Hansard: NA Unrevised Hansard

House: National Assembly

Date of Meeting: 25 Feb 2014


No summary available.




(Consideration of Report)


There was no debate.




That the Report be adopted.


Motion agreed to.

Report accordingly adopted.



(Second Reading debate)


The MINISTER OF POLICE: Hon Deputy Speaker, the Bill before us, on the amendment of the security industry regulatory authority of 2001, was necessitated by the tremendous growth of the private security industry since the promulgation of the principal Act in 2001. The Private Security Industry Regulation Amendment Bill seeks to strengthen control over the regulation of the private security industry, including security services rendered by South Africa to other countries.


Currently there are more than 445 000 registered private security guards, compared to 270 000 armed statutory forces, which are the SA National Defence Force and the SA Police Service combined. As a result, members of the public are, on a daily basis, more likely to interface or come into contact with private security than they are with SAPS officers. South Africa currently has one of the largest private security industries in the world.


The growth of the private security industry is not unique to South Africa. Internationally the private security industry has grown significantly over the last two decades. However, the growth of the South African private security industry has outstripped other countries.


While it is true that private security does and can fill certain vacuums, private security can never replace the public police. In fact, they have different objectives. Public police aims to protect the public, while private security has a profit motive and has as its main objective the protection of its client’s interests. The interests of private clients and those of the state and the public are not always the same. It is therefore not surprising that the activities and functions of private security are regulated in most parts of the world and that the framework for this regulation is becoming more extensive in many countries.


Since the dawn of our democracy, the police have been under intense scrutiny by the state and the public. This is clearly illustrated by the multiple oversight bodies and laws governing the police. This is not the case with the private security industry, whose accountability is purely market-driven. Both government and civil society have been concerned with the effective regulation of the industry and this amending Bill seeks to address the challenges that have been experiencing with regard to effective regulation.


Among these are, firstly, the lack of resources, which compromises effective regulation, and the dependence of the regulator on the industry to fund its activities. Secondly, there is a lack of proper accountability for firearms in the possession of members of the private security industry. Thirdly, there is a lack of accountability for security services rendered outside the Republic by South African security companies. This would include, among other issues, allegations of mercenary activity. Fourthly, there are issues regarding criminality in the private security industry. Lastly, there is the growth of foreign-owned companies in South Africa. I will come back to this. As a result of these challenges the tightening up of the South African regulatory framework for the private security industry became necessary.


Let me focus on one particular issue that has received considerable attention, namely that the Bill before this august House places restrictions on the extent of foreign ownership of private security companies. It is necessary, because the line between private security companies and private military companies is becoming increasingly blurred. The United Nations has recognised the blurring of these lines and these entities are now referred to as private military and security companies, which is an all-encompassing phrase.


Equally, private security companies are increasingly used in the field of intelligence. According to international research conducted by Caroline Holmqvist, private security companies are used today for a wide variety of intelligence tasks and there are numerous examples of this. International concern has also been growing about some of the large international security companies that do not have a good record when it comes to human rights violations.


As a developmental state, it would be irresponsible of us not to take seriously the above concerns and to ensure that our domestic legislation protects both our national and security interests. Indeed, it is important to note that South Africa is not alone in wanting to limit foreign ownership in the field of the private security industry. A number of countries either completely outlaw or place limitations on foreign ownership.


Let me lay to rest the arguments advanced by opponents of this Bill that it will lead to job losses in the industry. This argument has no basis. The provision of a security service depends on the supply and demand principle, like any commodity in the marketplace. Change of ownership will not change demand.


To this day, there is no evidence that people will simply disinvest because of a change in ownership. Indications are that, when the time comes, they will sell the relevant shares to comply with the law. When foreigners bought a number of South African companies, no job losses were experienced. Private security companies, like any business, are driven by profit and nothing else.


In conclusion, the Bill not only strengthens the private security regulatory authority but also takes a responsible approach to limiting foreign ownership and to implementing this in a manner that takes into account our international obligations. I thank you. [Applause.]


Ms A VAN WYK: Hon Deputy Speaker, hon Deputy President, hon Minister, hon members of the House, Dr Carlos Ortiz is an independent analyst and researcher of private military and security companies based in the United Kingdom. Ortiz and 20 other academics have the privilege to claim that they are the originators of research into private military companies and private security companies. He said the following:


The spectacular growth of the private security companies/private military companies industry over the last decade marks a profound change in the traditional state monopoly of the legitimate use of violence.


This is quite a profound statement that he makes and one that is also relevant in our own country. We are not, as some would like us to believe, an island, unaffected by developments throughout the world. South Africa is a sovereign constitutional state, with a democratically elected government whose first priority must be to protect the sovereign interests of the state and the people of South Africa. This includes having the necessary legislation in place. Having said that, we acknowledge the important and complementary role that properly regulated private security companies are playing in South Africa.


The amending Bill was originally introduced in 2012 and the main focus of the Bill was to regulate foreign ownership of the industry. During public hearings it became clear that the industry and certain departments were of the opinion that not enough consultation had taken place.


At the same time the committee decided to do a comprehensive review of the existing legislation. This was done owing to numerous challenges in the governance of the authority and in regulating the industry. The hon Molebatsi and the hon Moepeng will speak a bit more on these issues.


The committee, in agreement with the Minister, appointed a technical committee to consult further and to address those issues already identified by the committee. The technical committee finalised its work and the Bill came back before the committee late in 2013. The Bill before us is an improved version of the 2001 Act, taking into consideration the universal developments in this field.


Security is paramount and needs to be approached in a holistic and proactive manner. The private security industry must operate in a manner that contributes to the safety and security of communities and their clients, but also in a manner that does not compromise the security of the country in which it operates. It is paramount that we achieve and maintain a trustworthy and legitimate private security industry. The Bill before us makes significant strides towards these stated values.


I want to highlight some of the provisions of the Bill. The Bill now provides for the appointment and disqualification of senior management in the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority, the PSIRA. It provides for tighter controls of the financial matters of the authority - an area of previous concern to the Auditor-General and Parliament. In the amending Bill, we also seek to improve the reporting measures of the authority to Parliament and Parliament’s committees. We have extended the categories of security businesses. The Bill also improves the regulating of security services rendered outside the Republic.


The committee took on board the submissions it received during the public hearings process. Locksmiths specifically raised the concern that their trainees would not be able to do practical work if the Bill remained as it was. This we addressed.


The committee reworked the entire section headed “Objects of the Authority” to make it current and applicable to the South African context of today. The functions of the authority were also reworked to give them an improved focus and increased effectiveness. The legislation makes provision for the appointment of a council secretary to act as a link between the council and the authority, among its functions.


Now let me get to the elephant in the room. The Bill also aims to regulate and control foreign ownership in the industry. You are going to be told here that this will lead to job losses, that the provision was sneaked in and that the need for it was never proved - this despite a 21-page document that was presented to the committee to show the need for this change in the Bill. All of this will be vastly removed from the truth and reality. What is the truth? What is the actual situation? [Interjections.] If you listen, you will also know. Section 20(2)(c) in the amending Bill does not prohibit foreign participation in a South African private security company, but rather provides for a restriction on the extent of foreign ownership in a registered private security company.


Some of us read sections of the Bill but leave out the other sections that provide context in the totality of the Bill. Item 15 of the transitional provisions in the Bill recognises the existing rights of noncitizens of the Republic who already have shareholdings in the private security industry. The transitional provision is intended to address the withdrawal of foreign involvement in excess of the statutory participation limit in a responsible manner. All new applications for registration will, however, need to comply with the provisions of the Bill once it becomes an Act.


The ANC is very aware of our international obligations. Section 20(2)(c) of the Bill gave serious consideration to South Africa’s commitments in terms of the World Trade Organisation’s General Agreement on Trade in Services, Gats. The transitional provision in the Bill is an acknowledgement of South Africa’s commitments in terms of Gats. One of the service categories that were liberated by South Africa – when signing the World Trade Organisation’s Gats - was that of investigation and security, CPC 873.


The United Nations’ Central Product Classification, CPC, list provides a more detailed explanation of the scope of investigation and security services by breaking down the category into six subcategories: one, investigation services; two, security consultation; three, alarm monitoring services; four, armoured car services; five, guard services; and, six, other security services.


As a developmental state we have a responsibility to ensure that we protect our national and security interests and that we have domestic legislation that provides the necessary mechanisms to protect such interests.


In the context of broader national and international security, a restriction on foreign investment in a sector such as the private security industry becomes both reasonable and justifiable. Such a practice is not without international precedent if one takes into account the legislation of other countries. The recent trend in other countries is to either – as the Minister has indicated - totally prohibit ownership of private security services by foreigners or to restrict the extent of foreign participation and to give majority shareholding and control to its own citizens. I also want to ask the question: What is wrong with South Africa wanting to open up this industry to its own people?


Research indicates that most private security and military companies are incorporated in the United States, the United Kingdom and South Africa. Private military companies became increasingly prolific at the end of the Cold War, when many countries downscaled their military capacities. This resulted in a large number of military operatives who had been dismissed creating their own private militaries.


The line between private security companies and private military companies is becoming increasingly blurred. Depending on the market opportunities, private security companies undergo a metamorphosis. It is not unusual to find a security service in country A, a military service in country B, a humanitarian service in country C, and a construction service in country D – all provided by the same company. This includes foreign companies operating in South Africa while providing other services - other than security - in other parts of the world.


In the United Kingdom the Arms to Africa affair, involving a former British colonel based in London, sparked parliamentary consideration of private military and security company regulation. In the USA there has been a flurry of legislative activity in the wake of the prisoner abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib, in which US contractors were implicated.


The dynamism within the private security sector is fast-paced and regulatory mechanisms seem to lag behind. Through years of expansion, some of the foreign-owned private security companies are involved in large takeover deals. Some of these deals involve swallowing companies that are disreputable. The links of these companies to foreign companies with questionable human rights records, as well as with foreign states, pose a security threat to South Africa.


The Minister has referred to Caroline Holmqvist’s work, and I also want to refer to it. She is a well-known researcher in the industry. She indicated that the link between private security companies and companies in the information technology and electronic systems industries puts security companies in a position to involve themselves in the technology-intensive aspects of intelligence-gathering. Many of the actors in the intelligence branch of the private security sector originated as either IT consultants or telecommunications companies, only to diversify their portfolios also to cover security-related services. Why are we blind to these realities? Air-Scan, a Florida-based company, has provided aerial intelligence-gathering services in Angola, the Balkans, Colombia and Sudan.


The provision for the establishment of the Exemption Advisory Committee in section 21 is an important guarantee that companies that will be affected by the Bill receive a fair hearing, either in terms of exempting them from the 51% ownership or increasing the threshold – because we also provided for the opportunity to increase or decrease this threshold. The committee consists of the authority, the secretariat, the Department of Home Affairs, the SA Police Service, the Department of Trade and Industry and the State Security Agency. The advisory committee will advise the Minister on the desirability of exempting a service activity, a practice, equipment, a person or entity from any provisions of this Act, provided that such exemption does not prejudice the achievement of the objects of this Act. We went further and put in the Bill that the Minister must put these regulations before the parliamentary portfolio committee and that consultation around these regulations must take place as usual.


I want to take this opportunity to thank the technical committee, under the leadership of the Secretariat for Police, Ms Jenny Irish-Qhobosheane. I want to take this opportunity to thank Commissioner Jacobs from the SAPS, who was loaned to us to assist with the drafting. I also want to thank all the other members who served on the technical committee, including the Chief State Law Advisers.


In addition, I want to thank the researchers of the committee, the secretary of the committee and the content adviser. I would also like to thank the members of the committee. With the exception of the issue of foreign ownership, the committee agreed on this Bill in full. That was the only exception in the whole of the Bill. I think it is quite obvious why!


I indicated last week, during the state of the nation debate, that the ANC would always pursue an independent security agenda in the interests of South Africa and her people first. We are not a surrogate country. [Applause.] We have shed the shackles of colonialism and we are definitely not attached to the purse strings of the corporates. Ours is to pass the best possible legislation in the interests of our country. The ANC supports this Bill. [Applause.]


Ms D KOHLER-BARNARD: Deputy Speaker, an economy is a fragile thing, far too easily damaged, more so than any citizen would like. It is therefore bizarre that a Bill that will most definitely lead to disinvestment and job losses in an industry that employs hundreds of thousands of people is being considered by this House at all. Indeed, the DA is perplexed.

When the Minister of Police made a rare visit to the Police Portfolio Committee on 30 October 2012 to brief members on the Private Security Industry Regulation Amendment Bill, little did we know that he would come with a Bill so inexplicable that it is still difficult to believe any South African actually believes some of the claims he made. Had that Bill been bludgeoned through the committee, we have no doubt that it would have led to massive job losses, decreased investment in this country and posed a security risk to all South Africans.


The impact of this Bill on the poor in particular must be highlighted. Private security companies free up capacity for the SAPS to focus on areas where violent crime is at its highest and in communities that cannot afford private security at all. If private security firms leave - and some will after this Bill is passed - there will be more demand on an already overstretched SAPS. In the end it will be the communities with the highest crime rate that will bear the brunt.


No one wants to pay for private security and it is not just our citizens and small businesses that depend on private security companies. More and more government departments, state entities and state security agencies depend on them too.


Why are we doing this to ourselves when we have such a high rate of crime in our country? Why are we doing this to ourselves when the SAPS needs more help and not less? This is a Minister who is disconnected from the plight of the people on the ground. It is a Minister who is more intent on election-time gimmicks in this House than on discharging his full duty to keep South Africans safe in our communities.


The story of the Bill tells a story of a government that is not committed to either job creation or to the fight against crime, especially for the poor. The Minister argued that foreign-owned private security companies somehow posed a risk to national security, but despite question after question after question from the DA, neither he nor the secretary of police have ever given a cogent explanation as to why they think this is. We challenged him to tell us in plain language why foreign-owned private security firms somehow threaten national security. He could not. Needless to say, the Police Portfolio Committee unanimously agreed that this bizarre Bill be sent back for redrafting, which it was.


A new version arrived late last year. All parties agreed that it was absolutely acceptable. It would achieve adequate regulation for the industry, including the uniforms and firearms – everything laid out by the previous speaker. We duly took it to our caucuses, all of which approved of the work we had done and the Bill as it stood.


Then, at the eleventh hour, our new chairperson announced that, actually, the expropriation or indigenisation clause was being reintroduced. She tried to hustle the other members of the Police Portfolio Committee into voting on what had suddenly become a vastly different Bill. We united and refused ... [Interjections.] ... because it would result ... [Interjections.]


Mrs S V KALYAN: Madam Deputy Speaker, may I address you on a point of order? The hon Van Wyk has just accused the member of lying. I submit that that is unparliamentary.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hon Van Wyk, do you want to say something?


Ms A VAN WYK: Deputy Speaker, she is clearly misleading the House. I withdraw the word “lying”, but she is misleading the House.


Mrs S V KALYAN: Madam Deputy Speaker, it should be an unconditional withdrawal. She is making a ... [Interjections.] ... qualification.


Ms A VAN WYK: I withdraw the word “lying”. However, the hon member did mislead the House. [Applause.]


The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Please continue, hon member.


Mrs S V KALYAN: Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, but that is not acceptable.


The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon Van Wyk, can you just withdraw? You can put the other side when you ... [Interjections.]


Ms A VAN WYK: Madam Deputy Speaker, I withdraw.


The SPEAKER: Order! Hon member, can you continue?


Ms D KOHLER-BARNARD: Thank you. We united and refused because it would result in job losses and hamper the fight against crime. I wrote to the Speaker and the proposed debate was pulled from the Order Paper.


This year, the Bill appeared before us again. There were letters from various embassies sent to the chairperson - which she chose not to share with the committee - expressing grave concerns about the Bill.


The reintroduction of this clause at a time when our rand is in a sustained weakness against major global currencies and when analysts are stating that ours is one of the hardest-hit currencies in the emerging markets will have catastrophic consequences for our economy and investor confidence. Jobs will be lost and our country's unemployment rate will soar. Massive private security companies will be under threat of closure as their majority shareholdings are taken and warehoused by the state, and job losses there means more pressure on the SAPS and even less delivery to the poorest of the poor.


The SAPS’ law adviser admitted to me personally in the committee that this Bill will allow the Minister to expropriate 100% of any foreign-owned security service provider. As I walked into the House, I was tipped off that the Department of Trade and Industry did not approve of this Bill, and that our trading partners are absolutely furious. On top of that, there were no real answers given when asked what would happen if these companies would rather pack up and leave South Africa. The secretary of police said she didn’t think that would happen, but had no research on it. When asked what would happen if foreign-owned companies did not succeed in selling 51%, she said no compensation was on the table. When asked if this move would deter foreign investment, she said she didn’t think so, but she hadn’t done any research on the matter. When asked how she would determine foreign ownership of shares sold freely on the stock exchange, she said she had no idea, nor had she done any research on the matter.


This is “seat-of-my-pants, help-me-win-the-election” legislation. This opens the door wide for further corrupt activities enriching the lives of an elite few. Who, one might ask, will be sold those massively expensive 51% shareholdings for a few cents on the rand?


This limiting of foreign ownership will send loud and very rude signals to foreign investors. For example, most security technology, from alarm systems to closed-circuit television systems, are manufactured and distributed by international companies.


If no South African wants to buy the 51%, the licence to operate will simply be rescinded and the company shut down. Hundreds of millions of rands of investment that company has made in this country will be lost and thousands of South Africans will be out of work.


The DA believes that this Bill today includes what constitutes an unlawful expropriation under section 25 of the Constitution. Additionally, we believe it may also place the government in breach of its obligations under the SA-UK bilateral and other 45 bilateral investment treaties. We have no doubt that this insertion will ensure there will be numerous bilateral investment treaty claims and we may be subject to arbitral proceedings before international arbitral tribunals.


There are plenty of other countries to invest in and this Bill could be the one that tips the scales against South Africa. This Bill is a disaster. The DA is convinced that it will be taken to court and sent back by the courts, like the Hawks Bill, which is now on its third time back. It is yet another indication that Zuma’s ANC is not serious about growing the economy, creating jobs or fighting crime. [Applause.]


Mr L RAMATLAKANE: Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker. Deputy President, Ministers and hon members, it is correct that 95% of the Bill has been agreed to by 100% of the committee. We know it is an important piece of legislation to regulate.


However, the 5% is what poured cold water on this important Bill. This 5% has already been addressed by other speakers. We know what the problems and concerns of the police and government are as far as security is concerned, and we understand those concerns when it comes to the issue of security. We understand that, as we speak today, the private security force may be more than double the police and the army put together. That is a concern.


However, the issue is how to deal with that particular concern. We are concerned about a policy of this country. There is a policy of government that deals with direct foreign investment. We are concerned about how this particular section, especially the section that deals with ownership, is going to deal with that particular policy. Government’s policy outlook is that we want to mobilise direct foreign investment in the country. What are the unintended consequences of this piece of legislation as far as that is concerned?


The second question that we are worried about is perception, the perceptions – and I listened carefully to the hon Van Wyk when she spoke – about the security threat. As we speak today, South Africa is a country that is hailed as the best destination for investment. It is politically stable. What are the unintended consequences of this piece of legislation, which speaks about a possible foreign threat to the country in terms of its stability? That is the second concern.


Yes, the Bill that we want to legislate and amend is a good one, but the question is going to be: How do we police this particular provision of the Bill? Today, at 5 o’clock, the Johannesburg Stock Exchange can sell the shares - the ownership of security - and people can buy. How are we going to make sure that there is full compliance, particularly with this provision of the legislation?


Do we have the police to police that particular aspect? In fact, what is the view of the Department of International Relations? It is, after all, the department that regulates South Africa’s policy outlook with respect to this particular provision as far as mobilising direct foreign investment into the country is concerned. What is the view of the other departments that deal with this particular provision?


We would want to support this Bill. The only problem is the 5% that deals with the issue of ownership and which we don’t quite know how we are going to police. We were thinking that the particular provision in section 20(d) of the Bill itself should be withdrawn for us to be able to support the Bill as it currently stands. Then we should finalise the issue of direct foreign investment and the country’s policy outlook in terms of foreign investment in the country. That will make it easy because we think putting it through this way is inappropriate. [Applause.]


Mr V B NDLOVU: Libongwa ini? [Uhleko.] [When is it praised? [Laughter.]]


Mr L RAMATLAKANE: Deputy Speaker, Deputy President and hon Ministers in the House ... lo Mthethosivivinywa muhle kabi woniwe yinto eyodwa. Ukonakala kwawo kuqale ukuthi singalali sisebenza uMthethosivivinywa kuthe ekugcineni singazelele ukuthi kusazoqhamuka okunye. Kwavele kwaqhamuka iphepha lindiza emoyeni lizokhuluma ngokuthi kufuneka kube khona amaphesenti angama-51 kanye namaphesenti angama-49. Manje uyabona ke iyasihlupha lento mhlonishwa ngoba konke ebesikade sikwenza besikwenza ngoba lo Mthothosivivinywa kufanele usebenze ngokusemthethweni.

Siyazi ukuthi izinhlupheko zingakanani eziphathelene nenqubomgomo yezokuphepha laphazweni. Siyazi ukuthi kudingeke kangakanani izimboni zezokuphepha zigade ngokusemthethweni. Sihlushwa ukuthi manje uma kunguwena Ngqongqoshe, kungeyena uNgqongqoshe wezimboni noNgqongqoshe woBudlelwano Namazwe Omhlaba kanye nokuBambisana ozogada lokhu uzoyeka lomsebenzi wokugada izimpilo zethu uyogadana ne-Stock exchange? Mina ngikuthanda uma ugada amaphoyisa, manje uma usuzosuka futhi usuyogada i-Stock exchange uthi kuzobe kusalunga Ngqongqoshe. Yilokho mhlonishwa engithi mhlawumbe kufuneka kulungiswe.


Ngizokuxoxela indaba, ngaya emhlanganweni oyinguyazana (caucus) okokuqala we-foreign ownership ngaya ngizimisele. Wafika umhlangano oyinguyazana wanginika impendulo egculisayo. Kuthe uma kuqhamuka leli phepha ebengikade ngikhuluma ngalo ngithi laqhamuka lindiza emoyeni, uma sekukhulunywa ngalo ngasengiyala ngathi ngoba sengimdala kufuneka ngibuyele emuva ngiyobuza kwabadala ukuthi kuzolunga yini ukuthi leli phepha elindiza emoyeni ngilamukele noma cha.


Basebengixoxela abaziyo ukuthi uyabona kungcono ukube ngumNyango wezoHwebo neziMboni noma umNyango weBudlelwano Namazwe Omhlaba kanye nokuBambisana ongabeka inqubomgomo nge-foreign investment kule lizwe. Hhayi amaphoyisa! Ngihlushwa yilokho ke Ngqongqoshe.

Uyabona njengoba ngimi lapha nginguVelaphi wakwaNdlovu ngimele i-IFP yilokho okungihluphayo. Uma nje kungalunga lokho, uMthethosivivinywa awunalutho. Unotho Ngqongqoshe ngoba usunekhefu ekugcineni ufana nomuntu othi eshela umuntu wesifazane abesethi: ulibona leli soka lakho yingoba linento ethile. Akhombisa uzikhulumela yena, nami ngizama ukuzikhulumela ukuthi lo Mthethosivivinywa muhle kabi woniwa yinto eyodwa kuphela le-foreign ownership okhuluma ngayo. Uma ungase ungilungisele wona nje lo 20 C kanye no D okuloMthethosivivinywa.


Uyabona uma usukuma lapho uzogudlula wona la ngaphambi kokuthi sivote, uyadlula uMthethosivivinywa. Uma kungenzekanga lokho Mhlonishwa sizohlangana emnyango ngikuxoxele ukuthi ngeke ngiweseke lo Mthethosivivinywa. Ngiyabonga. [Ihlombe.]


UNGQONGQOSHE WEZASEKHAYA: Phini LikaSomlomo ngihlupheka kakhulu ngoba ummeli wesibili okhuluma ngokweshela intombazane. Manje ngiyazibuza ukuthi kwenzekani, ingathi abaneliswa. Yini Phini likaSomlomo ngiyabuza. [Uhleko.]


Mnu B V NDLOVU: Ubuza ukuthini Phini likaSomlomo, ngabe ubuza ukushela intombazane. [Uhleko.] Cha, phela Phini likaSomlomo  mina ngingumuntu wasemakhaya. Ngazi ukuthi yithi eseshelayo, angikaze nje ngishelwe. Kukhona izintombi ezinhle kabi lapha eNdlini kodwa azikaze zingishele mina. [Uhleko.] Ngakho yilokho kukhuluma ebekade ngikusho. (Translation of isiZulu paragraphs follows.)


[This is a good Bill, but there is only one aspect that is wrong with it. What went wrong was that we were busy working on the Bill and, suddenly, towards the completion of our work, another stipulation was added to it. We were informed that we should comply with the requirement of 51% and 49%. We are not happy with that, hon Member, because our goal was to develop the Bill and ensure that it was complied with.


We understand the challenges facing the policy on safety and security in this country. We understand the extent of the work of the security industry. What we are unhappy with, Minister, is: Are you now supposed to perform those duties yourself instead of the Minister of Trade and Industry and the Minister of International Relations and Co-operation? Are you now going to leave your responsibility of ensuring our safety to the stock exchange? I prefer that you continue with monitoring the police and not the stock exchange. That is what I propose should be attended to, hon Member.


I wish to tell you a story. I attended the first caucus meeting for foreign ownership and I was determined to make a significant contribution. In that meeting I was satisfied with the response that I received. When we were informed of the additional unexpected stipulation that I have mentioned before I refused to accept it. I told them that because I am now aged I had to go back to my party members to ask if I was supposed to accept the stipulation or not.


Those in the know informed me that it would be better if it were the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of International Relations and Co-operation that were supposed to develop the policy on foreign investment in this country, not the police. That is what is troubling me, Minister.


As Velaphi Ndlovu, standing here on behalf of the IFP, that is what I am unhappy with. If only that could be rectified, this would be a good Bill. Minister, you stand to gain from this in the end. You are like a man trying to win the love of a woman by criticising her boyfriend and thus putting himself in a good light. I am therefore also trying to say that this is a very good Bill, but the foreign ownership that you are talking about is the only bad point in it. Please rectify clauses 20 (c) and (d) in this Bill.

If you could just rise now from where you are sitting to remove these points before the elections the Bill would be passed. If that does not happen, hon Member, I will meet you outside and let you know that I will not support this Bill. Thank you. [Applause.]


The MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS: Deputy Speaker, I am very worried that the second representative talks about trying to win the love of a woman and I am asking myself what is going on. It looks like they are not satisfied. I am asking what this is, Deputy Speaker. [Laughter.]


Mr V B NDLOVU: Deputy Speaker, what is the Minister asking? Is she asking about trying to win the love of a woman? [Laughter.] Deputy Speaker, bear in mind that I am a rural person; I understand that to be a man’s duty and not the other way round. I have never been asked out by a woman. There are some very beautiful women in this House, but they have never approached me. [Laughter.] Therefore, that is what I was trying to say.]


Mnr P J GROENEWALD: Agb Adjunkspeaker, die grootste verantwoordelikheid wat lede van die wetgewer dra, is om te verseker dat ’n ingeligte besluit geneem moet word wat in die beste belang van die kiesers of burgers van ’n land is.

Ek wil vandag vir u sê dat die besluit op hierdie wetsontwerp nie ’n ingeligte besluit is nie. Daar kon nie by die portefeuljekommitee se sitting inligting verskaf word van hoeveel aandeelhoudings daar is in terme van buitelandse maatskappye nie. Daar is ook nie inligting gegee van wat die werklike effek gaan wees op die industrie in terme van werksverlies nie, want dit is eenvoudig net nie bepaal nie.


Nou word daar vandag verwag dat lede hier ’n besluit moet neem in belang van die kiesers. Ek sê vir u dat hierdie wetsontwerp nie aanvaar kan word nie. Daar is gevestigde belange van maatskappye betrokke. Ek wil ook vir u sê dat hierdie wet weer gaan veroorsaak dat ons as wetgewerlede hier met rooi gesigte sit omdat dit op die ou end in die Grondwethof sal eindig. Dit is eintlik skandalig dat ons ons eie onbevoegdheid dan wil weergee deur ’n oningeligte besluit te neem om hierdie wetsontwerp te ondersteun.


Wat is die kern van hierdie wetsontwerp? Die kern is daar word gesê as buitelandse maatskappye meer as 50% aandeelhouding het, dit ’n bedreiging vir staatsveiligheid is. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)


[Mr P J GROENEWALD: Hon Deputy Speaker, the greatest responsibility that members of the legislature have is to ensure that an informed decision is taken, one that is in the best interest of the electorate or citizens of a country.


I would like to say to you today that the decision with regard to this Bill is not an informed decision. At the meeting of the portfolio committee no information could be given as to the number of shareholdings held by international companies. Also, no information was given about the actual effect on the industry in terms of job losses, because it was simply just not taken into consideration.


Now it is expected of members that a decision should be taken today in the interest of the electorate. I say to you that this Bill cannot be passed. Vested interests of companies are at stake. I would also like to say to you that this Act will again be the cause of red-faced members sitting in the legislature because this will end up in the Constitutional Court eventually. It is actually a shame that we would then display our own incompetence by taking an uninformed decision to support this Bill.


What lies at the heart of this Bill? In essence what is stated is that were international companies to have a shareholding of more than 50%, it presents a threat to state security.]


It is a threat to state security. Hon Minister, I will tell you what is a threat to state security. The threat to state security is the criminals in the SA Police Service, who are a disgrace to those hardworking members of the police service. They are a threat to state security.


People like Mdludli, who was the chief or head of crime intelligence, are a threat to South Africa’s state security because the ANC keeps appointing people because of their loyalty to the ANC party and not because of their ability and competence in doing the job. That is a threat to state security. I want to appeal to the hon Minister to get rid of those people. It is not foreign companies that are the threat to state security in South Africa.


Die impak van hierdie wet is van so ’n aard dat dit mense uit hul werk kan sit en gaan sit. Dit is nie die industrie se skuld as hulle goed kan geld maak uit veiligheid nie. Dit is juis – en hulle floreer want daar is omtrent drie sekuriteitspersoneellede vir elke lid van die polisie – as gevolg van die feit dat die ANC-regering nie sy grondwetlike plig nakom om die burgers van Suid-Afrika teen misdadigers te beskerm nie. Nou moet hulle dubbel betaal! Hulle betaal belasting en hulle moet vir sekuriteit betaal. Ons sal nie hierdie wetsontwerp steun nie. Ek dank u. [Tyd verstreke.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)


[The impact of this Act is such that it can and will cause people to lose their jobs. It is not the industry’s fault if they can earn good money from security. It is precisely – and they prosper because there are about three more security staff members for every member of the police – as a result of the fact that the ANC government is not complying with its constitutional duty to protect the citizens of South Africa against criminals. Now they have to pay twice! They pay tax and they have to pay for security. We will not support this Bill. I thank you. [Time expired.]]


Moh M A MOLEBATSI: Motlotlegi Motlatsammusakgotla, Motlotlegi Motlatsamoporesitente, Batlotlegi Ditona le Batlatsaditona, Maloko a a tlotlegang a Ntlo eno le baagi ba Aforika Borwa ka kakaretso, ntetlang bagaetsho ke le dumedise. (Translation of Setswana paragraph follows.)

[Mrs M A MOLEBATSI: Hon Deputy Speaker, hon Deputy  President, hon Ministers and Deputy Ministers, hon members of this House, and fellow South Africans in general, allow me to greet you.]


The Private Security Industry Regulation Amendment Bill was introduced to improve the regulation of private security companies and we have succeeded in this objective. The amending Bill fills some major gaps in the regulation of the private security industry of South Africa and it introduces several strict measures for compliance. A major improvement to the principle Act is that the amending Bill now specifies the registration requirements for a security business in 11 distinct categories, which were not stipulated before.


These categories include the following: guarding, close protection, response security, assets in transit, event security, manufacturers, private investigators, security training, electronic security, locksmiths and security advisers.


The registration requirements for a security business operating within these categories will greatly improve consistency and uniform standards for operation. The Minister may also determine additional categories of security businesses, which must be published in the Government Gazette.


As the ANC, we are very happy that the authority is now empowered to determine training standards for these categories of business, with which they must comply and which will also contribute greatly to uniform standards in this environment. To the hon Kohler-Barnard: You are so scared. Nobody will lose jobs. What is your agenda? I ask again: What is your agenda?


Agb Groenewald, ek het nuus vir jou. Hierdie ANC regeer en hierdie ANC het ’n goeie storie om te vertel. [Tussenwerpsels.] [Hon Groenewald, I have news for you. This ANC is governing, and this ANC has a good story to tell. [Interjections.]]


We are so used to seeing private security guards these days and it is very easy to confuse a private security guard with a member of the SA Police Service. The uniforms and insignia used by several private security companies closely resemble those of the SAPS, SA National Defence Force and Metro Police units. This creates confusion among the public, which is a major concern to the ANC, as it should be to every citizen. South Africa has only one legitimate police service, the SAPS. This amending Bill greatly improves the control of the use by private security companies of uniforms, insignia, emblems, titles and symbols. The amending Bill now requires that the Minister publish guidelines for the uniforms, insignia, emblems, titles, symbols, distinctive badges and buttons that may be used and not used or worn by a security provider. This provision also applies to vehicles.


The amending Bill clearly stipulates that it is a punishable offence to use uniforms and emblems that correspond or can be confused with those of the SAPS and SANDF. The committee went even further and the Bill now also prohibits that such uniforms correspond to those worn by any municipal police officer. These stringent measures clearly illustrate the commitment made to this amending Bill to improve the regulation of the private security industry. And these stringent measures further comply with the Constitution of South Africa, which makes it very clear that the security services of the Republic consist of a single defence force and a single police service.


Any private service that deliberately creates confusion in this regard will be punished. The amending Bill provides for the compulsory registration and renewal of registration of all security service providers. These companies must take the responsibility to register their services with the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority, PSIRA.


I also want to urge South Africans to take the responsibility, and make sure that we use these services to ensure that the business is registered. By taking this responsibility, we ensure an ethical and accountable industry. All it takes is a simple telephone call to PSIRA. Let us work with PSIRA to create a responsible private security industry and better the lives of the people.


The Bill also provides for the exemption of companies from the requirements of the Bill, as long as it does not prejudice the achievement of the objects of the Bill. And because this is a responsible piece of legislation, which will be applied by the responsible government of the ANC, it does not give the Minister of Police complete discretion on the exemption of service providers. The Bill provides for the establishment of an exemption advisory committee to make recommendations to the Minister in respect of the exemption of companies, and it must be published in the Government Gazette. The advisory committee consists of a representative of PSIRA, the Civilian Secretariat for Police, the Department of Home Affairs, the SAPS, the Department of Trade and Industry and the State Security Agency.


The Private Security Industry Regulation Amendment Bill also ensures the accountability of the private security industry. Clause 10 of the Bill provides that PSIRA must report to the Minister on a range of issues, including all instances in which a firearm was discharged by a security officer in the performance of his or her duties, causing death or injury to another. This will ensure that the Minister is aware of all developments in this environment.


The section also requires the reporting of information of criminal complaints to the SAPS for investigation. Hon Deputy Speaker, the amendments made to the Private Security Industry Regulation Act through this amending Bill were necessary and will no doubt yield success in the improved regulation of the private security industry of South Africa. Yes, as the ANC, we do have a good story to tell. The ANC supports the Bill. [Time expired.] [Applause.]


Mnr D J STUBBE: Adjunkspeaker, dit wil vir my lyk of die rekenaarskerms by agb Kohler-Barnard se toespraak vasgehaak het omdat dit so indrukwekkend was.


Die privaatsekuriteitsindustrie is een van die groot rolspelers in die Suid-Afrikaanse ekonomie ten opsigte van werksverskaffing. Hul bydrae tot die ekonomie beloop ’n bedrag van ongeveer R50 miljard per jaar, wat dit dan ook een van die grootste sekuriteitsektore in die wêreld maak. Met ongeveer 445 aktiewe geregistreerde lede is die sektor meer as dubbeld die getal lede wat die SAPD verteenwoordig.


Een aspek wat aanleiding gee tot die hersiening van die wetgewing is dan ook om toe te sien dat die buitelandse betrokkenheid en eienaarskap nie 51% oorskry nie, om sodoende te verseker dat die meerderheidsaandeel aan Suid-Afrikaanse burgers beskikbaar gemaak word. Tydens die komitee se bespreking is dit ook gemeld dat privaatsekuriteitsfirmas met buitelandse belange ’n sekerheidsrisiko vir die land inhou.


Dit is egter ook ironies dat die argument aangevoer word dat buitelandse intelligensiedienste sodanige instansies gebruik om sensitiewe inligting te verkry, veral uit staatsdepartemente wat van die private sekuriteitsindustrie gebruik maak. Die gebruik van die private sekuriteitsindustrie om regeringsinstansies te beskerm, is die direkte gevolg van die huidige regering se onvermoë om poste in die SAPD te vul met goed opgeleide personeel, en derhalwe is dit dan ook nie snaaks dat die ADT-groep, byvoorbeeld, deur dieselfde SAPD gekontrakteer word om hul eiendomme te beveilig nie.


Die Regulerende Owerheid vir die Private Sekuriteitsbedryf, PSIRA, word die taak opgelê om die bedryf te reguleer en te sorg dat die 51% teiken in eienaarskap nie oorskry word nie. Terselfdertyd moet hulle bepaal welke firmas ’n bedreiging vir die veiligheid van die staat inhou. Dit is egter nie duidelik of PSIRA oor die nodige opgeleide personeel beskik om hierdie spesialistaak uit te voer nie.


Die teenargument is of ’n beperking op buitelandse aandeelhouding enige uitwerking kan hê op die verkryging van sensitiewe inligting vanuit ’n staatsdienskantoor. Een probleem kan nie met ’n ander probleem – synde PSiRA se overmoë – beredder word nie. Die oplossing lê in die daarstel van ’n voltallige, goed bemagtigde polisiestruktuur wat volgens die Grondwet veronderstel is om na die veiligheid van elke burger in die land om te sien.


Minister, plak die pleister op die regte plek, naamlik die bestryding van misdaad, eerder as om die buitelandse belang in ons ekonomie te probeer neutraliseer, want dit klink vir my net na die verkeerde storie. Ek dank u. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)


[Mr D J STUBBE: Deputy Speaker, it seems to me that the computer screens haven frozen on hon Kohler-Barnard’s speech, because it was so impressive.


The private security industry is one of the biggest role-players in the South African economy in respect of job creation. Its contribution to the economy amounts to approximately R50 billion a year, making it one of the largest security sectors in the world. With roughly 445 active registered members, the sector is double the number represented by members of the SAPS.


One aspect resulting in a review of legislation is ensuring that foreign involvement and ownership do not exceed 51%, and that the majority share is made available to South Africans. During the committee’s deliberations it was also noted that private security firms with foreign interests were posing a security threat to the country.


However, it is also ironic that the argument is advanced that foreign intelligence services are using such institutions to obtain sensitive information, especially from state departments that are utilising the services of the private security industry. Utilising the private security industry to protect government institutions is the direct result of the current government’s inability to fill posts in the SAPS with well-trained personnel, and therefore the fact that the ADT group, for example, is contracted by that same SAPS to protect their properties is no laughing matter.


The Private Security Regulatory Authority, PSIRA, is tasked to regulate the industry and ensure that the 51% ownership target is not exceeded. They also have to determine which firms are posing a threat to state security. However, it is not clear whether PSIRA has the necessary trained personnel to perform this specialist task.


The counter-argument is whether a limitation on foreign shareholding would have any effect on eliciting sensitive information from a Public Service office. One problem cannot solve another problem - PSIRA’s inability. The solution is the establishment of a police structure that is adequately empowered and up to strength, which, according to the Constitution, is supposed to ensure the safety of every citizen in the country.


Minister, apply the plaster to the right place, namely the fight against crime, rather than trying to neutralise foreign interest in our economy, because this seems like the wrong approach to me. Thank you. [Applause.]]


Mr J K MOEPENG: Hon Speaker, Deputy President, the Minister, Members of Parliament, I have ascended this podium to convey appreciation for and acknowledge a good story about the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority, PSIRA. I have also elected to take the stand to convey appreciation for and accept the challenges that the institution faces. I stand here before the House to do this against the animation and vigour with which the opposition has chosen to condemn PSIRA.


As the ANC, we refuse to find solace in finger-pointing and being dismissive of government in an endeavour to campaign in the faces of the South African populace. We in the ANC take our responsibility seriously. The demonstration of that is through addressing challenges as and when they arise. That is exactly what we did with PSIRA. We identified challenges and the need to amend the laws governing PSIRA. We made decisions about the necessity to create new laws for the effective functioning of PSIRA, our intended objective being to foster efficiency.


Four years ago, the Minister of Police created the ministerial task team to assist PSIRA because the authority was in a critical financial position and needed realignment. Since then, the authority has come a long way and has had many successes over the past years. For this, we congratulate it. However, more needs to be done in order to effectively regulate the security industry in South Africa.


Anyone thinking that this is an easy task is mistaken. We are looking at a R50 billion industry here; one that does not want to be regulated too much and would like the status quo to remain indefinitely. Unfortunately, that is not possible. The industry needs tighter regulation. To effect those regulations, we need a tighter authority.


Through the Private Security Industry Regulation Amendment Bill, we improved the governance of PSIRA significantly. PSIRA is accountable; it is transparent; it respects the rule of law; it is responsive; it is equitable; and it is effective. Through the amending Bill, the governance of PSIRA reflects these values.


A clear distinction, for the appointment and responsibilities of the council, with clear guidelines, is drawn between the council and the authority. The Minister of Police, in consultation with the Cabinet, appoints the council of the authority. We acknowledge the fact that a strong council is needed to give strategic direction to the regulation of the private security industry. As such we, the ANC, demanded that members of the council - when viewed as a collective - must be persons who are suitable to serve on the council by the merit of their qualifications and knowledge in the fields of finance, law and governance. This will ensure that the council will be able to identify possible problems in the operations of PSIRA before they become a crisis.


The Minister also has the responsibility to report to Parliament on the appointments, as well as on their qualifications and experience. As the constitution of the council is important, it should be noted that it is also difficult - though it is important - to build strong measures into legislation in order to keep councils accountable. The amending Bill allows that the council be automatically disqualified on a number of grounds, among which is criminal conviction. Also, and importantly, when a council member is absent from three consecutive meetings without excuse, the member is disqualified. This is one of the most significant governance improvements made to the principal Act.


The council, together with the Minister, must also publish rules regarding the management of the council and the effective execution of its functions. They must take cognisance of the principles relating to improved service delivery, the quality of training and integrity of administration.  The Bill allows for governance that is accountable, transparent, respectful of the rule of law, responsive, equitable and effective.


These are just some of the most important improvements that we have made to the principal Act, changes that will actually improve the day-to-day functioning of PSIRA. Unlike the hon members on the opposite side of the House, who like to criticise, whether it is a process or actual changes made to the Bill, I affirm that the regulatory authority is no doubt stronger through this amending Bill.


Let me also deal with some of the comments that were made. Hon Ramatlakane, I do not remember seeing you in a committee meeting that discussed this Bill. So, responding to what you were saying is not really necessary. However, I am reminded of Comrade Joe Slovo, when he was still alive. He would go a long way to assist members of the opposition to understand a special kind of colonialism. If you have a service in your country being undertaken or delivered by people from outside, it effectively suggests that you allow yourself to be colonised. Why place the security of the country in the hands of people who are not originally from your country? [Interjections.] Why is it a problem when we, the ANC, say: Allow the people of this country to take responsibility for their lives? Why is it difficult? [Applause.] There must be a reason, Nyambose, hon Minister! There must be a reason, which we will be able to get in due course.


However, since Comrade Joe Slovo is not here, and I suppose while Mkhuluwa is here, he will be able to assist you with that exercise to understand this issue. If you do not want them, Mkhuluwa, the Speaker can sponsor a trip to Christiana, where I live. I can also volunteer to do that!


The problem that I have with the opposition is that when we say South Africans should take responsibility for this exercise, they think of job losses. So, the term “job losses” is only referred to when the jobs are owned by South Africans? But, the Minister has just explained that you do not change the format. There is nothing that you change.


When we talk about ownership by South Africans, we only say: Let us assist South Africans to be part of this industry so that in the process we can assist with putting them in the mainstream of economic activity, through the security industry. However, according to some people, this is wrong, and we do not know why this is wrong! [Interjections.] It is probably because when we talk about South Africans, the opposition thinks we are talking about Africans. According to the DA, the issue is Africans - but they claim to have Africans in their own party. [Interjections.]

There are members of this committee whom I would have reported to the hon Mazibuko, if she had been here, because she must take responsibility for her members. It is irresponsible and ill-disciplined of an opposition party member to decide to abandon a meeting and go outside because they are angry that their argument cannot be considered and so forth, while a committee of Parliament is sitting and discussing serious matters. [Interjections.]


Members of the opposition must learn that in any gathering or meeting, you need to sit down and hear the voices of others. If you do not win that day ... [Interjections.] Alright! Allow those who have put better arguments forward to win the day. [Interjections.] I am reminding you, hon Kohler-Barnard, that I am actually talking about you and I raised this in the meeting of the committee. [Interjections.] [Laughter.] So, it is not a secret! I told members of the committee that it was wrong; that we cannot run the committees of Parliament like that. You must respect the committees of Parliament. [Interjections.]


An issue has been raised about a letter. The secretary, in a committee meeting, went a long way to explain how the 51% ownership would be filtered in. It is very unfortunate that after having been convinced, members again bring up the issues here. [Interjections.] The reasons for the referral - let me assist you, Comrade Dianne ... [Interjections.]


The SPEAKER: Order!


Mr J K MOEPENG: Please excuse me, hon Speaker. [Interjections.] Let me assist the hon Kohler-Barnard: Hon Kohler-Barnard, the reason for the referral of the Bill back to the committee – I want to remind you - was solely because of the committee report. [Interjections.]


The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: On a point of order, hon Speaker: Please remind the new member to address you and not members independently, or the other parties. [Interjections.]


The SPEAKER: Order! Proceed, sir.


Mr J K MOEPENG: Well, it is unfortunate that those members are the ones who address the House, not the Speaker! [Laughter.]


The last issue that I want to address ... [Interjections.] ... relates to the humble approach that the Minister of Police had to this issue in the committee. Whenever members of the opposition attacked the Minister, the agency and so forth, the Minister always remained dedicated and disciplined. He exercised humility to explain certain things that members of the opposition were asking him about. Members of the opposition, if you hate success and progress, do not include the name of the person in whatever you are raising. [Interjections.] It is only right that we appreciate that Minister Mthethwa did an outstanding job in giving you better explanations than you needed. [Applause.]


The MINISTER OF POLICE: Speaker, this industry is going to be transformed. [Interjections.] Firstly, regarding the threat, we said here that if the collection of intelligence information by the security companies, the evidence of criminality and criminal activities by some of them and the allegations of mercenary activities in other countries from here in South Africa do not constitute a threat to security, I do not know what does.


Secondly, it is a scarecrow that people will potentially disinvest. This is a very, very lucrative industry, and the people who are involved in it understand this very well. [Interjections.] We have said it before and we are saying it now: The supply and demand principle will not allow those people to simply disinvest, as you wish them to do. [Interjections.]


Gatsheni, Boya beNyathi amaphoyisa awazukuyigada lento ilaphaya e-JSC. Njengoba ilaphaya e-JSC, i-JSC iyona ezophatha. Asiwathumeli amaphoyisa laphaya. Cha, angiyicacise kahle lento, amaphoyisa awazukuya laphaya. Ungakhathazeki Boya beNyathi. (Translation of isiZulu paragraph follows.)


[Gatsheni, Boya beNyathi (Clan names) the police will not monitor what is happening at JSC. As it is at JSC, the JSC will be in charge. We don’t send police to JSC. No, let me clarify this clearly; the police will not go there. Don’t worry, Boya beNyathi (Clan names).]


Now, regarding the 51% that we are talking about, you cannot say that you need to transform this industry and talk about everything else, except for ownership. You cannot do this. The countries that have their security industries here, mainly the United States and the United Kingdom, do not restrict this industry in their countries for foreigners, they outlawed them! They outlawed them! In fact, the last one involved the British government challenging the European Union on that, because they are very clear on it being outlawed. And we are not even outlawing them! All we are saying is that ownership must be transformed. South Africans must have a stake in the ownership of this. We are not going to be apologetic about that. [Applause.] We will ensure that that will happen at the end of the day.


The chairperson of the portfolio committee has always said that this did not come through the back door, as has been said. When I went to the portfolio committee, I presented this with the issue of ownership included. I cannot be responsible for what then happened in the deliberations of the committee, but when I went to the portfolio committee, I spoke about the need to transform this industry - something we are going to do. Part of that transformation is the issue of ownership. Our position remains the same. It is the right thing. We are not even going to the extremes that our friends elsewhere in the world have gone to. We are restricting the industry so that it continues to grow, with South Africans having a stake in it. Thank you. [Applause.]


Debate concluded.


Question put: That the Bill be read a second time.


Division demanded.


The House divided.


Mr S N SWART: Speaker, sorry, but some of these at the back here are not working. They are all flashing. [Interjections.]


The SPEAKER: Order! The suggestion I have is that the voting system is independent and that it will work. Just press the button that you wish to press. Do not press all of them at the same time. [Laughter.] Just press the one you want to press – either “yes”, “abstain” or “no”. [Laughter.] Hon member? [Inaudible.] Alright, those will be counted manually. Will you please record them? Thank you.


AYES – 203: Adams, P E; Bapela, K O; Berend, S R; Beukman, F; Bhengu, P; Bhengu, F; Bikani, F C; Bonhomme, T; Booi, M S; Borman, G M; Boshigo, D F; Bothman, S G; Burgess, C V; Cele, M A; Chikunga, L S; Chili, D O; Chiloane, T D; Chohan, F I; Coleman, E M; Cronin, J P; Dambazana, Z S; Dambuza, B N; Daniels, P N; Davies, R H; De Lange, J H; Diale, L N; Dikgacwi, M M; Dlakude, D E; Dlodlo, A; Dlomo, B J; Dlulane, B N; Dube, M C; 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; Hajaig, F; Hanekom, D A; Jeffery, J H; Joemat-Pettersson, T M; Johnson, M; Kekana, C D; Kenye, T E; Kholwane, S E; Khumalo, F E; Khunou, N P; Koornhof, G W; Kubayi, M T; Landers, L T; Line-Hendriks, H; Lishivha, T E; Luyenge, Z; Maake, J J; Mabasa, X; Mabedla, N R; Mabuza, M C; Madlala, N M; Magagula, V V; Magama, H T; Magubane, E; Magwanishe, G; Mahomed, F; Makasi, X C; Makhuba, H N; Makhubela-Mashele, L S; Makhubele, Z S; Makwetla, S P; Malale, M I; Malgas, H H; Maluleke, J M; Manamela, K B; Manana, M C; Mandela, Z M D; Manganye, J; Mangena, M S; Mashatile, S P; Mashishi, A C; Masilo, J M; Masutha, T M; Mathale, C C; Mathebe, D H; Mathibela, N F; Matlanyane, H F; Matshoba, J M; Maunye, M M; Mavunda, D W; Mayatula, S M; Maziya, A M; Mdakane, M R; Mfeketo, N C; Mfulo, A; 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; Mohai, S J; Mokoena, A D; Molebatsi, M A; Molewa, B E E; Moloto, K A; Morutoa, M R; Moss, L N; Motimele, M S; Motlanthe, K P; Motsepe, R M; Motsoaledi, P A; Mthethwa, E N; Mtshali, E; Mufamadi, T A; Mushwana, F F; Nchabeleng, M E; Ndabandaba, L B G; Ndabeni, S T; Ndebele, J S; Ndlazi, A Z; Nel, A C; Nelson, W J; Newhoudt-Druchen, W S; Ngcengwane, N D; Ngcobo, B T; Ngcobo, E N N; Ngubeni-Maluleka, J P; Ngwenya, W; Ngwenya-Mabila, P C; Nhlengethwa, D G; Njikelana, S J; Nkwinti, G E; Nonkonyana, M; November, N T; Ntapane, S Z; Ntuli, B M ; Nwamitwa-Shilubana, T L P; Nxesi, T W; Nxumalo, M D; Nyalungu, R E; Nyanda, S; Nyekemba, E; Nzimande, B E; Oliphant, M N; Oliphant, G G; Oosthuizen, G C; Pandor, G N M; Peters, E D; Petersen, P; Phaliso, M N; Pilane-Majake, M C C; Pilusa-Mosoane, M E; Pule, D D; Radebe, G S; Radebe, B A; Ramatlhodi, N A; Ramodibe, D M; Saal, G; Schneemann, G D; Segale-Diswai, M J; Sekgobela, P S; Selau, G J; September, C C; Shabangu, S; Sibanyoni, J B; Sibiya, D; Sindane, G S; Sisulu, L N; Sithole, S C N; Sizani, P S; Skosana, J J; Sogoni, E M; Sonto, M R; Sosibo, J E; Surty, M E; Swanepoel, D W; Thibedi, J D; Thomas, B; Tinto, B; Tlake, M F; Tobias, T V; Tseke, G K; Tsenoli, S L; Tshabalala, J; Tshwete, P; Tsotetsi, D R; Van Rooyen, D D ; Van Wyk, A; Wayile, Z G; Xaba, P P; Xasa, T; Ximbi, D L; Xingwana, L M; Yengeni, L E; Zulu, B Z.


NOES – 68: Alberts, A D; Boinamo, G G; Bosman, L L; Cebekhulu, R N; Coetzee, T W; De Freitas, M S F; De Goede, J; Dreyer, A M; Du Toit, N D; Duncan, P C; Eloff, E H; Esau, S; Farrow, S B; George, D T; Greyling, L W; Groenewald, P J; Harris, T D; Hoosen, M H; James, W G; Kalyan, S V; Kloppers-Lourens, J C; Kohler-Barnard, D; Kopane, S P; Lee, T D; Lorimer, J R B; Makhuba, H N; Marais, E J; Max, L H; Maynier, D J; McIntosh, G B D; Mileham, K J; Mnqasela, M; Mokgalapa, S; Motau, S C; Mpontshane, A M; Msweli, H S; Mubu, K S; Mulder, C P; Mulder, P W A; Ndlovu, V B; Ollis, I M; Rabie, P J; Rabotapi, M W; Robinson, D; Rodgers, F A; Ross, D C; Sayedali-Shah, M R; Schäfer, D A; Schmidt, H C; Selfe, J; Shinn, M R; Sithole, K P; Smalle, J F; Swart, S N; Smiles, D C; Smuts, M; Steenhuisen, J H; Steyn, A; Steyn, A C; Stubbe, D J; Swathe, M M; Terblanche, J F; Van der Linde, N J; Van der Westhuizen, A P; Van Schalkwyk, H C; Waters, M; Watson, A.


ABSTAIN – 5: Kganare, D A; Kilian, J D; Mashiane, L M; Njobe, M A A; Ramatlakane, L.


Question agreed to.


Bill read a second time.