L Sisulu on behalf of N Mapisa-Nqakula: Film and Publications Amendment
Bill

14 June 2007

Madam Speaker,
Honourable Members,

Almost all of us present in the House today arrived here in a vehicle of
some sort, whether we drove ourselves or were driven in a bus or a car. And we
arrived safely because almost all of the drivers in our country accept almost
all of the time that we drive on the left in South Africa

They accept that we keep left not for political reasons, Madam Speaker - in
fact it is an old colonial rule we have inherited – they accept that we keep
left because that requirement forms part of the rules of the road, laid down in
the laws of our land. And although the law is uncompromising about which side
we drive on, it leaves a lot of leeway to the judgement of the individual as he
or she regulates speed, negotiates intersections, or changes lanes. But
whatever our professions, whatever our personal preferences in many aspects of
life, all of us have accepted that traffic drives on the left of the road,
because there is a law in place for the good of us all.

I make the point about the general acceptance of the rule that we drive on
the left in order to illustrate that the state does, indeed have a right and in
fact a constitutional duty to regulate certain aspects of the life of the
community in the interests of the safety and welfare of us all. If the approach
were to take hold that some commentators and critics proposed during the
consultative process this Bill has gone through, it would be up to each
motorist alone and without guidance to decide each and every time they get
behind the wheel which side of the road to drive on. We can all imagine the
catastrophic results and so because we do not want a similar free for all with
often tragic consequences for individuals in the arena of film and
publications, this Bill sets out to put up road signs and to regulate what must
be regulated in the interest of the community of over 40 million people we are
building in our country.

This Bill is not about the integrity of the life and limb of our citizens as
they use the road that is true. But it is about ensuring the safety and the
long-term welfare of some of our most vulnerable citizens, our children and
young people.

The emotional safety, but unfortunately also all too frequently by extension
the actual physical safety of our children and young people forced into
involvement in pornography. It is about saying that children and young people
have a right to grow up in an environment which gives them the space and the
time to be children and adolescents. An environment in which they can learn,
play, and find their way safe from predators and protected from the excesses of
industries which are generally understood to contribute to the brutalisation of
attitudes and behaviour patterns, particularly towards women and girls.

So colleagues, we are talking about the fundamental question of what kind of
society we want to be building

* We are not talking about censorship.
* We are not talking about the heavy hand of the state.
* We are not talking about any of that because we fought it
* And we will never, ever bring it back

This Bill says very clearly that it is our duty as legislators and as
government to give meaning and content to our constitutional order by spelling
out where and under what circumstances we will protect our children and young
people and the dignity of women. Indeed, it says very clearly that it is our
right and our duty to be building a society where the constitutional concept of
the right to dignity becomes real through the way we regulate.

Allow me, Madam Speaker, to remind Members in this context of the objects of
the Act as spelled out in the Bill before you today:

The objects say and I quote that the Act will:
* regulate the creation, production, possession and distribution of films,
games and certain publications to provide consumer advice to enable adults to
make informed viewing, reading and gaming choices, both for themselves and for
children in their care
* protect children from exposure to disturbing and harmful materials and from
premature exposure to adult experiences
* make the use of children in and the exposure of children to pornography
punishable

Madam Speaker,

I doubt that it would be possible to be much clearer on this matter than the
Bill already is. It says very clearly that its job is to make the use of
children in and the exposure of children to pornography punishable." I doubt
whether anyone besides the most wayward of libertarians could have a problem
with that. It says very clearly that its job is to ensure the provision of
"consumer advice to enable adults to make informed viewing, reading and gaming
choices, both for themselves and for children in their care."

Again, Madam Speaker, I doubt whether anyone can discover anything but an
attempt to empower adults in their own lives and as the caregivers of children
in that paragraph. There is no heavy hand of an authoritarian state there. And
the Act says that it aims to "protect children from exposure to disturbing and
harmful materials and from premature exposure to adult experiences."

Once again, colleagues, we are talking about protecting the vulnerable,
about creating the space for children and young people to grow up. Young people
who already have innumerable impressions, demands and stimuli crowding in on
them everyday through advertising, education, cell phones and the internet. I
submit that it is in the interests of our society and of our young people to
pass legislation which provides the basis for the State to protect, inform, and
where necessary to intervene in the interests of the vulnerable

Madam Speaker,

I doubt that there is a single person in this House who is not aware of the
uproar created by sections of the media around this Bill. I doubt any of you
could have missed it, even though you may have missed some of the other views
expressed in the communities across the country as the consultations on this
Bill progressed because of the one-sided interpretations of some sections of
the media. It was, in some ways, a sobering experience.

Madam Speaker,

It was a sobering experience because it told us that the media is indeed a
part of our country, and not some fourth estate, ordained by a higher order. It
is a part of our country which is as passionate, and often as partisan as any
other group, whether they are government or opposition parliamentarians or city
or village dwellers. And so it has at times been a robust debate, a typically
passionate South African debate. I am grateful to all who contributed, because
it is our culture of debate, our culture of addressing the issues seriously
which is at the heart of our democracy.

The media did, in fact, have some important points to make, and we very
early in the process of fashioning this Bill told them that we had heard them.
But we also told them that our respect for the parliamentary order which lies
at the heart of our very hard won democracy meant that we insisted that the
Bill makes its orderly way to where it is now. We insisted that the
consultative process run so ably by the Portfolio Committee should take its
course because that is how the people in our country are able to express their
views.

So we were a little surprised at the volume coming from some sections of the
media who seem to get a kick out of tilting at windmills. So as we soberly
debate this Bill and contemplate it becoming law, we should not be led to
believe that it was hot air which got those windmills turning, they were
turning already.

Madam Speaker,

During my budget debate last week, I made it clear that along with my
colleagues in Cabinet and the African National Congress (ANC) leadership I am a
firm believer in the freedom of the press and that I will defend it as an
integral part of the democracy we fought for. I take this opportunity to once
again commit myself to that ideal and I am sure that every single one of my
colleagues in Cabinet and the ANC leadership agree with me on this issue. But
at the same time I make no apologies for saying that we must and we will expect
more of those whose daily work involves the exercise of the freedoms we are
discussing because that is indeed the compromise that this Bill also
represents.

This compromise says: as much State regulation as necessary, together with
as much self-regulation as possible. We have kept our side of the bargain. Now
it is up to the practitioners to keep theirs, whether they are active in the
traditional print and electronic media, or whether theirs are the newer spaces
involving the internet and mobile telephony.

The point is simple: self-regulation involves the conscious and willing
acceptance of an obligation to – and colleagues, here I quote from the Press
Code of Professional Conduct and self-regulation involves the obligation to
ensure "accuracy, balance, fairness and decency." And we might add, in the
spirit of the Constitution that self-regulation involves the conscious and
willing acceptance of an obligation to hold the principle of the individual's
right to dignity very, very high particularly in a country like ours with its
history of trampling on the dignity of individuals.

Madam Speaker,

We are all familiar with the argument that the broadening of the media
landscape has seen the advent of a type of tabloid journalism in our country
which makes certain types of reporting and the use of certain types of images
inevitable. There is, in my view, nothing inevitable about pictures of naked
women on the front pages of newspapers. There is nothing inevitable about a
salacious style of reporting under the guise of informing and mobilising
communities who are all too well aware of the ills in their midst and who do
not want or need any more graphic detail.

Anyone who argues that a society which requires of its media that it take
these matters seriously is demanding censorship of some sort is simply out of
touch with reality. And let us remind ourselves, colleagues, it is not a heavy
handed government or this parliament which demands higher standards of care
from the media on these issues. It is the people, in their communities, for
whom it is a necessity that the media should contribute through serious
self-regulation to de-escalation of violence, gangsterism, and the abuse of
women. Yes, we have heard the arguments and seen the documents from the media
houses.

Madam Speaker,

The Bill before you is not least designed to streamline processes within the
Film and Publication Board and those processes streamlined by the Bill will
contribute to the development of policies, for example the classification
guidelines, that reflect the changing views and morals of the entire
society.

All of these things are reflected in the process for appointing the Advisory
Council and the division of responsibilities between the entity, including the
examiners, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and the Council, including the
Chair and Deputy Chair. To those who have expressed concern that it will no
longer be possible to appeal decisions to the High Court, the Bill provides for
internal remedies for those who feel that their rights or interests have been
infringed.

Once these internal remedies have been exhausted, it is always open to the
aggrieved party to take the decision of the Film and Publication Board on
review. So colleagues, I am sure that over the coming months and years we will,
together with all the industry segments affected by this legislation, find ways
in which the compromises found with the active assistance of Parliament will
become a viable reality enriching our society and our constitutional reality. I
ask you to support the Bill.

Issued by: Department of Home Affairs
14 June 2007