Chairperson, throughout the world where citizens of democratic societies, such as ours, are faced with threats to life, public order and their property, and where the security of the state is under threat, the interception of communications remains an important tool to be used by law-enforcement agencies so that they can effectively protect those rights. This is done under strict conditions that are set out in the law.
The regulation of interception of communications Act, that is the principal Act, was signed into law by our President in 2002. We are now in 2007, debating the amendments contained in the Bill that serve before this House. Yet, there are many provisions of the principal Act which have yet to be implemented.
What this means is that our law-enforcement agencies are still intercepting communications in terms of Act 127 of 1992 - that is, the Interception and Monitoring Prohibition Act. Indeed, the directing judge who is responsible for considering applications for directives to intercept communications was appointed in terms of Act 127. This is made possible by section 62 of the principal Act, which provides for transitional arrangements.
The point being made here is that, in my view, too much time has lapsed between the signing into law of the Act and the implementation of its various sections.
One of the important measures contained in the principal Act is the creation of the office of interception centres. This office was only established in June/July 2006. Yet, it has taken these past 12 months to get this office up and running efficiently and effectively and in a manner that gains the confidence of our law-enforcement agencies.
As a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence I have been privileged to be able to interact with all the role-players that deal with the interception of communications. My experiences lead me to one conclusion, Chairperson: The sooner all the provisions of the principal Act are implemented, including the repeal of Act 127 of 1992, the better it will be for all of us, except, of course, for the criminals. Delays may also, heaven forbid, encourage our law-enforcement agencies to abuse the system.
The amendments before this House go a long way towards helping to speed up the implementation of the principal Act and hopefully will bring about legal and operational certainty.
Very briefly, Chairperson, let me respond to some of the issues raised by previous speakers. I want to agree wholeheartedly with the hon Minister when she says the emphasis must now be placed on implementation. The hon Chohan, in her speech, made note of the fact that we were poised to pass this legislation in June 2006 and that we are now in August 2007.
The point raised by the hon Joubert bears consideration, that is that the transfer of costs by the state to the cellphone service providers is perhaps unfair and should not be followed by the state. We want to say that this method is not unique to South Africa. All countries with similar legislative provisions as ours have followed the same route.
With regard to the hon Groenewald: His pessimism with regard to this Bill and this Act is regrettable. We take note of his concerns. It is all about crime prevention, crime investigation and the protection of the properties and rights of the citizens of this wonderful country.
Chairperson, a significant feature of our committee's consideration of this Bill has been the presence of a battery of lobbyists or employees representing the cellphone service providers. Lobbyists are a natural and welcome development within our democratic state; some would say a very necessary development.
In this case, the lobbyists representing cellphone service providers have proved to be a formidable and powerful group of individuals. Of course they participated in the process in order to protect and promote the interests of their respective companies and their shareholders.
However, given our experiences with these lobbyists, it is important to sound a note of warning. Whilst the existence of lobbyists within the parliamentary process is an important part of our democracy, such lobbyists should not be allowed to control that process or to impose their will upon it to such a degree that the process is abused and manipulated for the benefit of the wealthy few or to the detriment of Parliament's democratic process or to the detriment of the public order and the security of the state. Before this happens serious consideration would need to be given to regulating the activities of such lobbyists in this honourable House. I thank you.