Hon Deputy Speaker, hon Deputy President, hon Ministers, Deputy Ministers and hon members, we may be repeating ourselves here during the course of this debate, but there are some people who are still very confused about this Bill. So, you must forgive us if we repeat ourselves.
Allow me to quickly remind the House of the history and the road that the Bill has followed. In 2008, the first version of the Bill was introduced to Parliament as the Protection of Information Bill by the then Minister for Intelligence, Mr Ronnie Kasrils. Public hearings were held but the Bill was subsequently withdrawn in October 2008 when Minister Cwele became the Minister.
A new and much improved version of the Protection of Information Bill was reintroduced to Parliament by the Minister of State Security in March 2010. Public hearings were held in June after the 2010 Fifa World Cup. During this period, the Bill was renamed the Protection of State Information Bill.
In September 2011, the National Assembly's ad hoc committee finally completed its work on the Bill. In November 2011, the Bill was referred to the NCOP for concurrence and an ad hoc committee was appointed to process it. I must remind the House that the NCOP's ad hoc committee also held public hearings. The Bill, subject to proposed amendments, was passed in the NCOP on 29 November 2012.
On Tuesday, 26 February 2013, this House, by resolution, re-established the ad hoc committee, which had originally processed the Bill, in order to consider it with the proposed amendments of the NCOP and to report to the House by 20 June 2013. The committee met and considered the Bill and its additional proposed amendments, put forward by the DA. These DA proposed amendments were rejected. The ad hoc committee also considered the NCOP's proposed amendments to the Bill, referred to the committee by the House.
On Monday, 22 April 2013, the committee unanimously accepted the NCOP's proposed amendments to the Bill. Let me add that all parties present agreed that the NCOP's proposed amendments could be incorporated into the Protection of State Information Bill. However, the DA, ACDP and Cope requested that it should be noted that they were not in favour of the Bill. The committee's report accordingly reflects these objections. This is the short and what may appear to be a lengthy history of the Protection of State Information Bill in more than five years in Parliament.
Please permit me now to briefly remind the hon members of the substance of the Bill. The hon Minister has already touched on this matter. I have said that it is necessary that some of the hon members hear this again.
The Bill focuses on two types of state information and provides for the protection thereof. These are valuable and sensitive information. Sensitive information must be classified as either confidential, secret or top secret, in order to protect it from unlawful disclosure. Furthermore, the Bill provides for offences in respect of failure to protect valuable or sensitive information or disclosure of such information, in the manner set out in the Bill. The Bill also repeals the old apartheid Protection of Information Act, Act 84 of 1982.
Let me warn the House that the Protection of State Information Bill has the tendency to seriously affect the emotions and the thinking of reasonable people. They then start to behave incoherently, and funny, and say strange things that are inconsistent with the behaviour of ordinary and sane people. It is amazing to observe this transformation - and you will soon see for yourself. I also had to fight to hold back my tears when the committee finally completed its work a few days ago. This is how the Bill has touched some of us. [Interjections.] You see what I've said, hon Deputy Speaker, there it is now. [Laughter.] It will get worse as I go along. [Laughter.] It's going to get much worse by the time we finish.
Some of the strange behaviour that we see, and which will confuse my comrades in the ANC, is that there are people and organisations who claim to speak on behalf of the people of South Africa when they attack the Bill. [Applause.] They say that people don't want this Bill. They say many funny things about the Bill. But they always say the people don't want the Bill. Hon Deputy Speaker, please help the misinformed. You have the records of all the elections held in our country during the democratic era. The results are public. It's not classified.
Is it not the ANC that has won two thirds of the votes at every election? [Interjections.] Is it not the ANC that represents the majority of the people of the Republic of South Africa in this House? Is it not the ANC that has over a million members and has members and people rushing to join the organisation on a day-to-day basis? [Interjections.]
The public participation and consultation processes that were followed with the processing of the Bill cannot be equated with anything that this Parliament has experienced before. This was driven by the ANC. Let it not be said that we did not listen. Let it not be said that where we had to make meaningful changes, we hesitated. The ANC listened to the people's voices. We made so many changes that the Bill is now like a newborn child. That is what the ANC did.
As I have said earlier, this Bill has driven people to say weird things that are simply not true. They even call the Bill the secrecy bill. They don't know that the name is the Protection of State Information Bill. Most of them have never read the Bill. They always talk on TV and radio shows. However, it is quite clear from what they are saying that they've never read the Bill. They are still complaining about the old version of the Bill. They appear to be unaware that the Bill this House is considering today is a born-again Bill. It is a new Bill with many hundreds of changes that were driven by the ANC government. [Applause.]
The ANC accepts that there were many interested individuals, organisations, political parties, and nongovernmental organisations, NGOs, who have an interest in testing the constitutionality of the Bill. Threatening to challenge the constitutionality of the Bill in court is their right. It's a right enshrined in our Constitution. Why must the ANC be scared? You can go to court. We accept that you can go to court and it's your right. There's no need to be scared of the Constitution; but don't use it as a threat. Don't use it as a threat. Don't threaten the ANC and say you will go to court.
What we are saying is that we have consulted extensively in the committees on the legality and constitutionality of the Bill. We have followed each and every step. As a consequence, we are satisfied that the Bill is in line with the Constitution. However, the manner in which the threat of legal action is expressed, is disturbing. It is said that this open democratic process has come to a conclusion. As Parliament, as the ANC and as government, there are still those who will not accept the bona fide manner in which we have dealt with this Bill.
As the ANC, we have done and given so much, but there is simply no appreciation, credit, and recognition for what we have done. [Interjections.] You see what I said. The people are starting to shake. [Interjections.] This thing has a very negative effect. [Interjection.] In the ad hoc committee, we were the first to acknowledge the contributions made by our colleagues in the opposition parties. We have said before that they have worked hard and that they have made many valuable inputs that were incorporated into the Bill.
With all due respect, I would like to call on the hon members of the opposition parties who serve in the committee to be honest and tell the nation the truth. Tell the nation of the goodwill and understanding that the ANC has shown while this Bill was being processed through Parliament.
There is a story that needs to be told and retold. Listen carefully though, because these people are already unstable. [Laughter.] The Bill originally applied to all organs of state. This application clause resulted in much criticism. People became unstable and went mad. You couldn't understand them. It was at this early stage that we noticed that some people were emotionally affected by the Bill. Their reasoning became faulty. We listened, received submissions, consulted, and, in a responsible manner, the ANC agreed to restrict the application of the Bill to the security forces referred to in Chapter 11 of our Constitution. As a result we changed it, because that's how reasonable people behave. [Applause.] That's how the ANC behaves. We changed it. [Interjections.] Listen! The ANC behaves reasonably.
This was a monumental change in the Bill. The hon members here will agree with me. It was monumental. It means that the Bill no longer applies to municipalities and other departments, but only applies to the police, defence force, and civilian intelligence, and not to any other organs of state. What people are saying on TV, is that it applies to all the organs of state and the classified organs. It does not apply to all of them.
The point is that very little was said - no credit and no acknowledgement of this very important amendment that was effected to the Bill. [Interjections.] There they go! You see? [Laughter.] The Protection of State Information Bill taught us something. Instead, I get anonymous phone calls; anonymous short message services, SMSs, and vulgar stuff threatening my life and that of my family. I don't know where all this is coming from. However, shows how unreasonable it is that, when you are dealing with legislation, people are threatening your life ... [Time expired.] [Applause.]
The ANC supports the Bill.