Chairperson; hon Minister of State Security; hon Ministers from the Security Cluster; hon members; hon members of the intelligence community; Inspector-General of Intelligence, Ambassador Adv Radebe and her delegation; Acting Director-General of State Security, Mr Dennis Dlomo and his delegation; Acting Head of the National Intelligence Co-ordinating Committee; Chief of Defence Intelligence, General Nyembe; Judge Mokgoro; former Directors-General and Deputy Directors-General of Intelligence; and distinguished guests, I greet you.
We have present here today some of the most important people who work in our constitutional intelligence environment. They attend this Budget Vote debate as guests year after year. Why? Although this Budget Vote debate relates to the Minister of State Security and the State Security Agency, we have visitors from Defence Intelligence and all the intelligence oversight structures present. Year after year they attend as guests of the hon Minister. Why? It is because intelligence is a serious business, and the people that are present hold serious positions in our intelligence constitutional structures.
There is an incorrect and dangerous perception that intelligence entities and their connected activities are not desirable in a constitutional state that prides itself on a Bill of Rights such as ours. The argument, as I understand it, is that our Constitution demands accountability and transparency, and that secrecy is an infringement and a violation of a host of fundamental rights that are provided for in our Constitution.
However, these so-called experts and constitutional analysts must be reminded that the security services of the Republic of South Africa consist of the Defence Force, the SA Police Service and the civilian intelligence services. This is in terms of our Constitution. Furthermore, the Constitution specifically provides the authority for the establishment of the intelligence services. Accordingly, the power, the obligation and the authority to establish intelligence services are firmly entrenched in our Constitution. They are not a figment of the imagination.
These progressive perceptions that I have referred to, and their advocates, are lost in the misunderstanding of their own distorted perceptions. They choose to identify and accept only those constitutional provisions that further their own agenda.
But our Constitution also provides that national legislation must regulate the objects, powers and functions of the intelligence services. It is there - you'll find it in section 210 of the Constitution. We also have existing legislation. There is the Intelligence Services Act, Act 65 of 2002, the National Strategic Intelligence Act, Act 39 of 1994, and the Protection of State Information Bill.
I'm sorry to say, hon Chairperson, that when one mentions the Protection of State Information Bill, it gives some people nightmares. [Interjections.] They start to have traumatic, very upsetting, extremely difficult and troublesome experiences. Hon members are reminded that only the other day the House passed the General Intelligence Laws Amendment Bill. The Bill merely provides for a few technical amendments to the existing pieces of intelligence legislation, which I have just mentioned. Some people opposed the Bill. They voted against it in the House. They voted against what the Constitution provides. Let me quote section 210 of the Constitution on the matter:
National legislation must regulate the objects, powers and functions of the intelligence services, including any intelligence division of the defence force or police service ...
That is what the Constitution states. That is what the General Intelligence Laws Amendment Bill is about. The legislation concerned was enacted in this Parliament during our democratic era. Suddenly, there is a problem with the legislation! How can you take people like that seriously? [Interjections.]
The hon Minister has announced that the new National Security Strategy is to be finalised in 2014. Again, it is the Constitution which provides, in section 198(d), and I quote:
National security is subject to the authority of Parliament and the national executive.
Is it not the Constitution saying that? In section 198(c) it provides, and I quote again:
National security must be pursued in compliance with the law, including international law.
What constitutes national security? [Interjections.] No, it is not a simple matter. It is not a simple matter, hon member. The Constitution envisages this difficulty and hence section 198 sets out the principles that should govern national security in the Republic. The announcement by the hon Minister of the new National Security Strategy must be welcomed, and I believe that the people of South Africa will soon be invited to participate in this initiative.
Just to emphasise the problem at hand, it is a fact that there is no single universally accepted definition of national security. Even though it is a concept that philosophers, security analysts and other experts have attempted to analyse over the centuries, there is no generally accepted view of what constitutes national security.
However, we are confronted by the realities of globalisation and the inherent threats that follow it. We observe, therefore, that all around the world countries and democratically elected governments are faced with increased threats of terrorism, espionage, cyber crimes and information peddling. These are but a few of the serious threats that we in South Africa also face. You heard what the Minister said on some of these threats.
We must not ponder or argue too long over what a national security strategy means in a democratic South Africa. What we do know is that no country in the world can ever tolerate or be soft on espionage and information peddling. Today cyber crime is the modern day weapon of mass destruction, used by criminals. I am merely highlighting the importance, and also the complexities of national security matters.
I now have to return to a very sensitive matter. As a responsible step, and to comply with the constitutional provision which obliges government and Parliament to provide for the national security of the Republic of South Africa in accordance with the law, Parliament has now passed the Protection of State Information Bill. It is a security Bill; it is nothing more. It is directly related to national security and is protecting our national security. Is that not what we are mandated to do in terms of the Constitution?
Yes, Chairperson, now one can see that some of the hon members are having anxiety attacks again. The truth of the matter is that so-called experts and analysts, and a whole host of ill-advised and ill-informed individuals, have a mindset that gives negative and scandalous criticism only. Anything and everything is condemned! They are not prepared to have a constructive debate on the national security of our country, but when things go wrong, they are the first to cry that intelligence has failed! How do you identify an intelligence failure if you do not even understand what intelligence entities do, how they work, and how national security relates to their work? They can only offer negative criticism - no disrespect meant.
Let me give the House an illustration of what I mean. An hon member of this House and a member the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence, who should know better and should appreciate matters of intelligence and national security, made a media statement recently. [Interjections.] Yes, a media statement! He said in his statement, and I quote:
South Africa is increasingly moving towards a "secret state" mentality. The State Security Agency has invested more time and energy into legislation such as the Secrecy and Spy Bills than ensuring that they are appropriately ... managed.
[Interjections.] That is not true. The fact of the matter is that it's not true. Firstly, the State Security Agency does not make legislation - it is this Parliament that does. Then, I take it that the hon member of the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence was referring to the Protection of State Information Bill and the General Intelligence Laws Amendment Bill when he spoke of the Secrecy Bill and the Spy Bill in his statement.
Is the hon member seriously suggesting that, notwithstanding the fact that the Constitution compels this Parliament to provide the necessary legislation to regulate the intelligence services, we should defy the Constitution? The Secrecy Bill and the Spy Bill, as the hon member calls them, were enacted precisely to give effect to the Constitution, and have been with us and passed by this democratic Parliament.
The General Intelligence Laws Amendment Bill is nothing more than a technical Bill, and the hon Maynier knows it. It is a technical Bill and there is nothing new in it. This law exists. It was passed by this House. You find hon members opposing laws which this House has passed! [Interjections.]
On the question of national security, the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence is a statutory committee of Parliament. Serving on the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence is a serious matter, and it is taken as a serious matter. You need to be nominated by your party. You are appointed by the Speaker of the National Assembly or the Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces, as the case may be, acting with the concurrence of the President of the Republic of South Africa, who acts with the concurrence of the leader of your political party. You don't just pitch up at the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and say that you want to be there.
You have to conduct yourself in a manner that does not constitute a threat to national security. [Interjections.] You need security clearance, top- secret clearance, to serve on the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence. You need to take an oath of secrecy before a judge. In other words, you have to be a responsible and capable person to serve on the committee. [Interjections.] There is no time for political games on the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence, for the work is monitoring the intelligence people who are intricately entrusted with protecting our national security.
Listen to this, hon members! On the committee itself we do not disclose ourselves as members of political parties. I have done it once in the time that I have been chair of this committee, and that was as a courtesy to the President when I introduced the hon members to him. We are simply members of the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence. All committee members - at least that is what I thought - understand the importance of the work that we do. It is about the security of our country!
The Intelligence Services Oversight Act, Act 40 of 1994, in fact provides that the committee must conduct its functions in a manner that is consistent with the protection of national security. Is that not so, hon members of the committee? So how is it that an hon member of this committee has gone public and stated, and I again quote from his statement:
The State Security Agency must make details of its budget known to the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence.
The hon member of this committee went further to say, and I quote again:
As a result of this budget being kept a secret, MPs are unable to properly monitor spending and ensure that irregular, fruitless and wasteful expenditure is minimised.
These statements are simply not true. That's the fact of the matter. They are not true, and the hon members here will tell you that. [Interjections.] Members of the JSCI will tell you that it's not true. So why would an hon member of this committee behave in this manner? This is a person whose political party, Parliament and people have entrusted him with the national security matters of our country! Why behave in this manner?
And the point is, some people simply do not want to contribute positively. When it comes to matters of intelligence and national security, all is negative and confrontational. Let me put it to hon members of the committee: Have the ANC members of the committee ever behaved in such an irresponsible manner? Have the ANC members of the committee ever put party- political differences before matters of national security? [Interjections.]
You know, hon member, that when you raised the matter pertaining to the leader of your political party, I immediately called for an investigation, and you and the committee were briefed on that matter. You know that - nothing was hidden. [Interjections.]
On all the matters pertaining to our work - crime intelligence, matters relating to Gen Mdluli, the unfortunate tragedy in the Central African Republic, and others - we have been briefed.
At present these matters are all being dealt with by various institutions. Some are in court and before commissions, and are sub judice. Other matters are still under investigation and we as the JSCI will wait and act responsibly when we need to.
In line with the expected new National Security Strategy announced by the Minister, we must not underestimate the need to modernise and equip our Intelligence Services with the necessary tools to allow them to do their work effectively. Present-day technology and equipment are expensive, and can be rendered irrelevant and obsolete in a short time. This puts a strain on budgets. However, we as South Africans must determine our national security priorities and then fund them in a responsible manner. Our Intelligence Services have been complaining for years about their equipment and technology. We cannot allow the security of our country to be compromised due to underfunding.
For example, just in the area of lawful interceptions, the Office for Interception Centres, which deals with these matters, is confronted with ongoing challenges pertaining to capacity, technology and equipment. The JSCI therefore supports any initiative that is directed at upgrading the intelligence capacity, technology and equipment of the Interception Office and our intelligence services.
As we move towards developing a national security strategy, it is important that we do not lose sight of the co-ordination of our intelligence services. This, too, is a constitutional obligation and an extremely important one. The JSCI is pleased to report that the National Intelligence Co-ordinating Committee, Nicoc, has been performing well. This has been an area of concern in the past, but the committee will continue to monitor and give support to Nicoc so that our people get the full benefit of the resources.
Allow me to thank those hon members who serve on the committee, and also the hon Minister who has worked very hard in trying to bring in the necessary legislation that is needed to regulate the civilian intelligence services.
Let me also thank the inspector-general who has always been a pillar of strength in our oversight structures - always willing to assist the committee when needed, and always willing to come to brief the committee. I thank the Acting Director-General of State Security who himself has been very helpful and always willing to assist, the generals from Crime Intelligence, and the Acting-General of Defence Intelligence. On behalf of the committee, I want to thank you for the very kind co-operation that you have given in working with the committee.
To all the other intelligence officers in the intelligence community, we - or certainly some of us on the JSCI - are very aware of the work that you put into this and the serious stress that this puts upon you, given the nature of the work. It's all very well that when something goes wrong, the first line of attack is to look at our intelligence structures and to complain. However, they work in very trying structures, and they work under very difficult circumstances. They work with a mandate - they don't just work and do what they want. There are intelligence priorities.
I think, hon members, you must acquaint yourselves with these matters before you start to criticise. These people haven't come here today to allow you to throw stones at them. These are serious people sitting here. You don't see them very often, and it is not nice when people like these, who work in such a serious community, come here and you throw stones. I encourage hon members who have stones that they intend to throw, to keep them for another time. [Interjections.] Yes, throw them at me! Otherwise, be kind and thank the people for what they are doing. To the staff of the committee, thank you very much for the assistance. I know you work under very trying circumstances - we are short-staffed as things stand, and we have been saddled with a lot of work. [Interjections.] There is a lot that has been happening in the community and we just hope that we as a committee will get support from Parliament and support from the structures, as we have been getting in the past. Thank you, hon Chairperson. [Applause.]