Hon Chairperson, I don't understand why we have hon members behaving like crybabies here. Nevertheless, hon Minister of State Security and deputies present, hon Members of Parliament, beloved guests in the gallery, let me greet you in the name of our Lord.
In 14 days' time we will be commemorating 35 years since the 1976 uprisings. This was more than just an event; it was a patriotic achievement that helped our country take a different shape. As a result of those uprisings, we are today enjoying the benefits of the gains they fought for. Today I stand in front of you as an hon Member of Parliament all because of their dedication and heroism. It is now my generation's responsibility to follow in their footsteps in a way that seeks to improve and better what they achieved.
Hon members, it is because of those that came before us that today we talk of the right to information and to other services. As we engage in different struggles that seek to better the present, let us not forget that a country's democracy is not safe until its people feel secure, and that cannot be completely achieved without protection of state information. In paying tribute to the generation of 1976, let me highlight a few points that we must all consider as we fight and demand certain rights and privileges.
Compatriots, transformation is impossible until it happens; then it becomes inevitable. South Africa has long been trembling between the impossible and the inevitable, and it is in this singularly unstable situation that the question of human rights in postapartheid South Africa demands attention.
As we consider the Budget Vote of the Department of State Security, it is important to reflect on the now constitutionally entrenched Bill of Rights. Judge Sachs said that two widely opposing views on a Bill of Rights argue in summary that a Bill of Rights is necessary because if you grant the legitimate rights of the black majority, you must also give reasonable protection to the rights of the white minority; or a Bill of Rights is a reactionary device designed to preserve the interests of whites and to prevent any effective redistribution of wealth and power in South Africa.
In 1991, the learned judge went on to say:
The most curious feature about the demand for a Bill of Rights in South Africa is that initially it came not from the ranks of the oppressed, but from a certain stratum in the ranks of the oppressors. The principal objective is precisely to give guarantees to the present oppressors, to protect them against the revindication of the oppressed; to do so in advance of and as a bulwark against rather than as a prescription in favour of change.
The question the learned judge asked is worth repeating:
Who would the proposed Bill of Rights protect: the victims of the unjust conduct, which has been condemned as a crime against humanity by all humankind, or the beneficiaries?
Perhaps exposing the intention of the fathers of our constitutionally protected Bill of Rights might be tantamount to closing the stable door after the proverbial horse has bolted. However, if at any time the Bill of Rights is put to use by any stratum of society to block transformation, we ought to ask why. Why do some professed patriots use this purportedly progressive document as a bulwark against change? Why do people who shout service delivery until their voices are hoarse, use the Bill of Rights to hamstring the democratic government from discharging its mandate?
As we debate issues that impact on this Budget Vote, let us reflect on our desire to protect these rights. Our approach to the debate on the Protection of Information Bill should be based on the premise that it is imperative to balance competing rights of openness and national security as provided for in international best practice. Section 32(1) of the Constitution guarantees the right of access to information as follows: Everyone has the right of access to - a) any information held by the state; and b) any information that is held by another person and that is required for the exercise or protection of any rights.
It is in this spirit that this Parliament passed the Promotion of Access to Information Act of 2000 to give effect to this right. That was driven by the ANC, hon Maynier. However, the need to balance openness with national security demands of us to accept that no right is absolute and all rights can be limited. The question therefore is whether the limitation of the right of access to information imposed by the Protection of Information Bill is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom.
According to section 36(1) of the Constitution, there must be regard for, among other factors, the nature of the right limited; the purpose of the limitation, including its importance; the nature and extent of the limitation; the efficacy of the limitation, that is the relationship between the limitation and its purpose; and whether the purpose of the limitation could reasonably be achieved through other means that are less restrictive of the right in question.
We should reiterate that we as public representatives need to assist South Africa, inter alia, to protect legitimate national intelligence structures; to legitimate operational methods, doctrine, facilities and personnel of security structures; to be sensitive regarding confidences in international relations; to have ongoing investigations of state security structures; to provide details of criminal investigations and legitimate police and law- enforcement methods; and to protect economic, scientific or technological secrets vital to the Republic's stability, security, integrity and development.
Without derogating from the right of access to information, we need to be frank and resolute in indicating that in order to ensure that classified information is not leaked, we must ensure that penalties are proportionate to the damage the unauthorised disclosures will cause and the harm they are likely to do. We want to put on record that it is our considered view that the right of access to information is not in conflict with the right to protection of information. This brings us to the question of why certain strata of our society are against protection of information.
Using both the straw man and the slippery-slope fallacies, the opposition and sectors of the media bombard South Africans with misinformation in that the intention behind the Bill is to classify information in order to obviate public accountability and to conceal corrupt practices. What the opposition and certain sections of the media are not telling South Africans is that the protection of classified information will impose discipline on their wayward tendencies. Fellow South Africans, a question must be asked whether those who are driving the so-called right-to-know campaign and their fellow travellers are well informed, thoughtful, and objective observers of the process, or are they being biased, hypersensitive, cynical, suspicious opportunists who blow hot and cold when it is expedient for their cause. [Interjections.] Careful examination of this new generation of protectors of minority rights, at the expense of the aspirations of the black majority, reveals that these people have no regard for fairness or justice in their application of double standards. [Interjections.] [Applause.]
They seek information not because their motive is to build South Africa, but because their motive is to portray our state as a failed state in order to - de facto - stealthily usurp political power. To those that enjoy terrorising our people through unverified information and faceless sources, your days are numbered and you will not prevail. [Interjections.] Whilst we welcome and encourage public participation and vibrant and robust debate, we believe and remain convinced that it must not be at any cost.
Hon Minister, we appreciate the development and adoption of the strategies, but without clear and progressive leadership those strategies mean nothing to our people. There are a number of critical posts that have not been filled in your department, and I am sure this has a negative impact on the operations of the community. As the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence, we are not just going to sit and listen to your reports, but we'll also make sure that you deliver on the objectives you committed yourself to.
Hon members, as the ANC we are tasked with governing the country, unlike the members on my left who have the responsibility of analysing media reports. [Applause.]
In conclusion, we are resolute and we will not turn back. We shall boost national security to negate hostile acts of foreign intervention, negate terrorist and related activities, prevent espionage and avert unlawful acts against the constitutional order.
As part of the programme of the Ministry of State Security, we note that with the passing of the Protection of Information Bill, we will bequeath to future generations a future in which there is a statutory framework for the protection of state information in all organs of state; that criteria and processes are set out in terms of which state information may be protected from unauthorised alteration, destruction and disclosure; that criteria and processes are set out for classification, and for upgrading and downgrading classification and declassification; and that there are offences and sentences in relation to a failure to heed the provision of the law, especially espionage and information peddling.
The ANC is committed to ensuring access to information. However, that right is not absolute. National security is a valid consideration and does not conflict with the rights in question. Your right is your right for as long as it does not violate my right. The ANC supports the Budget Vote. I thank you. [Applause.]