Protection of State Information Bill: discussion on Committee Programme

Ad Hoc Committee on Protection of State Information Bill (NCOP)

17 January 2012
Chairperson: Mr R Tau (Northern Cape, ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Ad Hoc Committee firstly adopted the Minutes of the previous meeting, subject to amendment. The Committee then tabled two draft programmes; one more detailed than the other. The programme indicated that the Committee would be publishing the advertisements for public submissions on 18 January, that a briefing would be given by the Department of State Security on the Protection of State Information Bill (the Bill) on 24 January. The Committee would split into groups, with a minimum of two groups, which would reflect the gender and multi-party composition of the Committee, and those groups would then conduct public hearings in the provinces; with one group perhaps dealing with one district or area, and another simultaneously covering another area. Public hearings in Parliament in Cape Town were scheduled for 13 and 14 March, with the Committee deliberations following on that. The Committee would attempt to table a report towards the end of March, prior to the Constituency period, although Members indicated that they would be willing to sit during the constituency period if necessary.

During deliberations, Members discussed the ideal group composition, the possibility of more meetings being added in to consider new issues raised, and to re-debate some issues that remained of concern to political parties and the public despite the extensive deliberations in the National Assembly, stressed that people in each area must receive sufficient information in advance to enable full and useful discussions, debated whether more metros could be included and asked that the State Law Advisors should also brief the Committee. The Chairperson confirmed that the provinces would be asked to give input on areas to be visited, that the State Law Advisors would brief the Committee, and that the Minister would be invited to attend. The Committee may also need to take up more than one day on the deliberations after the hearings. It was agreed that the provincial whips would be asked for input on the programme, that Members would receive any proposals for changes by the end of the week, that the Committee would try to cover as broad and representative areas in each province as possible, and noted that Members would still need time to attend to their other Committee duties. 

Meeting report

Protection of State Information Bill
Adoption of minutes of previous meeting
Mr J Gunda (Northern Cape, ID) noted a correction. The minutes were adopted, subject to that amendment.

Proposed first term programme
The Chairperson tabled the proposed first term programme for the Committee (16 January to 23 March 2012). He reminded Members that the mandate from the House was that the consideration of the Protection of the State Information Bill (the Bill) should be concluded by end April. He noted that the draft programme included both public hearings in the provinces and public hearings in Parliament itself. All nine provinces would be visited, and there would be hearings held in at least two districts per province, with more in Limpopo, KwaZulu Natal and Eastern Cape. Initially the emphasis was on rural districts, but a balance also had to be found between the areas, and in some provinces both the rural and urban districts were venues for public hearings.

The programme also took account of the organised groups who would want to make presentations to the Committee, either in writing or orally. The Committee would then engage on the processes and submissions coming out of the public hearings.

The formal briefing from the Department of State Security would be given on Wednesday 24 January.

Discussion
Mr D Bloem (Free State, COPE) asked that the Committee go through the programme page-by-page. He also queried who would form each of the two groups.

Mr R Lees (KwaZulu Natal DA,) believed that this Committee would be able to suggest amendments that would be acceptable to all parties and the public. He suggested that some meetings could be added in, which he would elaborate upon.

Mr T Chaane (North West, ANC) agreed with these suggestions, but asked that Members should also agree on how the reports should be drafted; the Chairperson had noted at the previous meeting that a lot of ground had been covered in the National Assembly, and that this Committee would need to do detailed work. He thought that the Committee should concentrate largely on the visits to provinces.

Mr A Matila (Gauteng, ANC) suggested that the focus of this meeting should be on the programme.

Mr J Gunda (Northern Cape, ID) suggested that the people in every area should have received enough information, in advance, to make proper input. He stressed that some people in the country still did not have access to radio and TV information, and they would therefore need to get information that would enable this Committee to do its work properly.

The Chairperson briefly responded to all comments. He noted that the districts had been chosen by their character, in line with what had been discussed previously. However, he thought that if the provinces wished to suggest something different, then the Committee must be guided by their interests.

On the question of additional items, as raised by Mr Lees, he suggested that a consideration of the issues to be covered may lead to discussion on when meetings should be held. He asked Mr Lees what additional items he suggested would need to be considered. The draft programme had identified civil society, non-government organisations (NGOs), business and labour as possible commentators, but he may wish to add more.

Mr Lees responded that he was not necessarily in agreement with the division between districts and metros. He said that the Ikapa Survey showed that at least 40% of South Africans did not know about Bill. He thought more metros should be visited, including Soweto and other major metropolitan areas.

He added that this Committee needed to consider not only the input from civil society and the public, but thought also that the State Law Advisors needed to brief the Committee about the constitutionality of the Bill, after amendment by the National Assembly. He was not sure whether the Chief State Law Advisor had yet certified the Bill as passed by the National Assembly.

Finally, he said the question of the public interest defence clause had occupied the DA and civil society for some time. He wanted a session with the Minister of State Security, so he could brief the Committee on why there was objection to this defence.

Ms M Dikgale (Limpopo, ANC) raised a point of order. She had not been briefed at all on the Bill and she wished to be briefed on it before discussing any specifics.

The Chairperson sustained her objection. He then noted that the Department of State Security (the Department) would be briefing the Committee. The Head of the Department – in this instance the Director General – would be present, and the Office of the Chief State Law Advisor and Parliamentary Law Advisors would be represented. If the Minister of State Security was available, and he would be invited, he could also participate in this meeting.

The Chairperson then responded, in relation to the areas to be visited, that rural areas were included, following earlier discussions by Members. He also suggested that it would be wise not to pre-empt what might happen in future meetings.

Mr Lees accepted the Chairperson’s ruling on the point of order. He continued that he had some concerns about the latter part of the programme. The hearings were due to finish on 14 March. However, he did not think that the Committee should confine itself to one day of deliberations after public hearings were concluded, given that there was a constituency period (although he was happy to meet during that).

Mr Mazosiwe (Eastern Cape, ANC) suggested that the Committee should now move to the page-by-page consideration. He took Mr Lees’ point but thought that the other pages should be considered also.

Mr Bloem referred to the Chairperson’s statement that the provinces’ input could still change the programme, and expressed his concern with it. If anything new was raised, it could be worked into the programme, but he would like to see the programme set in broad outline today. He also did not want the public hearings to take the form of a rally, where a certain sector of the population might be invited but others left out.

The Chairperson raised a point of order himself and repeated that he did not want Members to pre-empt anything. It was important that everyone knew when and where the meeting would be held, and who would address it. It was vital to maximise participation of ordinary South Africans in understanding legislative processes.

Mr Matila noted that Gauteng had three metros – yet not one was shown on the programme – and two semi-rural districts. He thought that these issues should be raised during discussions. Sedibeng was far removed from other areas. That was why the interests of provinces would be important to consider.

Mr Masoziwe suggested that perhaps in the larger provinces, the numbers of public hearings should be increased, to cover a wider area.

The Chairperson responded to an earlier question on the groups. He thought that perhaps the first proposed programme might have been too ambitious. The amount of work confronting the Committee was huge. It might not be possible for the Committee to achieve everything that it wanted, and so the suggestion was made to divide the Committee into groups, who would address the districts individually. Subsequent to a further assessment of the numbers, it was realised that it would even be possible to form three groups, to cover a wider range of areas. District councillors and others could also be asked to be present. He thought that a group of four members each, plus officials from the Department, might be sufficient. Therefore, he noted that although two groups were mentioned, actually three could be needed.

Mr Bloem thought that two groups was preferable to three or four. He did not think that the work of the Parliamentarians, being elected public representatives, could be delegated to officials.

Mr Matila agreed with the split into three groups. There were already suggestions to have more public hearings, and if those were to be increased, then two groups only would not have enough time to visit all places. Parliamentary officials would be taking minutes at the meetings (not necessarily Departmental officials).

Mr Chaane suggested that although there had been huge public interest in this Bill, the Committee would in fact not process it any differently from any other bill. If the Committee agreed that there was a need to widen the net of people reporting, then the group framework was ideal. If the Committee was not divided into three groups, he was not sure that everyone could be heard in one day, as the programme indicated. Mr Masoziwe had suggested that two groups should be a minimum, but three may be needed in some areas. He added that some areas may also already have been covered during the National Assembly’s public hearings.

Mr Chaane finally suggested that it was not necessary to include, in the published programme, details such as “departure for accommodation”.

Mr L Nzimande (KwaZulu Natal, ANC) stressed that the public hearings should remain as hearings only, with the deliberations of the Committee being a separate issue. He agreed that it made sense to have more than two groups, as there were fourteen members in the Committee. He thought it would be valuable to have members of provincial legislatures participate in the hearings. He noted that this was a section 75 Bill, and the issue of the provinces’ mandates would be slightly different. Mr Nzimande also pointed out that there was nothing exclusive about this Bill, as Members must remain committed to their other work in other Select Committees.

Mr Lees confirmed that the DA would be happy to support the three-team concept. However, the question was still how to broaden the input, whether Members themselves could decide on this, or whether suggestions would be sought from the provinces.

Mr Masoziwe thought that the provincial Whips could give feedback to those dealing with the programme. It was important to create a balance between rural and urban hearings.

The Chairperson agreed that provincial whips would respond. He asked Members to agree that by Thursday of this week, any amendments should be suggested and effected, and he therefore asked Members to adopt the programme, with amendments. He also confirmed that the Committee would split into three groups, where necessary, and sit with members of provincial legislatures and councils. The Committee would concentrate on the work to be completed by end-April, and any barriers would be discussed if and when they arose. He also thanked Mr Nzimande for his concise summary of the difference between the public hearings and the deliberations, with the latter to be dealt with during a full session of the Committee, after reports had been presented. These public hearings were also different from oversight visits. He also assured Members that no areas would be ignored and every sector must be encouraged to take part in the processes. In relation to the groups, he stressed that no Member would be disqualified from attending a hearing in his or her own province, each delegation would be gender-representative, and each delegation would also reflect the multi-party character of the Committee.

The meeting was adjourned.

 

Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: