The four main components of the bill are:
Business and labour were the main protagonists in this debate, with labour demanding that the private sector be subject to the same principles of transparency that the Bill imposes on government. In her speech, the representative from the Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu), Nowetu Mpati, demanded that "all bodies wielding public power should be subject to the Bill's disclosure codes".
"Many bodies in the private sector routinely take decisions which have a profound impact upon public policy. In many cases they exercise what for all practical purposes is public, rather than private, power. South Africa has one of the highest concentration of monopolies in the world so this issue is particularly pertinent" she said.
Business, on the other hand, was determined to stave off these attempts to broaden the scope of the Bill. Represented by Bill Lacey from the South African Chamber of Business (SACOB), the argument was that secrecy in business was a natural consequence of the competitive spirit amongst rival businesses in their fight for consumer income. This competitive edge made business "extremely sensitive to information disclosures of a financial, commercial and technical nature that could seriously prejudice or enhance a business's position viz a viz its rival" said Lacey.
The debate was taken further in two of the four working groups that were convened after one-and-a-half days of formal papers and presentations. Here SACOB argued that the Bill would raise numerous complications if applied to business. Specific reference was made to the obligations with regard to the compilation and distribution of the manual and the duties of the information officer. The Bill stipulates that every government body will have to compile and publish a manual outlining all the information a citizen needs to know about the workings of the body and the information held by the body. In addition, every government body will be obliged to appoint an information officer who will deal directly with all requests from the public and will be obliged to render assistance to the public where necessary.
Sacob felt that the issues that the ODB wished to address in respect of business should be tackled via existing legislation such as the Companies Act, Income Tax Act, Environment Act, Consumer Legislation and the Competitions Act.
The other working group that also dealt with the issue of the scope of the bill, was cautious about recommending that the Bill be all-inclusive. The group felt instead that the wording relating to the duties of the Open Democracy Commission should be strengthened to make it mandatory and not discretionary to study the possible inclusion of the private sector and parastatals.
This same working group raised concerns about whether the media would continue to receive the information it required on a daily, routine basis. The working group recommended that the Task Group ensure that the Bill could not be used to block or suppress enquiries by the media, which currently were being met easily by government departments. The group referred specifically to the time frames and procedures set out in the Bill which they feared could be used to block media enquiries (in terms of the Bill, an information officer need only respond to a request within 30 days of receiving it, and within five days of receiving an urgent request). The group also took issue with the slow time frames in general, particularly with regard to a non-urgent request.
Working group three concen trated on the Open Democracy Commission (ODC). The group was concerned that the bill made no provision for a procedure of appointment of Commissioners involving public nominations and public hearings. The group noted that such a procedure had the effect of legitimizing the status of appointees on official bodies. They recommended that a selection panel be appointed by the President and/or Parliament and that this panel should hold public hearings for publicly nominated persons. The panel would then appoint the Commissioners according to certain criteria also proposed by this working group.
Working group four tackled an area that has been largely overlooked until now - the lack communication mechanisms in the Bill that could address the development needs of communities and citizens. In this regard, the group felt the Bill should be designed to service the majority of disadvantaged people in South Africa. It must address both the right to receive information from government bodies and other bodies who exercise public power as well as their obligation to communicate information. In order to strengthen these objectives, a media infrastructure should be developed involving the mass media, community media and new forms of media.
Among the recommendations from this working group was that the ODC embark on a mass publicity campaign to popularise the Bill and its main components. It further recommended that the Open Democracy Bill should form part of the school curriculum and civic education programmes in both rural and urban areas.