Speaker and hon members, in 1994, 1999, 2004, and again in 2009, South Africans gave the ANC the mandate to govern this country, including the primary obligation to defend our country's sovereignty by defending its borders and guarding citizens from external and internal threats. This basic logic continues to elude hon Mazibuko and her DA handlers. Perhaps you can forgive her because of inexperience. [Interjections.]
The worst embarrassment today is a former Minister of Defence, who occupied a top position to secure the country, who does not know that houses or places of former presidents are national key points. It speaks volumes and it speaks for itself why his party is in disarray and in chaos. [Interjections.]
As we approach the 20th anniversary of our democracy, taking stock and reflecting on things that need be reviewed and those that need consolidation, it is naturally expected that this anniversary coincides with electioneering, the period which sometimes has unintended consequences of possibly diluting possibilities of honest, non-partisan, robust and deeply introspective analysis of these issues with the aim of promoting our national interests and nation-building process.
Unfortunately, the temptation to seek opportunities to expose perceived government or ruling party weaknesses sometimes knows no boundaries, and is not even tempered by what would be the national security interest which, by any international objective benchmarking, would stand the test.
At face value, the question posed by hon Mazibuko is simple enough and is worth serious consideration. Is the National Key Points Act relevant and necessary in a democratic South Africa? Part of the onerous legacy of apartheid is the existence of the huge body of legislation, all of which over time needs to be reviewed and brought into compliance with the new democratic Constitution. There is no doubt that some of these residual policies, legislation and practises may not fit comfortably with the new ethos.
While we search for proper alternatives, it will also be irresponsible to allow for a policy vacuum, especially in areas which involve the national security and key strategic institutions. That includes the National Key Points Act. At the broader level, a review of policy that inhibits a faster transformation that will change the socio-economic historical imbalances must also be on the menu, so that we do not confine ourselves to just security or information laws, if we are to uproot the apartheid and colonial legacy.
We must do that, hon Lindiwe Mazibuko, even when we debate the Expropriation Act, which some of you are against. I would hope that there would be broad agreement on that approach and the need to review the apartheid legislation, even from the most conservative members of the opposition benches.
Indeed, we have already heard from the Minister of Police that this process is already well under way. What else do you want? You are also aware of that. I would like the hon members to note the approach adopted by government in this case. Firstly, we conduct research, including establishing international trends and best practises, which clearly indicate that critical and strategic infrastructure is identified by governments for security reasons. Research will be followed by the development of the policy document, and then a review of the legislation will include the public consultation process.
Such security arrangements are a dominant feature of most states - including the established western liberal democracies, which are often cited by the opposition as the benchmark of a range of issues - but they selectively and quite conveniently choose not to mention the security arrangements of these states. In those states, security arrangements are not for public consumption, hon Lekota. You know that very well. [Applause.]
Contrary to the approach of the DA - no research, no consultation, steamroll the process and move straight to releasing the Bill, presumably thumb-sucked - the very same members of the opposition will exclaim in jubilation if such a rushed and poorly conceived document is turned down as not being in conformity with constitutional prescripts.
We just cannot have it both ways. As it is said, one can't have one's cake and eat it too. There are processes which must be followed. The serious point here is that the DA shows complete disdain for parliamentary procedures. [Interjections.] This attempt to undermine the democratic process is both reprehensible and irresponsible. Here we see blatant partisan ...