DMV & DoD Budgets: Committee Reports

This premium content has been made freely available

Defence and Military Veterans

12 May 2021
Chairperson: Mr C Xaba (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

 Tabled Committee Reports

In a virtual meeting, the Committee considered and adopted its reports on the budget votes of the Department of Defence and Department of Military Veterans. Members were pleased with the standard of both reports. Members discussed the need for a briefing on logistics, bonuses and increases in the Department and the need to reflect the adjusted budgets to show the budget cuts. Members said the Committee must monitor the spending of the Department. There was mention made of the sustainability of Armscor and verification of qualifications.

Meeting report

Report of the Portfolio Committee on Defence and Military Veterans on Budget Vote 23 (Department of Defence)

Dr Wilhelm Janse van Rensburg, Committee Researcher, took Members through the draft report.

Mr S Marais (DA) noted a mistake in the report and asked for Dr Janse Van Rensburg to make the changes.

Members accepted the draft report and said that it was well drafted.

Discussion

Mr Marais asked for clarity on page 3 of the report if it specifically referred to technological development. He also asked about a comment on page 23. He mentioned that the future of Denel is important, and he requested that more information be included in the presentation. Mr Marais asked about the Denel incorporation on page 39 since the figures mentioned were not tallying up.

Dr Janse Van Rensburg responded by saying that he would amend the report as Mr Marais requested. They would also amend the figures using the figures from National Treasury.

Mr Marais further made a comment on page 43 of the report on the logistics department and said a report should be presented to the Committee on the logistics. Mr Marais also asked if the issue of bonuses and increases in the Department could be included in the report considering that last year there was no clear answer given by the Department. He closed off by saying that he accepts the report because of the outstanding way in which it was written.

The Chairperson thanked Mr Marais for his contributions. He asked Members if the Committee will not be criticised for comparing the budget to the adjusted budget which meant that these were two different budgets, and so they cannot be compared. The budget has been cut and this means that the money allocated was less and in reality, the programmes that are mentioned are usually not affected. He said that it might not be a true reflection because of the budget cuts.

Mr Marais suggested that the researcher can add a new column to the report and show that there is an original and adjusted budget so that there would be more context.

Dr Janse Van Rensburg responded by saying that it was a good suggestion, and it would make sense to include the new column in the report and comments will be added.

The Chairperson said that the budget is demand-driven as it was presented by the Minister which means the Committee did not have the detailed information at the moment – it would be received on 30 June so it would not be helpful. He suggested a note be included in the Committee report to explain this.

Mr Marais said that there must always be an explanation for an increase in spending and when the Department provides a report, such information must be included because that the moment, they are one of the departments spending more money.

The Chairperson said the way it was explained was that it made a function shift.

Mr Marais accepted the view expressed by the Chairperson.

The Chairperson said that the Committee will monitor the spending of the Department. The Committee must find a way of dealing with these matters.

He further said that Armscor is a cost-effective entity. He gave an example of how money was spent in the past at Armscor as an acquisition. He questioned whether the strategy being implemented by Armscor is possible to sustain the entity for more than three years. The Committee needed to look at the rate of decline in the last three years. The Chairperson requested that the Committee write to the board on the matter of IP of Denel.

Dr Janse Van Rensburg said that Armscor had a strong intent to conclude the matter

Mr Marais also added that Armscor was finding it difficult to get access to some documents and the Denel board had to come to the party so that the issue may be resolved.

The draft report was adopted with the amendments amendments.

Report of the Portfolio Committee on Defence and Military Veterans on Budget Vote 26 Department of Military Veterans

The Chairperson welcomed the report and asked Members if they had any contributions to make.

The Chairperson was concerned about the issue of qualifications and said that all departments are required to verify qualifications with the SA Qualifications Authority (SAQA) within two to three months of appointing someone. Perhaps the Committee should ask for evidence that shows all qualifications were verified.

Mr Daniels said that the issue around the skills was not about qualifications only but it also included the experience and necessary competence.

The Chairperson responded by saying the issue of qualifications was different and it must be monitored separately.

Mr Daniels took note of the comment.

Mr M Shelembe (DA) asked about the progress of the provincial offices because they did not have addresses and maybe the matter should be included in the report so that such information must be provided.

Mr Daniels said that the information was available, and it was flighted on the screen for Members to see the addresses in the different provinces.

The report was adopted with amendments.

Audio

No related

Documents

No related documents

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: