Chairperson, hon members, this joint oversight visit has indeed enriched the committee's understanding of the situation and fortified our resolve to meet the challenges. Furthermore, we are convinced that the capacity of the SA National Defence Force, defence policy and sensitive information management, among other matters, require close scrutiny.
In terms of the department's budget, our observation at Waterkloof Air Force Base indicated that limited funding resulted in infrastructure decay, threatening the overall maintenance of the base. With regard to the military hospital at Thaba Tshwane, the main issue of concern was that the military health budget was inadequate for the completion of renovation projects and the acquisition of essential medical equipment. In both cases, we believe that the weak interdepartmental relationship between the Department of Defence and Military Veterans and the Department of Public Works has exacerbated the maintenance and repair issues we observed. As a result, we propose that the department submits a detailed report to Parliament, outlining the details of the service level agreement between the two departments and the list of facilities that require urgent repair. This report should also indicate the timeframes for the completion of the maintenance projects, including their costs and whether targets were met.
On the matter of transformation, we noted that there was an issue with substantive and meaningful compliance with transformation imperatives. As such, we recommend that an evaluation be conducted on the extent to which the department and SANDF have achieved transformation objectives. Irregularities in the call-up of reserve forces signal weaknesses and we counsel that the relationship between the Secretary for Defence and the Chief of the SANDF should be closely scrutinised to circumvent possible tensions.
Relating to legislative matters, there was a concern about weaknesses in parliamentary Rules and guidelines for the management of sensitive information. To combat this challenge, we suggested that Parliament considers strengthening the existing Rules and procedures that govern the receipt and management of sensitive information, particularly information relating to national security.
Human resource challenges observed largely related to the retention of scarce skills and skills development. We found that there was a loss of specialists and experts with scarce skills in the SANDF and that the military skills development system may not be providing the necessary skills needed by the military.
Furthermore, there was no clear military exit mechanism. In order to resolve these human resource matters, we propose that employment contracts of personnel with scarce skills include clauses with obligations such as, among others, the mandatory completion of service.
In light of the challenges outlined above, the Portfolio Committee and the Joint Standing Committee on Defence believe that the challenges observed at the Waterkloof Air Force Base and the military hospital at Thaba Tshwane are not insurmountable. The impact of a reduced budget on the maintenance of facilities does not have to be a problem if intergovernmental relations between the Department of Defence and the Department of Public Works are strengthened. We also think that an evaluation of the current trajectory of transformation can result in a better understanding of what is going wrong and where.
Moreover, improvements in the capacity of the SANDF will be seen once the relevant stakeholders begin to review legislation and information management and to strengthen skills development and the retention system in the SANDF. I recommend that the report be adopted. [Applause.]
There was no debate.
Chairperson, I move:
That the Report be adopted.
Chairperson, the DA wishes to make a declaration of vote.
Order! Requests for declarations of vote have been received.
Declarations of vote:
Chair, this report provides an overview of the joint oversight visits by the defence committees to Pretoria in August 2011. The report, however, is not complete. Why is the report not complete? It is because the report makes no mention of the secret briefing conducted behind closed doors by the SA Navy.
This is what reportedly happened. The committees were briefed by Vice Admiral Refiloe Mudimo on the SA Navy's new antipiracy mission. The briefing was conducted behind closed doors and committee members were required to sign a disclosure form, undertaking not to make public information disclosed during the briefing. [Interjections.] What is not clear is who called for the briefing to be conducted behind closed doors because no information, or very little information, I am informed, which was disclosed at the briefing could not be made public.
What is clear is that the briefing amounted to a closed meeting of the Portfolio Committee on Defence as well as the Joint Standing Committee on Defence. The question must be asked, therefore: In closing the meeting, did the committees comply with the Constitution and the Rules of Parliament? I have my doubts and for that reason I will be approaching Mr Cedric Frolick, House Chairperson on Committees, Oversight and Information Communication and Technology, to look into this matter and determine whether, in deciding to close the meeting, the committees complied with the relevant provisions of the Constitution and the Rules of Parliament.
There is a paragraph in this report, Chairperson, which we do not support. It reads:
Parliament should strengthen the rules and procedures governing the receipt and management of sensitive information, particularly documents relating to national security.
This, I am sure hon members would agree, is ominous because what is happening is clear. The hon Minister of Defence and Military Veterans, Lindiwe Sisulu, is working hand in glove with ruling party committee members and she is going to try to turn the Joint Standing Committee on Defence into a joint standing committee on intelligence. Closed meetings should be the exception, but the Minister wants closed meetings to become the rule.
Well, I have news for the Minister. We are not going to allow this to happen. [Interjections.] We will resist every step of the way and we will not allow the Minister's new paranoia to shut down effective oversight and scrutiny of the SANDF in this Parliament. [Interjections.] [Applause.]
Chairperson, the first thing I would like to say is that the member who stood before us here did not even partake in the oversight visit. He was not there. [Interjections.] It's funny that we agree in the committees on defence - both of them - that grandstanding about the security of the nation is uncalled for. We always agree on that. This report was voted for by the committees with no abstention by any party - it was unanimous. That means there is grandstanding here. [Interjections.]
Let's look into what the hon Maynier refers to as secrecy. What usually happens is that the person who supplies you with information is the person who decides whether the information is confidential, top secret or whatever. It is not for the committee to decide on that. [Interjections.] It's the person who gives you the information who decides that because that person knows how confidential the information is. [Interjections.] So it is not for us to determine that.
To answer his allegations of secrecy, it would be very stupid for any nation to make every other thing public. [Interjections.] If our Defence Force has come up with a new sophisticated missile, it is not for them to tell their enemies what defence they have. [Interjections.] That would be a stupid thing to do. [Interjections.]
In relation to the meeting that we had, it was not the committee that decided the meeting must be held in secret. [Interjections.] That was decided by the people responsible. The SA Navy had their own forms, which they gave to every member to sign. They told us: "If you want us to give you this type of information, you must sign here, otherwise we will not give you that information." [Interjections.]
And you signed it! [Interjections.]
Operational information is not for us. [Interjections.] Mr Maynier is just grandstanding and I don't think what he said even needs answering because he was not even there. He did not even sign anything. I think I will end it there. [Applause.] [Time expired.]
Motion agreed to (Democratic Alliance dissenting).
Report accordingly adopted.