ATC131111: Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Protection of State Information Bill on the Protection of State Information Bill [B 6F – 2010] (National Assembly – sec 75), dated 08 November 2013

Appointment of Public Protector

Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Protection of State Information Bill on the Protection of State Information Bill [B 6F – 2010] (National Assembly – sec 75), dated 08 November 2013

The Ad Hoc Committee on Protection of State Information Bill, having reconsidered clauses 42 and 45 of the Protection of State Information Bill [B 6F – 2010] (National Assembly – sec 75) and the President’s reservations on the defect on the substance thereof (Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports, 12 September 2013) recommends that the President’s reservations be accommodated, and reports the Bill with amendments [B 6G – 2010]

The Committee further reports that the Democratic Alliance (DA) and African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP)  took the view that the Committee should have requested clarity from the President on the matters on which he has reservations as to their constitutionality and accordingly abstained.

The Congress of the People (COPE) did not support the process and the outcome of the Ad Hoc Committee.

The Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) felt that, as set out in Section 79 of the Constitution, rather than merely addressing the concern of the constitutionality expressed by the President, the Committee should have allowed the review of the Bill beyond a few chosen grammatical matters.

The Committee further decided that it was unable to agree to the inclusion in the report of a letter by the IFP which actually misrepresented events of the proceedings and positions taken by the members of the Committee.

During its deliberations, the Ad Hoc Committee on Protection of State Information Bill came across some textual errors on the Bill. The Committee has resolved that in addition to the President’s reservation, leading to an amended Bill having to be presented before the House in terms of Joint Rule 203 (3)(b), it was agreed that the textual and technical corrections would also be included. Only the DA and ACDP objected.

The Committee is of the view that these corrections are in line with the need to ensure that the Bill is coherent and rational and does not believe that they go beyond the scope of the President’s reservations. Only the DA and ACDP objected.

Report to be considered.

Documents

No related documents