Chairperson, the answer to the first part of the question is yes. The Department of Home Affairs has installed the integrated electronic security systems in 47 of its offices nationally, in order to monitor staff and detect illegal and corrupt activities. This was done after an evaluation process of the status of security in the respective offices.
The objective of these installations is to protect assets, information and employees. They also provide a means to augment the human resource capacity utilised for physical security purposes at the different offices. A mechanism to detect illicit activities by both members of the public and employees of the department whilst on the premises of the department is yet another objective of these installations.
The department is in the process of rolling out the system to all its other offices. However, the process has huge cost implications, which necessitates that it be undertaken over an extended period of time. Secondly, the preliminary indications regarding the rooting out of corruption and fraud in the department are that the installed integrated electronic security system is indeed assisting in the fight against corruption. It is also working well as a deterrent to would-be perpetrators. On two separate occasions perpetrators were caught on camera and they have been prosecuted, both departmentally and criminally.
The recently installed system at the department's head office in Pretoria also has the capacity to assist the department to monitor the time on task and attendance of employees to their duties. Thank you very much.
Hon Nzimande, do you have a follow-up question? No? Thank you.
Chairperson, I would like to know if the staff were notified prior to the installation of the webcams. Thank you.
Chairperson, what I do know is that there were consultations with the union representatives prior to the installations. As to whether each and every staff member was, in fact, given notification, I will have to check that. I will then come back to you with the response. Thank you.
Chairperson, the Deputy Minister seems to be quite dedicated to wanting to root out corruption and fraud in the department. However, I am a little bit nervous in regard to the fact that it appears that once you have left the department, you don't have to be criminally charged. That is exactly where we have to root out the crime, because otherwise I can just resign and not be criminally charged when I know that I have done something wrong. Can the Deputy Minister just help me out on this one, and tell me that she is prosecuting even those who have resigned? I thank you.
Just to clarify ...
Sorry, hon Minister. Hon Van Lingen, can you be specific? What is your question? Do you want to know whether those who have resigned are going to be charged or not?
[Inaudible.]
Chairperson, as I indicated in my response to the previous question, it is part and parcel of how we process these matters to ensure that where there are allegations of criminal misconduct we not only discipline people who work for us, but also lay criminal charges against them. This happens whether or not they have left the department.
As to whether we ourselves will prosecute those individuals, well, we don't prosecute. It is the Department of Justice, and in particular the Office of the National Director of Public Prosecutions, that prosecutes those individuals. It makes no difference whether they have left our department or not. One assumes that in the normal course of events the National Director of Public Prosecutions will continue with those criminal processes.
Surveillance by State Security Agency and National Intelligence Agency of those who are opposed to Protection of State Information Bill and details relating to nature of surveillance
30. Mr R A Lees (DA) asked the Minister of State Security:
(1) Whether any (a) civil society groups, (b) organisations and (c) persons have been placed under surveillance by the (i) State Security Agency and/or (ii) National Intelligence Agency as a result of their opposition to the Protection of State Information Bill [B 6 - 2010]; if so, (aa) what were the reasons for the surveillance and (bb) what form is the surveillance taking;
(2) whether any telephone lines are being tapped during this surveillance; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details? CO82E
Thank you very much, Chair, for your understanding and kindness. Regarding Question 30, very briefly, the answer to (1) is none, and (2) is not applicable. We say so because there are no civil society groups, organisations or persons who are under surveillance by the State Security Agency solely because of their opposition to the Protection of State Information Bill. I thank you, Chair.
Any follow-up question? Mr Lees? Hon Lees, could you answer me please?
No, Madam Deputy Chair.
Identification of foreign spies, local proxies and basis for announcement made
31. Mr R A Lees (DA) asked the Minister of State Security:
With reference to his speech in the National Assembly on 6 November 2011 regarding foreign spies, (a) who have been identified as foreign spies, (b) who are the local proxies and (c) on what basis was the announcement made? CO83E
Chairperson, regarding Questions 30 and 31, I would like to say the following. This and the previous question are related, and we note with deep concern that the National Council of Provinces is increasingly asking questions pertaining to national security. These questions are relatively more than those we are asked in the National Assembly.
We are not saying that we don't want to answer questions, but that the law demands that we protect our sources and methods. So, I am just saying that that's why we have a Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence, where we answer questions in full. Because these questions pertain to matters of policy and the Bills which are in the public domain at the moment, we have decided that we should try to answer them.
I would like to say that the hon member Lees put a similar question during the meeting with the Ad Hoc Committee on the Protection of State Information Bill in the NCOP, which is processing this legislation. This meeting was held on 24 January 2012. I provided a detailed response, and I wish to refer the hon member to the record of that meeting.
However, in a spirit of openness, I even said the following then in my speech in the National Assembly - I offer to give him a copy of the Hansard and, of course, I will give him a copy of what I said in the National Assembly, and I stand by it. I indicated that I did not call any organisation a proxy of foreign spies. That was in that meeting of the National Assembly.
I continued in said meeting and said that there was a group of categories of persons that were aggrieved by this Bill, but they wouldn't come into the public and put their view that they were aggrieved.
I said in that meeting that the first category was the corrupt official. There is no corrupt official who is going to come to the committees of Parliament and say he or she is against the Protection of State Information Bill because it's going to make it harder for him or her to continue with his or her corruption or corrupt activities. Nor will the lazy official.
I said another category was foreign spies. There is no foreign spy who is going to come to the committee of the NCOP to say he or she is against this Bill because it cuts his or her easy access to the critical information that this country has.
I said that the last category was the information peddler. You are not going to find any information peddler who is going to say he or she is a peddler by profession and this Bill is cutting his or her wellbeing.
So, it was in that context that we gave a full explanation. I therefore submit that, Chairperson. Thank you very much.
Hon Deputy Chair, I thank the hon Minister for his reply. May I follow up and ask the Minister if he can confirm to this House that indeed he did not in his speech, as contained in Hansard, say that there were local proxies for foreign spies? Can you confirm that that is not contained in your speech and not in Hansard? Thank you.
Thank you, Deputy Chairperson. I will quote. I think I should just read it because the member is so suspicious. [Interjections.]
Hon Gamede.
Deputy Chairperson, on a point of order: The Rules do not allow us to discuss matters of the other House. I just want to have your ruling on this matter.
Deputy Chairperson, thank you very much. Deputy Chair, I am part of that committee too, and this matter has been answered. The issue is that Mr Lees must indicate to this House who he is representing. [Laughter.]
Hon Lees, are you prepared to answer the last question? [Laughter.]
Madam Chair, there is no provision in the Rules of this House for a member to ask another member a question during a sitting of the House. Therefore I do not have to answer any questions at this stage.
All right.
Madam Chair, I wish to ask then, seeing that a point of order was raised by the hon Gamede in regard to the discussions taking place in this House today relating to the National Assembly, can we please be told which Rule it is that precludes such a discussion taking place?
Hayi [No], I am stopping this. May I make a ruling? [Interjections.] Hon members, may I make a ruling? No, no, hon Lees. I am making a ruling - you can sit down. We are not going to continue discussing this any further.
Hon Minister, if that was your last answer, you are excused and may leave the Chamber.
Madam Deputy Chairperson, on a point of order: ...
Hon Sinclair.
Deputy Chairperson, I want to speak on a principle which does not apply just to today, but has over time become very prevalent in this House, and it is unfortunate, to say the least. It is unfortunate that all the time you continuously prevent specific members from asking proper questions, and when we ask for a specific reference in regard to the Rules of this honourable House ... [Interjections.]
What is your point of order?
All that I am pleading for, Chairperson, is that the Rules of the House that allow hon members to ask open and objective questions be implemented. [Interjections.]
Chairperson, I think the hon member is calling for an order, but he is not indicating the order. What is your order?
Hon member! Hon member, I never gave you permission to talk! [Laughter.] I am now saying we should continue.
Status of South Africa-Somalia relations and details in this regard 12. Mr D V Bloem (Cope) asked the Minister of International Relations and Co-operation:
1) Whether South Africa recognises Somalia as a sovereign state; if not, why not; if so, what is the current state of affairs regarding (a) diplomatic relations with Somalia, (b) the status of recognition for Somali refugees who are entering the country for asylum and (c) the protection of Somalis in this country;
(2) whether there are any forms of official government exchanges or direct relations with the current ruling regime in said country; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;
(3) what is South Africa's contribution to the developments in Somalia?