Chairperson, hon Ministers, hon Deputy Ministers, hon members and guests, today you are going to hear something that you haven't heard before. [Interjections.] I would encourage you to listen very carefully. We heard from the hon Minister something about the old Protection of Information Bill.
Debating in the apartheid Parliament of the Republic of South Africa in 1982 the then Minister of Justice had the following to say, I quote:
This gives the State President the power to declare organisations outside the Republic of South Africa to be hostile organisations for the purposes of this Act. The reason for this is that organisations may be established abroad, like the ANC, and may make onslaughts on the Republic of South Africa.
Hon members, this is the 1982 Act. These are some of the circumstances that brought into operation the old apartheid Protection of Information Act which today remains law in our country. The hon Minister is correct, the time is long overdue for this law to be repealed. The ANC looks forward to finally burying this old Act.
The first version of the new Protection of Information Bill was introduced to Parliament on 5 May 2008 and was referred to the ad hoc committee dealing with intelligence and legislation on 13 May. The committee met on 4 June 2008 for the first time.
However, following on a resolution taken on 15 October 2008 the ad hoc committee requested that the Minister of Intelligence withdraw the Bill. Motivation for the withdrawal came from the ANC study group.
The new version of the Protection of Information Bill was re-introduced to Parliament on 9 March 2010 by the hon Minister. After few meetings the committee had to adjourn because of the World Cup. Nonetheless, public hearings were held on 21 and 22 July. Here it should be noted that all those organisations, all of them that have shown an interest or had applied were invited to participate in the public hearings. No one, not one organisation, was excluded.
Chairperson, I must add here that many entities such as Business South Africa, the SA Council of Churches, and the SA National Editors' Forum, Sanef, insisted to meet me in private and sent high level delegations in order to register their concerns regarding the Bill in the form that it was then. However, all acknowledged the need for such legislation. I advised them that their concerns will be given the necessary attention and to a large extent this was done and is reflected in the Bill today. As the ANC we were concerned about certain aspects of the Bill and therefore obtained a number of legal opinions to guide us so that we were informed on all aspects of the Bill including its constitutionality on certain clauses and the Bill itself.
In addition, the committee was also confronted with legal opinions on various aspects of the Bill coming from other interested organisations including the DA. Some of these legal opinions were considered and led to meaningful amendments to the Bill.
The ad hoc committee received presentations from the Minister of State Security on international best practices pertaining to the protection of state information particularly sensitive state information.
This exercise also led to a number of amendments to the Bill. Concepts such as national security, public interest events, public domain and many more were all thoroughly researched. My colleagues will talk about these aspects later.
The ad hoc committee itself met 68 times since the reintroduction of the Bill to consider and deliberate on it. Accordingly, on Monday, 5 September 2011, the ad hoc committee finally completed its work on the Bill. I repeat here Chairperson, that it should be noted that, while opposition parties worked very well with the committee to finalise the Bill, the DA, IFP, ACDP all voted against it at the committee meeting. The ad hoc committee report was accordingly published on the Announcement, Tabling and Committee Report, ATC, on 13 September.
The original Bill has been substantially amended to the extent that the finalised Bill has been presented to the National Assembly as a redrafted Bill. However, there is a matter in this whole episode of the Bill. Hon members, I think you must listen to this. I have recently travelled through the country briefing South Africans and others on aspects of the Bill. I was shocked by the amount of misunderstanding that exists amongst our people on what the Bill is all about.
All, without exception, have relied on the media for their misunderstanding and all have confessed that it was through the media that they have developed incorrect and false perceptions and opinions about the Bill.
Hon Chairperson, I speak from experience. I have had many media interviews while the ad hoc committee was processing the Bill. I do not remember one occasion when I was correctly quoted or my version of the committee proceedings was accurately reported. This is not a media Bill. There is nowhere in the Bill where the media is mentioned or is the object of focus in the Bill.
The Bill criminalises certain behaviours and unlawful actions and these provisions apply to everybody in the country. It was extremely disappointing when we were faced with these continuous negative reports. It is, in fact, the media institutions which at the public hearings called for drastic changes to the Bill. For example, one of their major concerns was the broad application of the Bill. They complained that the Bill applied to all organs of state; we were told that there were thousands of organs of states and this would lead to widespread corruption if these institutions had the power to classify.
Then, we changed the Bill to limit the application just to the police, defence and civilian intelligence. What did the media say? The report said, "Cosmetic changes". This has been the attitude. No matter what amendments the committee made.
I found a most useful statement in the judgement in the matter of Midi television vs the Director of Public Prosecutions. It is a Supreme Court of Appeal case in which the court said the following about the press, I quote:
It is important to bear in mind that the constitutional promise of a free press is not one that is made for the protection of the special interests of the press.
The Court goes on to say: Press exceptionalism - the idea that journalism has a different and superior status in the Constitution - is not only unconvincing but it's a dangerous doctrine.
This is what the Supreme Court of Appeal said.
Hon Chairperson, I've said that the Bill before the House has undergone vast changes to accommodate the concerns raised by all to make it workable and consistent with the Constitution of the Republic.
The ANC supports the Bill. I would like to say many thanks to all those who served in the ad hoc committee. They worked extremely hard and at most times under very difficult circumstances in order to complete the Bill. On many occasions the committee was forced to work till night. It is therefore appropriate to say thanks to the Minister of State Security and his staff for the briefings and assistance they rendered when called upon by the committee; the Chief State Law Adviser, Mr Enver Daniels and his staff; the parliamentary legal service ; staff who were allocated to the ad hoc committee; hon comrades of the ANC who served on the committee; members of the opposition who assisted in making many valuable contributions; a special word of thanks to the DA members, namely, hon Smuts, hon Maynier, hon Stubbe and hon Coetzee who were always there and were always listening and had very meaningful contributions. [Applause.] The hon Swart of the ACDP was there too and he was very useful and he had made very meaningful contributions.
Hon members, I do not have much to say about the hon Oriani-Ambrosini. [Laughter.] I can only say that he did open my eyes and I am a better person now. My eyes have been opened by hon Oriani-Ambrosini. Thank you. [Applause.]