Speech by Dianne Kohler Barnard, DA Shadow Minister of Police on the debate on the Private Security Industry Regulation Amendment Bill, Parliament, February 25 2014

An economy is a fragile thing, far too easily damaged than any citizen would like.  

It is therefore bizarre as to why 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 30th 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 it is still difficult to believe that any South African actually believes some of the claims he made.  

Had that Bill been bludgeoned through the committee it would, we have no doubt, have lead to massive job losses, decreased investment in South Africa 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 which 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 over-stretched SAPS. In the end it will be the communities with the highest rates of crime that will feel the brunt.

And it is not just our citizens and small businesses that depend on private security companies. More and more government departments, state entities and even state security agencies and the police themselves use private security firms.

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 our SAPS need more help, 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 at election-time gimmicks in this House, than on discharging his full-duty to keep South Africans safe in their communities.

The story of this Bill tells the story of a government which is not committed to either job creation or 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 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 threaten national security. He couldn't.

Needless to say the police portfolio committee unanimously agreed that this bizarre bill be sent back for redrafting, which it was.

A new version eventually arrived before us late last year, and all parties agreed that it was absolutely acceptable.  

It would achieve adequate regulation of the industry - the uniforms, the firearms, terms of employment, the protection of all relevant parties, criminality within the industry and oversight. 

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 11th hour, the new Chairperson announced that actually the expropriation - or indiginisation - 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 because it will 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 yet again. There were letters from various Embassies sent to the Chairperson, expressing grave concerns about the Bill, which letters she chose not to share with the committee.

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 market - 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 mean more pressure on the SAPS, and even less to deliver to those most under siege - our poorest of the poor.

The SAPS Law Advisor admitted to me personally in the committee that this Bill would allow the Minister to expropriate 100% of any foreign-owned security serviced provider.

On top of that there were no real answers given - when asked what would happen if these companies would not rather pack up and leave South Africa, the Secretary of Police said she didn't think they would but had no research on the matter; when asked what would happen if a foreign-owned company 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 there was no 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 did she have an research on the matter. This is seat of your pants, Help Win Me That Election legislation.

This opens the door wide for further corrupt activities enriching the lives of an elite few. Who, one must ask, will be sold those massively expensive 51% shareholdings for a few cents on the rand?  

This limiting of foreign ownership would send loud and very rude signals to foreign investors. For example, most security technology, from alarm systems to CCTV 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 simply be lost, and thousands of South Africans will be out of work, that's thousands of guards off our streets.

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 treaty and the other 45 bilateral investment treaties (BIT). This insertion will, we have no doubt, ensure there will be numerous BIT 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 us.  

This Bill is today a disaster. The DA is convinced that this Bill will indeed be taken to court and have no doubt that it will be sent back - like the Hawks Bill for the - what, third time now - by the Courts to the committee to correct.  

 It is yet another indication that Zuma's ANC is not serious about growing the economy, creating jobs, or fighting crime.

Issued by the DA, February 25 2014

Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter