Sihlalo ngibingelela iNdlu. [Chairperson, I greet the House].
This is the fourth time that we amend Act 70 of 2002 even though the whole Act has not yet come into force.
We supported the principal Act in 2002 as well as all three later amendments and we will also support this amendment today. You are not surprised. You know why? Because you know the DA will always support crime fighting.
However, it is not without reservation that we give our support to this amendment. In the first place, we are concerned about the effect that these amendments may have on bona fide foreign visitors to our country. We definitely do not want a situation where visitors to this country have to fall into a queue to have their cellphones activated whereas roaming is automatic in other countries.
In the second place, we are also concerned about the effective implementation of the amendments. The cellphone market is one of the fastest growing markets in the country and the additional administrational load of service providers will be tremendous. Will they be able to cope? I have serious doubts.
In die derde plek ontstaan die vraag of ons ons prioriteite reg het. Ons het hier te doen met uiters gesofistikeerde programme om misdaad te beveg, waarvan die koste baie hoog is, maar die basiese dinge, soos byvoorbeeld om gewone misdaad alledaags te bekamp - plaasaanvalle, huisbrake, voertuigdiefstal, roof, ensovoorts - bly agterwe.
In die vierde plek, reeds met die aanvaarding van die hoofwet in 2002, het dr Delport daarop gewys dat dit nie billik is om die koste van staatsveiligheid deur diensverskaffers te laat betaal nie. Hierdie wysiging gaan vir seker nog addisionele koste vir selfoonmaatskappye teweeg bring en uiteraard gaan die selfoonverbruiker hiervoor betaal. Dit beteken dat Suid-Afrika se reeds buitensporige ho selfoonkoste nog hor gaan word. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[In the third place the question arises whether we have our priorities straight. We are dealing here with extremely sophisticated crime-fighting programmes, of which the costs are very high, but the basics, like, for example, combating ordinary crime daily - farm attacks, housebreakings, vehicle thefts, robberies, etc - remain neglected.
In the fourth place, already with the acceptance of the principal Act in 2002, Dr Delport pointed out that it is not reasonable to have service providers pay the cost of state security.
This amendment will most certainly cause further additional costs for cellphone companies and naturally the cellphone user will have to pay for it. This means that South Africa's already excessively high cellphone costs will become even higher.]
This is a very short piece of legislation. It consists of only seven sections, but the committee nevertheless spent many hours deliberating and the final product is very different from the first reading draft. From the opposition's side I wish to thank the chairperson of the committee for all her efforts in this regard. It is very much her Bill, although some members of the committee refer to it as the Bassett Bill. However, Chairperson, allow me a prediction. This is not the last amendment to Act 70 of 2002. I thank you.