegiance. It is very specific on some of the things that we have in this
Bill here. Our constitutional responsibility as set out in section 28(1)(d). It
is very clear on our responsibility to the child and says that it is the right
of the child:
To be protected from maltreatment, neglect, abuse or degradation.
Moulana M R SAYEDALI-SHAH: We support that.
The MINISTER OF HOUSING: Chairperson, I think you are in invidious position as
a leader of the DA and having the DA going on like that. I would be extremely
embarrassed if I were in your position.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms C-S Botha): Hon members, please. Hon Minister, do not
reflect on the position the Chair takes as if it could be partisan. I will
really appreciate that. As for the members on the left hand side, please give
the Minister an opportunity to be heard.
The MINISTER OF HOUSING: A child’s interest is of paramount importance in every
matter concerning the child, as it is set out in the Constitution. What we seek
to do, the hon member has deliberately decided that she is going to exaggerate
that. We should not accept that. There is no way that we on this side would
have fought the kind of struggles we have. She stands here and says that we
would like to muzzle the media. We have said so from day one that it was not
our intention to do that. It is a very fine balance that we seek to achieve
here. We have worked very hard to arrive at this point. [Interjections.] Even
beyond that, it is important that we note that even the Promotion of Equality
Act limits publication which impinges on the dignity of persons on the basis of
race, religion or gender. This is not to be challenged. The right is absolute.
I am appalled at the conduct of the DA and I really think ... [Interjections.]
... I think you are in an invidious position, sitting there with your members
misbehaving like this.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON: Hon Minister, I must call you to order. [Applause.] Hon
members, it is absolutely not acceptable to reflect on the objectivity of the
Chair. I cannot accept that. I will again repeat what I have said before:
Interjections come from all sides of the House but to harass a speaker by
making him or her inaudible, is not. I hope that everybody will retain that in
their minds. Hon Chauke, on what point of order are you rising?
Mr H P CHAUKE: On a point of order: In this debate today I am surprised why hon
Sandy is wearing a mini skirt. [Laughter.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON: Hon Chauke, please stand up. I have least four people
who want to make a point of order. Before I recognise them, I would like to
respond. Please withdraw that particular statement.
Mr H P CHAUKE: I withdraw.
The MINISTER OF HOUSING: Hon Chair, I just wanted to indicate that I hope you
were misunderstanding me when you indicated that I was implying that you were
not objective. That was not my intention. I wouldn’t do that.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, very much.
Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Chair, in the same spirit in which the Minister has raised,
I just want to say that I sincerely hope that the ANC will take that matter
further, the one mentioned by the hon Chauke. It is absolutely unacceptable.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON: Hon Ellis, I have already ruled and he has withdrawn.
Can we please continue? [Interjections.] I cannot compete with a full House. I
can’t raise my voice any more. That concludes the debate. Are there any
objections to the Bill being read a second time?
Question put.
PMG NOTE: Parties voted as follows – ANC: for
- DA: against
- ACDP: for
- IFP: for
- ID against
- PIM for
- MF for