Unrevised transcript of the debate in the National Assembly on the vote on the Protection of State Information Bill (POSIB), Parliament, Thursday, April 25 2013

Thursday, 25 April 2013

PROTECTION OF STATE INFORMATION BILL

(Consideration of Bill and of Report of Ad Hoc Committee on Protection of Information Bill)

The MINISTER OF STATE SECURITY (Siyabonga Cwele): Hon Deputy Speaker, Deputy President, hon members, fellow South Africans, today, as we debate to adopt the Protection of State Information Bill during the week of the Freedom Day, we are confident that it has addressed the concerns of our people as we continue to uphold that the power belongs to them.

The main objectives of the Bill remains, firstly, to protect valuable state information against alteration, loss or destruction which will ensure that our citizens are not denied their rights. The Bill, for example, protects people from being married by people they don't know or that their companies are highjacked. Secondly, is to provide for sensitive information, classification, reclassification and declassification which will protect it while it's sensitive and later enable our people access through a declassification system which we are introducing. Thirdly, it aims to repeal the apartheid's Protection of Information Act of 1982 that remains uncomfortable in our statutes book today. Lastly, is to criminalise espionage and hostile activities and improve the security of the Republic from attempts of making it a banana republic.

Hon members, it bears repeating that the Bill was subjected to public and extensive amendments or even redrafting by the National Assembly committee after listening to the calls and demands of our people. These major changes were supported by all the parties, except for few clauses which were related for a more public interest or public domain defence clauses. Furthermore, the NCOP ad hoc committee innovated and found new ways of bridging this gap. If you look at section 41 of the Bill today, whistle-blowers are even more protected. The acts of corruption are criminalised. So, there is no one who can hide corruption through this Act.

The National Assembly ad hoc committee has again reconsidered the Bill and amendments from the NCOP which were adopted after deliberations. By all standards and accounts, this Bill now fully addresses all legitimate concerns raised by the public. It is an immensely improved Bill despite the protestation you may find today. We did this because we are a caring government as the President has indicated during the state of the nation address this year.

What actually remains at the heart of our differences appears to be more of policy preferences which may, in our view, be portrayed by others as constitutional concerns.

The Protection of State Information Bill seeks to strengthen our democracy while balancing transparency and protecting our national security and national interests. I thus call on all the members of this House to support the Bill. I thank you very much.

Mr C V BURGESS: 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 State 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 State 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 as 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 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 creates offences in the event that valuable or sensitive information is not protected or if disclosed, 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, funny and saying 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. [Interjection.] 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 that 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? [Interjection.] Is it not the ANC that represents the majority of the people of Republic of South Africa in this House? Is it not the ANC that has over a million members and on a day-to-day basis members and people rush to join the organisation? [Interjection.]

The public participations and consultations that were followed when processing the Bill cannot be equated to 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. This 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 radios. When they talk it is quite clear that they've never read the Bill. They still complain about the old Bill. They appear to be unaware that the Bill that 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 constitutional of the Bill. The threat of a legal challenge to the constitutionality of the Bill it's 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 to 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 that we have shown bona fides in the manner in which we have dealt with this Bill.

As the ANC, we did and gave so much, but there is simply no appreciation, credit and recognition for what we have done. [Interjection.] You see what I said. The people start to shake. [Interjection.] 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 many valuable inputs that were incorporated into the Bill.

With all due respect, I would like to call on the opposition parties who serve in the committee to be honestly and tell the nation the truth. Tell the national of the goodwill and understanding that the ANC showed while this Bill was being processed through Parliament

There is a story that needs to be told and retold. Listen carefully though, 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. We changed it, 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 all the organs of state and the classified organs do not apply to them.

The point is that very little was said. No credit and no acknowledgement of this very important amendment was effected to the Bill. [Interjection.] 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 it comes from. It shows how unreasonable it is that when you are dealing with legislation and people are threatening your life ... [Time expired.] [Applause.]

The ANC supports the Bill.

The LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION (Lindiwe Mazibuko): Hon Chairperson and hon members, the fight is not over. I will tell you which fight. Just over one year ago, this House was faced with the piece of legislation that threatened our democracy's foundational values of freedom and openness. In response to that threat, Parliament sprung into life. With unprecedented opposition co-operation, the government was forced into a series of U-turns.

In the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces, we refused to back down because we knew the dangers that the Bill presented. I wish to pay tribute to the DA members who have worked tirelessly ever since to improve this Bill - the hon Dene Smuts and hon David Maynier; and in the NCOP, the hon Alf Lees and Darryl Worth.

By working with other members of the committee and opposition parties, we were unflagging in our determination to fight this unconstitutional Bill. Outside Parliament too, a well-organised campaign demonstrated the determination of all our citizens to defend South Africa's hard-won democracy. It showed that our independent media and civic organisations are indeed strong.

I believe that there are two foundational principles which are widely accepted in this House across party political boundaries. The first principle is that democracy cannot work when security exceeds its proper limits. The second principle is that the media cannot function when important information is suppressed. Bad governments thrive under the cloak of darkness. Those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear. The danger of this Bill was that its provisions could have shielded those who engaged in corruption and shady acts.

It was also tabled within the context of what seemed to be a revived security state. The cover-up of the Presidential Handbook, the secrecy behind the spending of R206 million worth of public money on President's Zuma's Nkandla homestead, the circumstances surrounding the Marikana tragedy, and the continued failure to appoint a head of the Special Investigating Unit, SIU. All of these related events and others, pointed to how the government was attempting to closedown the democratic state.

The Bill could have been used to keep the lid on embarrassing information about the government, and could have been deployed to prevent new information from emerging in the future. So, we held the line and the outcome was a greatly improved Bill. But we cannot stop here because this fight is not yet over. The fact remains that this Bill is still flawed because Parliament does not have the power to legislate on matters which are exclusive provincial competences.

From the beginning, the Bill ought to have been tagged as a section 76 Bill to allow for proper provincial scrutiny. Hon members will know that in the past, the Constitutional Court has declared Acts of Parliament null and void because they were not correctly processed as section 76 Bills. This is exactly what happened with the passage of the Communal Land Rights Act, Clara. In our view, this Bill, likewise, does not pass constitutional muster.

I sense that there are hon members in the government benches who know in their hearts that this Bill is still unconstitutional. The question is, will they stand up and be counted? Will members of the Congress of South African Trade Unions, Cosatu, continue the fight after their leaders' valiant presentation to the ad hoc committee on this Bill? Will you stand on principle and take up the fight with us?

Last year, we know that 35 members of Cosatu, in this House, voted for the secrecy bill even though their organisation opposed it publically. Today, their legacy is at stake. I hope those hon members will do the right thing.

The fight is not yet over. This House has a grave responsibility to ensure that every piece of legislation that we pass is aligned to the Constitution. Therefore, we will be seeking a legal opinion from senior council on the constitutionality of the entire Bill. [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: House Chair, on a point of order: The member standing here is misinforming the public. She says that there are members from Cosatu in the House. As Members of Parliament, as far as we know the parties that are represented here, there is no party called Cosatu.

The LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION: This House has a grave responsibility to ensure that every piece of legislation we pass is aligned to the Constitution. Therefore, we will be seeking a legal opinion from senior council on the constitutionality of the entire Bill. If the majority party passes this Bill today, we will petition the hon President to send the Bill back to the National Assembly under section 79 of the Constitution.

This is an opportunity for President Zuma to provide real leadership. Let him demonstrate to South Africa that he will stand by and stand up for the Constitution. In the event that this should fail, I have already begun with the process of lobbying the leaders of other political parties in Parliament to refer the law directly to the Constitutional Court in terms of section 80 of the Constitution.

We have a historic opportunity to stand up, across party political lines, for our Constitution today. Let us do the right thing. Let us get this Bill right. I thank you. [Applause.]

Mr D A KGANARE: Chairperson, I hope the hon Deputy President is not a member of Cosatu. [Interjections.] Hon members, Cope would like to state upfront that we support the need to have legislation which defends the right of our country to protect certain information. We believe that our country should be able to counter antidemocratic activities by hostile foreign countries. We believe that there should be legislation that enables our constitutional order to be protected.

We agree fully that the Protection of State Information Act, Act 84 of 1982, should be repealed, not only because it is an apartheid law but also because it is outdated. It is unfortunate that the Bill under discussion has been so controversial that it is difficult to separate perception from reality. A lot of posturing and manoeuvring took place during the campaigns for and against the Bill. It is interesting to note that the Department of State Security even ran an advertising campaign in the media to protect the original Bill as good, acceptable and constitutional, when the department knew that was not the case. This activity was amazing and embarrassing, if you look at the Bill as it stands now. This attempt to fool the people of South Africa failed dismally.

The amendments made by the NCOP resulted in a far better Bill which is less controversial. Cope doesn't understand why the ANC made such a hullabaloo and then went to the NCOP and became reasonable. Cope is the aware that the compromises made by the ANC were not because, like Saul, they saw the light on the road to Damascus. It is clear that the role of civil society, opposition parties, and leaders like former Minister of Intelligence Comrade Ronnie Kasrils assisted to ensure that the penny dropped in the ANC's head. The NCOP has done a good job in editing and amending the Bill to the point where the Bill is drastically improved with very small areas of disagreement.

In this regard, Cope congratulates the ANC members in the NCOP who, despite pressure from the Minister of State Security and his department, proceeded to include the amendments proposed by the DA and Cope. [Applause.] These amendments are not only a victory for the opposition but also a victory for the people of South Africa, including the members of the ANC whose objective views were suppressed by the party line. It is a victory for mass participation in the law-making process.

Whilst Cope appreciates the progressive amendments, we are still unable to support the Bill. This opposition is not merely to oppose for the sake of opposing. Cope's fundamental commitment to defend the Constitution is at the core of the opposition to this Bill. For the sake of clarity, Cope has problems with clause 34(i)(a) under "Espionage and related offences" which deals with punishment, convicting accused to imprisonment for a period of not less than 15 years but not exceeding 25 year. Cope's problem is not the period of imprisonment. Our problem is that people will be imprisoned for not knowing what they ought reasonably to have known. It is very difficult for anybody to prove that they did know what they reasonably ought to have known. That is what the ANC says people must prove. The second reason is because the public interest defence clause in this Bill is not appropriately captured. We accept that an attempt has been made to accommodate this with the inclusion of clause 41(c) of the Bill. The revelation of criminal activity does not equate to public interest.

If the ANC accepted these two issues and these amendments, Cope would fully support the Bill as it stands. Unfortunately, as things stand, Cope will not support the Bill. Hon Burgess stood up here and told you that this Bill is born again. We disagree. You don't have a clue of what born again means. This one is recycled. It is not born again. Please attend church, and then you will understand what born again means. [Laughter.] The question we have now is not whether Cosatu supports this or not. It is whether hon Borman and hon Turok will now vote for the Bill. That should be the question the ANC asks itself. I thank you. [Applause.]

Dr M G ORIANI-AMBROSINI: House Chairman, I have discharged myself from hospital today, and I come to this podium heavily medicated to plead with my friends and colleagues from the ANC to follow the dictates of their conscience. There is much more at stake on this Bill than the Bill itself. It is the very notion of democracy and what we are doing here.

Many of you know that this is a bad Bill. You have been told by the churches, you have been told by the trade unions, you have been told by the nongovernmental organisations, NGOs, and you have been told by the people of South Africa that this is a bad Bill. [Interjections.] Many of you have told me in the corridors that this is a bad Bill, and yet you will vote for it. This is where the hard-fought democracy perishes. If we do not have the courage to vote by conscience, this is the end of the First Republic, because then we can just as well send one single person from each political party to come in here with a proxy for all the Orders. When the day comes that they shut our brains down and our conscience, this Parliament will no longer be what the Constitution wanted it to be.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY (Mrs T V Tobias): Chair ...

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Order, hon member! Hon Ambrosini, will you take your seat, please? Yes, hon Deputy Minister?

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY (Mrs T V Tobias): Chair, I was wondering whether it is possible to give the hon member a little water, please. [Laughter.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon members, order! We were informed that the hon member is not well. We have made the necessary provisions, but the member preferred to speak from the podium, so we will provide him with the necessary support, if required. You may continue, sir. [Applause.]

Dr M G ORIANI-AMBROSINI: This is a serious matter. That is how we treated it. The bottom line is that we do not have a public defence clause and a public domain clause. You will be giving the people of South Africa a lesser measure of freedom and liberty than enjoyed by the people in the United States of America where there is a First Amendment clause. I wish to ask all of you: Why? Why do you do that? Do you feel that the people of South Africa are less deserving of the same freedom and democracy that the Americans have enjoyed for the past 230 years? [Interjections.]

It is a bad Bill! You have forced the hon Turok to recount. That is a crime against the conscience. Today, he had to issue a statement, eating humble pie and committing himself to vote. This is not how this Parliament must operate. [Interjections.] We have fought for the possibility of thinking, for the possibility of assessing, for the possibility of judging.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Order, hon members!

Dr M G ORIANI-AMBROSINI: When you give that power away to a Minister of State and Security, you will not retrieve it. When you relinquish the power, it is gone, and it is gone forever for your children and grandchildren. [Interjections.]

What the hon Burgess has told you just happens not to be true! This is a concertina Bill. Look at this type of misrepresentation to you, the Members of Parliament. It tells you that this Bill applies only to the organs of the security apparatus. It is true - and this is what it doesn't tell you - that this Bill can expand to apply to each and every organ of state which Cabinet authorises to apply for application of this Bill. It is a Bill the scope of which is potentially unlimited. So, the very problem that we tried to correct continues to persist.

We are not all mad, Mr Burgess. I have read this Bill. The universities have read this Bill. The churches have read this Bill, and many of the members of the ANC have read this Bill. We do know it is a bad, bad, bad Bill. The only question before your conscience is: What will you do about it? Will it be party lines and party dictatorship or the rule of freedom for which we fought? The choice is yours. Thank you very much. [Applause.]

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND FISHERIES (Pieter Mulder): Chairperson, a foreign journalist recently asked me this question: which country in Africa has the strongest opposition? My answer was: Zimbabwe has the strongest opposition in Africa. The MDC has 100 seats as opposed to the 99 of Mugabe's Zanu-PF and 10 seats of Mr Arthur Mutambara.

To determine how democratic a country is, Robert Dahl asks three questions in his book Political Oppositions and Western Democracies: One, are all people allowed to vote? Two, does the right exist for an opposition to be represented in Parliament? Three, may an opposition and the public speak their mind and be organised against the government?

In Zimbabwe, everybody is allowed to vote; opposition is allowed in Parliament; an opposition party is allowed to be organised. However, the freedom of the press and the other instruments of democracy are gagged and because of this, the European Union has from time to time renewed sanctions against Zimbabwe. Why? It is because Zimbabwe, according to them, is totally undemocratic. Why does Zimbabwe have the strongest opposition in Africa, but the country is viewed to be undemocratic? It is because democratic instruments like free media, like the protection - that is the issue here - of whistle-blowers are severely curtailed.

Stated differently, if these instruments do not work or are watered down, one starts on the road to dictatorship. The novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, Big Brother's principal weapon of choice is the ability to control all forms of information and expression. Today, we have in front of us a Bill that opens a door to the control of information in South African society. We believe that it fundamentally undermines the Constitution and the rights to freedom of expression and information. Therefore, the FF Plus supports opposition co-operation to get a third of the members of this House to refer the Bill to the Constitutional Court for a final say.

Afrikaans:

Die feit dat die wetsontwerp soveel keer gepaneelklop moes word, vanweë die Opposisie se kommer, is juis die getuienis dat die ANC nie die onskuldigste van bedoelings aanvanklik daarmee gehad het nie. Hierdie wetsontwerp het die Opposisie, die burgerlike samelweing en selfs stoere ANC-ondersteuners soos Adv George Bizos en Prof Turok laat saamsnoer teen die ANC. Die arme Prof Turok word vandag deur 'n Adjunkminister en Mnr Landers langs hom gepatroleer om hom in lyn te hou. [Gelag.] Ek glo dat dit hierdie oorweldigende opposisie van binne en buite die Parlement was, wat die ANC laat afsien het van verskeie drakoniese klousules.

Prof B TUROK: Chairperson, on a point of order: ...

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon Deputy Minister, will you take your seat, please.

Prof B TUROK ... will the hon member give me his time so that I can reply to him.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): That is not a point of order, hon Turok. You may continue hon Deputy Minister.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND FISHERIES: Mr Turok, I read your press statement. I respect what you said there and I understand politics. However, I think it still true who is sitting next to you.

Afrikaans:

Sonder die ongekwalifiseerde verdediging van openbare belang, word demokrasie bedreig. Die wet durf nie 'n gaping laat dat dit die publiek en fluitjieblasers kan uitsluit en diegene in magsposisies help om korrupsie toe te smeer nie. Dit sal die eintlike toets wees.

English:

While many changes to this Bill have been effected due to the hard work of everybody in the committee, we welcome and applaud that...[Interjections.]

The FF Plus is still opposed to the passing of this Bill and will vote against it. Thank you. [Applause.] [Time Expired.]

Mr M R SONTO: Chairperson, I'm gladly following a member of this House who claims to have fought for liberation in this country. Ha haaa! [Laughter.]

Chairperson, hon Deputy President, Ministers, Deputy Ministers and hon members, The Protection of State Information Bill, amongst other things, seeks to repeal the old apartheid legislation, the Protection of Information Act, Act 84 of 1982. Whoever is opposed to this piece of legislation, wants us to live in the apartheid era, and that will never happen. [Interjections.] [Applause.]

This Bill provides for a system of classification and declassification of state information, as the Minister has said. It further seeks to protect certain valuable state information against alteration, destruction or loss or unlawful disclosure. Furthermore, it seeks to regulate the manner in which state information may be protected. It criminalises espionage and information peddling. Cope has got a problem with that; I wonder why? I wonder why? The speaker of Cope was speaking here having a problem with this piece of legislation, criminalising espionage and information peddling. I wonder who they are working for. [Applause.]

Opponents of this Bill argue against passing of the Bill on the bases that it does not - in their view- provide for a public interests defence clause. I find it very difficult when laws of the country are processed by the two Houses of Parliament and South Africans are saying, had it not gone to the NCOP, it would not have been the product it is now. I find it very, very strange. Those people are calling themselves South Africans. We, South Africans, have two Houses of Parliament. Bills come from this House and go to the other House. That you should know.

Furthermore, amendments were made to the Bill for exemptions on disclosure and procession of classified information to address the concerns raised around the public interest defence clause. In fact, on Monday, just on Monday - it was not last week, it was this week on Monday - when we passed the Bill as amended, not a single party raised a finger against the Bill - not a single party. I'm wondering now when the leader of the DA is coming to speak here saying that the Bill is still flaunt. Yet, her operatives that are in the committee never raised a finger against the Bill. [Interjections.] You know the situation was like, always when we are in the committee they sit opposite us.

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION (Watty Watson): Hon Chairperson, I rise on a point of order.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon Sonto, will take your seat please.

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: The speaker is clearly misleading the House. [Interjections.] This is not what happened in the House. Here I have before me the report of that committee that clearly says ... - would you want me to read it?

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): No, Chief Whip, will you take your seat please. That is useful information but hon member can you continue please. [Interjections.]

Mr M R SONTO: Thank you very much. On planet Earth, I only know reptiles that have got two tongues, and that would speak this today and that tomorrow. Hear what they had to say: I am quoting hon member Swart, after the meeting, "I don't think this Bill can still in good conscience be called a "Secrecy Bill". That is what he said after he agreed with everything.

Now, to the confusion of the crowds that are being rented into all our committees, let me quote a certain Mr Murray Hunter who said:

"I don't understand their position of embracing a Bill but at the same time preparing to challenge it in the Constitutional Court". [Applause.]

IsiXhosa:

Ngabantu benu enibarentileyo.

English:

They are asking questions about you.

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Chairperson, Chairperson.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon Sonto, will you take your seat please; yes, Chief Whip.

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Chairperson, on a point of order. The hon speaker is continuing with his efforts to mislead the House. [Interjections.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Order! hon members,

UNDENTIFIED MEMBER: Chairperson, on a point of order:

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Order, take a seat hon member and wait until you are recognised. [Interjections.] What is your point of order, hon Chief Whip?

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: The point is that the parties in the committee repeatedly say they support the amendments but not the Bill. This member is misleading the House.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon Chief Whip, take your seat please. Hon members, this is the reason why we have a debate. There were different views expressed, of course. There will be parties who have certain view points and others. One will have different interpretations about it. All the different parties have an opportunity to participate in the debate. Let's continue with the debate please. [Interjections.]

Mr M R SONTO: Chairperson, the Bill provides a regime through which the public may access information by applying to the relevant head of an organ of state to review the classification status of classified information, declassifying such and grant the request if that state information reveals evidence of the following: Any contravention or failure to comply with the law; an imminent and serious public safety or environmental risk; and if the public interest in the disclosure of state information clearly outweighs the harm that will arise from the disclosure.

The public will, in terms of the provisions of this Bill, also have the right to approach our courts to request for such disclosure.

The ANC supports the Bill. Thank you very much. [Applause.] [Time expired.]

Mr S N SWART: Chairperson, the reason why this Bill has been so vociferously opposed is that the opposition parties, civil society and members within the ANC itself were concerned that state departments would use the provisions of this Bill to conceal corrupt or illegal activities under the guise of classification. The ACDP voted against this Bill mainly because of the lack of the public interest defence clause and the fact that this Bill would trump the constitutionally mandated Promotion of Access to Information Act, Paia.

As we know, the Bill was amended significantly by the National Assembly and then again by the NCOP which, significantly, inserted the defence clause in section 41. The clause provides that any person, who discloses or possesses classified information where such disclosure or possession reveals a criminal activity, will have a full defence. So the question arises whether this is a public interest defence or how far this goes. As the ACDP, we view this as a significant step; some may say it is a stride or a leap in the right direction.

Whistle-blowers, journalists and ordinary citizens who reveal criminal activities as contained in the classified documents, now have a full defence should they be prosecuted. In all good conscience, we need to conceal the significant amendment and improvement to the Bill.

However, our remaining concerns relates firstly to the standard of liability for espionage. Adv George Bizos' submission, which referred to the defence clause that was accepted by the ANC, also expressed grave concerns about the negligent standard which is inserted in the espionage clause, "the ought reasonably to have known" standard, which introduces a reverse onus on an accused that which is constitutionally unacceptable. The NCOP committee accepted this argument for all the other offences but omitted to accept it for this specific offence. That does not make sense and is problematic.

We also align ourselves with the DA's hon Dene Smuts' consistent argument about the incorrect tagging of this Bill. Provincial archives are the exclusive legislative competences of provinces, and National Parliament should not be legislating for such provincial competences prevail. We agree with the view that this Bill could be procedurally unconstitutional for that reason alone.

Together with the opposition parties, we share the view that we will be petitioning President Zuma on these narrow issues. We have come a massive long way, and yes; in all good conscience, we cannot call this a Secrecy Bill anymore.

Mr Sonto, you are right; that is what I said. We still have concerns, and we need to alert the public as well to the significant amendments. Let us however refer this Bill to the Constitutional Court so that it can give its final imprimatur on it to allay the concerns expressed by everyone. We have come a massive - a very long way, we are 99% through the way. Let us not fail the citizens in this last huddle. Thank you very much. [Applause.]

Mr L T LANDERS: Chairperson, I join other hon members in commending the relevant committee of the National Council of Provinces for the excellent amendments brought to this Bill. Firstly, in response to the hon Oriani-Ambrosini and others, I want to say that reading this Bill on its own, it is quiet clear that this Bill cannot now be used to hide corruption. It is also clear from the provisions of the Bill that municipalities and municipal entities are specifically excluded from the provisions of this Bill.

And when we listened carefully to the hon Oriani-Ambrosini's tirade - sadly he has had to leave because of his medical condition - the question that arises is: Does the hon Oriani-Ambrosini, who is a citizen of the United States of America and Italy, issue his warnings and threats on behalf of the people of America or the government of Italy? [Interjections.]

We have listened also to the ... [Interjections.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon Landers, will you take your seat, please.

Mr A M MPONTSHANE: Chairperson, I rise on a point of order.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): What is the point of order?

Mr A M MPONTSHANE: Chairperson, on a point of order: The hon member is referring to the citizen of South Africa. [Interjections.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Order!

Mr A M MPONTSHANE:  That is why ... [Interjections]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Order!

Mr A M MPONTSHANE: ... you cannot have a phenomenon where an American citizen is a member of the South African Parliament. [Interjections.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Order, order hon members!

Mr A M MPONTSHANE: So I request you Chairperson to ask the hon member to withdraw that statement. [Interjections.] I thank you, sir.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Yes, hon Minister.

The MINISTER FOR THE PUBLIC SERVICE AND ADMINISTRATION (Lindiwe Sisulu): Chairperson, of what relevance is this intervention from the IFP? The point that the hon member is making is that we would not be able to tell what a member, who has three citizenships, would be representing at any given time. [Interjections.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Order hon members! May I request you to let us continue with the debate. The matter of the citizenship is not up for verification now. Surely, the member is an hon member of the House and participated in proceedings. Hon Landers, will you continue, please. [Interjections.]

Mrs J D KILIAN: Chairperson, can we just ask the hon Landers to withdraw that component of the speech? [Interjections.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Order, hon member! I do not see any reason why the point should be withdrawn. [Interjections.]

Mrs S V KALYAN: Chairperson, may I address you on a point of order?

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): There is nothing to be withdrawn at this point. I have made a ruling in this regard. Do you want to address me on the same point of order?

Mrs S V KALYAN: Yes.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): On what matter of the ruling?

Mrs S V KALYAN: On casting aspersion on the integrity of a member of this House. [Interjections.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon members let us give an opportunity to hon Landers to continue, and we will then look into the ruling if need be. Currently, the hon Landers have started the speech and we must allow him to continue with it. You may continue hon member.

Mr L T LANDERS: Chairperson, our Constitution is the supreme law of the Republic. Law or conduct inconsistent with it is invalid and the obligations imposed by it must be fulfilled. We note the threat of court action. However, we are somewhat amused by the respective parties' determination - those who are opposed to this Bill - to get to the Constitutional Hill ahead of one another. [Laughter.]

The participation of a certain leader of a political party in place of other hon members of her party, who worked the hard yards in helping to shape this Bill, is an interesting development. An hon member of this House who is not a member of the ANC, wanted to know from me if this was a vote of no confidence in those members. My response to that member was that I hold those two hon members of the DA in high regard, and I refuse to believe that there could be any untoward reason for their nonparticipation in this debate; but it does raise an interesting point.

Perhaps the hon Mazibuko should have a quiet chat, over a cup of tea, with her new colleague, the hon Mosioa Lekota, in that space referred to by the hon Pandor this morning, and she should ask the hon Lekota to tell her about his role in the sorry saga of the Russian satellite. And please, listen very carefully to his response. [Interjections.] I am talking about the Bill. I am not being personal, this is a political forum, and I am raising political issues. If you see it as personal, then you really have a serious problem. [Interjections.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon Landers address the Chair and continue with your speech please. [Interjections.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Order!

Mr L T LANDERS: Chairperson, it has been a while since we wanted to tell these hard truths. And I had to consult with the hon Minister of State Security and others because, as a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence, I am sworn to secrecy, at least I was, and I still am. So there are things that occurred there that we have knowledge of, and all we are asking from you as a political leader, is to raise that particular matter with your colleague. [Interjections.] We are debating the Bill; it is relevant to the Bill. [Interjections.] [Applause.]

Clause 39 is a particularly welcome provision for many of us. Clause 39 of this Rule provides for the registration of foreign intelligence agents. [Interjections.] 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon member what is your point of order? Order, hon members!

Mr M G P LEKOTA: Chairperson, I rise on a point of order: I am sitting here patiently hoping perhaps that hon member ...

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon member what is the point of order?

Mr M G P LEKOTA: Chairperson, I want to know what is he insinuating about me? What is he saying? [Interjections]. He can't make insinuations like that and except me to keep quiet!

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon member take your seat please. That is not a point of order. Continue hon Landers. [Interjections.] Order hon members!

Mr L T LANDERS: Chairperson, I go back to clause 39. There are people, that walk freely even through the halls and corridors of this august House, who will now have to declare their status as intelligence agents. [Interjections.]

Mr M G P LEKOTA: Chairperson, I rise again on a point of order: If the hon member is suggesting that I am an intelligence agent, he must say so.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Order hon member! Hon Lekota, hon Lekota ...

Mr M G P LEKOTA: No Chair, you cannot allow a situation where the ruling party can say what they like and lie to the public. It has been going on for some time ...

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Order, hon member, hon Lekota, hon Lekota, will you take your seat please, will you take your seat please!

Mr M G P LEKOTA: ... and I will not accept it. I will

not accept it because they blame me even for the weather these days.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Order, hon members! Hon Lekota take your seat please!

Mr M G P LEKOTA: I am blamed for rain and for the sun by the ruling party and you keep quiet. [Interjections.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon Lekota, hon Lekota! Order, hon members! [Interjections.]

Mr D A KGANARE: Chairperson, I rise on a point of order.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon Kganare take your seat please. I haven't recognised you. Order, hon members! Hon Lekota, let us follow the debate and may I also add that you should know the rule that you cannot point at a Presiding Officer as you are currently doing. That type of behaviour is unparliamentarily. Let us show respect.

Mr M G P LEKOTA: Chairperson, I withdraw, I apologise for that.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Thank you hon member. Continue hon Landers.

Mr D A KGANARE: Chairperson, I rise on a point of order. [Interjections.]

Dr C P Mulder: Voorsitter, op 'n punt van order.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon Mulder, will you take your seat please. Yes, hon Kganare?

Mr D A KGANARE: Chairperson, I just want to ask the hon Landers whether there is ...

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon member, that's not a point of order, will you take you seat please.

Mr D A KGANARE: Chairperson, you haven't allowed me to speak.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): You want to ask the hon member a question. Hon member, hon member ...

Mr D A KGANARE: Yes, whether the information he is trying to tell us is the information he got from the National Party when he was a member? [Interjections.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon member, take your seat please. Order, hon members! Hon Mulder, what is your point of order? [Interjections]. Hon members, I cannot hear the hon member if you are continuously interjecting!

Dr C P MULDER: Chairperson, I rise on a point of order: I would refer you to Rule 63 in terms of which a member in his speech would not use unbecoming language. And what I would like to suggest is that if a member suggests that there are members or hon members of this House walking around in the Chambers of this Parliament, who are security agents, then I would suggest... [Interjections.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Order, hon members!

Dr C P MULDER: ... I would suggest that it creates a certain impression about hon members and no one can defend themselves on those expressions.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon member, your point of order is noted.

Dr C P MULDER: Thank you.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): May I suggest that we allow the hon member to complete his speech. I will revisit Hansard, and if need be, we will come back with a ruling. Hon Landers, you may continue.

Mr L T LANDERS: Chairperson, let me make it very simple and clear. I am not, for a single instance, suggesting that the hon Lekota or any other member of this House is a foreign intelligence agent. [Interjections.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Order, hon members!

Mr L T LANDERS: If you want to know what I am saying, listen carefully. [Interjections.] No, I do speak properly, unlike you.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon Landers, you may continue with your speech, sir!

Mr L T LANDERS: Chairperson, I repeat; there are people who walk freely even through the halls and corridors of this House, who will now have to declare their status as intelligence agents. The Bill has drawn interest of many countries because our law thus far did not make such a provision, and now it does. And so, like the hon Burgess, we repeat; the ANC will support this Bill. And we want to say to the hon Mazibuko and anyone else out there, who are making the threads of referring us to the Constitutional Court, that we will meet you on the hill. [Interjections.] [Applause.]

The MINISTER OF STATE SECURITY: House Chairperson, thank you very much for the debates and views from all the hon members of this House, but my appeal to the opposition is that stop behaving like scratched records and referring even to things which are no more there in the Bill. Secondly, it is worth noting that Cope is concerned about us legislating against the activities of espionage. What is notable Chairperson and hon members, is Cope really here to assist the foreign spies to act against our country and our people? I don't know. You have to judge that. [Interjections.] The hon Mazibuko, of the DA...

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON: Hon Minister, will you take your seat, please.

Mr D A KGANARE: On a point of order: Is it parliamentary for the hon Minister to deliberately mislead the House by projecting Cope as ...[Interjection.]...

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon member, will you take your seat. Hon Minister, will you take your seat, please. Hon Kganare, will you withdraw the statement that you just made that the Minister is deliberately misleading this House.

Mr D A KGANARE: Hon Chairperson,

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON: Hon Kganare, you must withdraw the statement.

Mr D A KGANARE: I withdraw the word deliberate.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON: Take your seat, please. Continue, hon Minister.

The MINISTER OF STATE SECURITY:  Thirdly, House Chairperson, the hon Mazibuko, the leader of the DA, has raised concerns about the constitutionality of the Bill but at the same time it is not clear what is unconstitutional. She says that she's still going to look for legal counsel. As the ANC, we've been looking for legal counsel all along, that's why we have been making changes in order to ensure that we comply with the Constitution. She goes on to say probably it is unconstitutional because it encroaches on the provincial exclusive powers or competencies. I think, maybe hon Swart was better explained, it was about provincial archives.

Maybe, let me address this thing very briefly, House Chairperson. The assertion that the Bill encroaches on provincial competencies with regard to mandate of provincial archives is not founded. What we know, because that's what they complained about taking off the Bill.

Firstly, the Bill does provide that once the information is declassified by security apparatus or agencies, it will be handed over to the national archives or other established archives, as the case may be for storage. It doesn't say that we'll declassify the information which is with the archives. This is done so that people can have access to this information because information is stored in our archives. I thought I should clarify this thing for hon Mazibuko so that she doesn't waste money with expensive legal counsel. We can offer these legal opinions free to you. [Laughter.]

So, House Chairperson, in conclusion, let me just say I would have liked to quote from one of the leaders of the ANC, particularly this month, but let me quote from a scholar because here we have many people who are doing their own interpretation. This worry about control of intelligence agencies, one of the renowned scholar is Loch Johnson, everyone knows him. He is the best scholar in terms of intelligence and how it should be controlled. I quote: Is it possible to have an effective secret service in an open society? Mr Johnson says that there is everything suggesting that it is possible. According to him and the views, we fully share the world is full of dangers, threats and risks, and intelligence agencies are there to provide protection by serving as eyes and ears of government.[ Time expired.] [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: House Chairperson, we move that the Bill, as amended be passed.

Mrs S V KALYAN: Hon Chairperson, the DA would like to call for a division.

Division demanded

The House divided.

Ayes - 191:  Abram, S; Adams, P E; Ainslie, A R; Bam-Mugwanya, V; Bapela, K O; Bhengu, N R; Bhengu, P; Bhengu, F; Bogopane-Zulu, H I; Bonhomme, T; Booi, M S; Borman, G M; Boshigo, D F; Botha, Y R; Bothman, S G; Burgess, C V; Carrim, Y l; Chikunga, L S; Chiloane, T D; Chohan, F I; Coleman, E M; Cwele, S C; Dambuza, B N; Daniels, P N; Davies, R H; De Lange, J H; Diale, L N; Dikgacwi, M M; Dlakude, D E; Dlamini-Zuma, N C; Dlulane, B N; Dubazana, Z S; Duma, N M; Dunjwa, M L; Fransman, M L; Fubbs, J L; Gasebonwe, T M A; Gaum, A H; Gcwabaza, N E; Gelderblom, J P; Gina, N; Gololo, C L; Goqwana, M B; Gumede, D M; Hajaig, F; Holomisa, S P; Huang, S - B; Jeffery, J H; Joemat-Pettersson, T M; Johnson, M; Kekane, C D; Kenye, T E; Khoarai, L P; Kholwane, S E; Khumalo, F E; Khunou, N P; Koornhof, G W; Kota-Fredericks, Z A; Kubayi, M T; Landers, L T; Lekgetho, G; Lesoma, R M M; Line, H; Luyenge, Z; Mabasa, X; Mabedla, N R; Mabuza, M C; Madlala, N M; Madlopha, C Q; Mafolo, M V; Magagula, V V; Magama, H T; Magwanishe, G; Makhubele, Z S; Malale, M l; Malgas, H H; Maluleke, J M; Manamela, K B; Mangena, M S; Mashigo, R M; Mashishi, A C; Masilo, J M; Mathebe, P M; Mathebe, D H; Mathibela, N F; Matshoba, J M; Maunye, M M; Mavunda, D W; Mayatula, S M; Maziya, M; Mbalula, F A; Mdakane, M R; Mentor, M P; Mfeketo, N C; Mgabadeli, H C; Mjobo, L N; Mkhize, H B; Mkhulusi, N N P; Mlambo, E M; Mmusi, S G; Mnisi, N A; Mocumi, P A; Moepeng, J K; Mohale, M C; Mohorosi, M; Mokoena, A D; Molebatsi, M A; Molewa, B E E; Moloto, K A; Moni, C M; Morutoa, M R; Moss, L N; Motimele, M S; Motlanthe, K P; Motsepe, R M; Motshekga, M S; Mthethwa, E M; Mtshali, E; Mufamadi, T A; Mushwana, F F; Ndabandaba, L B G; Ndebele, J S; Nel, A C; Nelson, W J; Newhoudt-Druchen, W S; Ngcengwane, N D; Ngcobo, B T; Ngele, N J; Ngubeni-Maluleka, J P; Ngwenya, W; Ngwenya-Mabila, P C; Nhlengethwa, D G; Njikelana, S J; Nkwinti, G E; Ntuli, Z C; Ntuli, B M; Nxesi, T W; Nxumalo, M D; Nyalungu, R E; Nyekemba, E; Oliphant, G G; Oliphant, M N; Pandor, G N M; Petersen-Maduna, P; Phaliso, M N; Pilane-Majake, M C C; Pilusa-Mosoane, M E; Radebe, J T; Radebe, G S; Radebe, B A; Ramodibe, D M; Saal, G; Schneemann, G D; Segale-Diswai, M J; Selau, G J; September, C C; Sexwale, T M G; Sibanyoni, J B; Sibiya, D; Sindane, G S; Sisulu, L N; Sithole, S C N; Sizani, P S; Smith, V G; Snell, G T; Sogoni, E M; Sonto, M R; Sosibo, J E; Suka, L; Sulliman, E M; Sunduza, T B; Thobejane, S G; Tlake, M F; Tobias, T V; Tsebe, S R; Tseke, G K; Tsenoli, S L; Tshabalala, J; Turok, B; Twala, N M; van Rooyen, D D; Van Schalkwyk, M C J; van Wyk, A; Wayile, Z G; Williams, A J; Williams-De Bruyn, S T; Xaba, P P; Ximbi, D L; Yengeni, L E; Zulu, B Z.

Noes - 74:  Adams, L H; Bhanga, B M; Bosman, L L; Carter, D; Davidson, I O; De Freitas, M S F; Du Toit, N D; Dudley, C; Duncan, P C; Eloff, E H; Esau, S; Ferguson, B D; Gcume, N P; George, M E; Greyling, L W; Harris, T D; Hoosen, M H; Huang, C; James, W G; Kalyan, S V; Kganare, D A; Kilian, J D; Kloppers-Lourens, J C; Kohler-Banard, D; Koornhof, N J   J v R; Lamoela, H; Lee, T D; Lekota, M G P; Lorimer, J R B; Lotriet, A; Lovemore, A T; Mackenzie, G P D; Marais, S J F; Max, L H; Mazibuko, L D; Mbhele, P D; McIntosh, G B D; Meshoe, K R J; Michael, N W A; Mnqasela, M; Mokgalapa, S; Morgan, G R; Mosimane, C K K; Motau, S C; Mpontshane, A M; Mulder, C P; Ndlovu, V B; Ngonyama, L S; Nhanha, M A; Njobe, M A A; Plaatjies, S K; Rabie, P J; Ramatlakane, L; Robinson, D; Rodgers, F; Ross, D C; Sayedali  Shah, M R; Schafer, D A; Selfe, J; Shinn, M R; Skosana, M B; Smalle, J F; Smiles, D C; Steyn, A C; Swart, S N; Swart, M; Van Dalen, P; Van Den Berg, N J; Van Der Linde, J J; Van Der Merwe, L L; Van Der Westhuizen, A P; Van Dyk, S M; Waters, M; Watson, A.

Abstain-1: Ntapane, S Z.

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, accordingly passed.

Source: Hansard

Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter