Hon Speaker and hon members, it is difficult for me to conceive of a situation in a country where there are no places that are protected, or a situation where everybody can go anywhere.
Azapo is in full support of transparency, but we do not believe that transparency should be the same as nakedness. All countries, including the so-called old democracies, have areas that are protected, and where access is controlled and restricted.
The subject for discussion has obviously been triggered by the shame that was brought on the country by Nkandlagate. The need to protect key infrastructure must not be extended to obstructing the role of Parliament and making it difficult for Parliament to exercise its oversight role. While we need an Act that protects certain areas, Azapo does not support a situation, as happened with Nkandla, where Parliament does not have information on how taxpayers' money was used.
The nation does not want to know the house plans of the private residence of Number One. The people want to be sure that money was used in line with the Public Finance Management Act, PFMA. As processes to review this piece of legislation are initiated, this House must ensure that it becomes impossible to use the law to hide corruption and the plundering of public funds. We are angry at what happened at Nkandla. South Africans are unhappy with the secrecy surrounding the expenditure on Nkandla. However, that has very little to do with the need, or otherwise, for an Act that protects critical infrastructure.
If the question is, do we need an Act, then the answer is yes, we do. Do we need this one in its current form? Definitely not. At least, there is agreement that this Act must be reviewed. If we fight or if we argue, the debate should be on the form and content of that review; but as a country, like all other countries, we have areas that need to be protected by law. I thank you. [Applause.]