Order! The hon M S Motimele, the chairperson of the committee, will address the House on this Bill.
Hon Speaker, hon Ministers, hon members, guests in the gallery, the Military Ombud Bill was introduced to the Portfolio Committee on Defence and Military Veterans in June 2011 by the department. This Bill seeks to establish the Office of the Military Ombud. The role of the Military Ombud is to receive and attend to complaints within and against the Defence Force, from current and former members of the Defence Force, regarding their conditions of service, as well as members of the public regarding the official conduct of a member of the Defence Force.
The role of the Military Ombud is to investigate and ensure that complaints are resolved in a fair, economical and expeditious manner. This office is meant to enhance the grievance processes that exist within the Defence Force and ensure that grievances can be addressed by an independent office. This Bill went through the public participation processes, with written and verbal submissions received from interested persons and nongovernmental organisations.
The committee subsequently deliberated on the Bill and presented it to the National Assembly. Subsequent to this, the National Council of Provinces made two amendments to the Bill relating to the appointment and removal of the Military Ombud from office. The Portfolio Committee on Defence and Military Veterans has acceded to the suggested amendments.
The first amendment is in relation to clause 5(1) and (5)(2) of the Bill. Previously, the Bill required that the President appoint the Military Ombud upon the recommendation of the National Assembly. Both the Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Development and the portfolio committee agreed that this would be an erroneous process. The President is the Commander-in-Chief and should have the powers to appoint the required personnel without administrative restrictions.
This is also in line with the appointment of the Public Protector, who is at the moment, in the absence of an Ombud, dealing with complaints against the Defence Force.
The second amendment is in relation to clause 5(9) of the Bill. This clause provided for the removal of the Ombud from office by the Portfolio Committee on Defence and Military Veterans, through a resolution of the National Assembly. The current amendment indicates that the Ombud may only be removed by the President on grounds of misconduct, incapacity or incompetence. This amendment is a consequential amendment, seeing that the President appoints the Ombud. It therefore follows that he should also be the person to remove the Ombud from office.
The Portfolio Committee on Defence and Military Veterans, therefore, supports and agrees with the amendments suggested by the Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Development. Thank you, hon Speaker. [Applause.]
There was no debate.
Mr Speaker, I move:
That the Bill, as amended, be passed.
The motion is that the Bill, as amended, be passed. Are there any objections? [Interjections.] Order, hon members!
Speaker, the DA requests a declaration, please.
There will be a declaration as there is a request for a declaration, and parties will be allowed up to three minutes for each member of the party to make a declaration.
Declarations of vote:
Speaker, the objective of the Military Ombud Bill is to provide for the establishment of an independent Military Ombud. The fact is, however, that there is very little independent about the independent Military Ombud provided for in the Military Ombud Bill.
The amendments proposed by the Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Development in the National Council of Provinces and subsequently adopted by the Portfolio Committee on Defence and Military Veterans are a further legislative blow to the independence of the Military Ombud. The four amendments effectively ensure that Parliament will play no role whatsoever in the appointment of the Military Ombud.
The amendments were rammed through the Portfolio Committee on Defence and Military Veterans. There was no proper motivation for the amendments. There was no deliberation on the amendments and Parliament's legal advisers were prevented from responding to queries about the proposed amendments. The Portfolio Committee on Defence and Military Veterans simply rolled over. It was shameful. The amendments were also adopted against the advice of Parliament's legal advisers who, last year, advised that:
It is suggested that an Ombud should not be appointed by the body that it reviews. The appointment by the President may still create the perception that the Military Ombud is not independent of the executive. It is, therefore, our view that it may be more appropriate for Parliament to have some role in the appointment process.
That advice, of course, was ignored. Why was it ignored? It was ignored because the hon Minister of Defence and Military Veterans, Lindiwe Sisulu, does not want an independent Military Ombud. The Minister wants a Military Ombud who is a handbag dog ... [Interjections.]
Hon member, hold on. There is a point of order. Hon Minister?
Speaker, this is a very important piece of legislation. I want to find out if it is parliamentary for the hon member to create a perception which is baseless lies.
What is the point of order? [Interjections.]
It is a point of order! It is a point of order. He is not allowed to bring a baseless lie to Parliament.
That is not a point of order. [Interjections.]
Order, hon members! Order! Order, hon members. [Interjections.] Order! I will study the Hansard and come back with a decision on that. Proceed, hon member.
Speaker, the Minister wants a Military Ombud who is a handbag dog. The Minister does not want a Military Ombud who is a bulldog. The truth is that the Military Ombud provided for in the Military Ombud Bill is a Military Ombud in name only. We do support the establishment of an independent Military Ombud, but we do not support these amendments to the Military Ombud Bill, which diminish the independence of the Military Ombud. I thank you. [Applause.]
I rise on a point of order. Actually, I was going to ask if it was parliamentary for members to utter statements that insinuate sexism. In the statement that the previous member just made he mentioned that the Minister uses the military as she uses her bag. Is that parliamentary, because that is really a sexist statement? [Interjections.]
Order, hon members! That certainly sounds inappropriate. I'll study the Hansard and I'll come back with a ruling.
Somlomo, esi sisivumelwano kwaye yayisisivumelwano sentlanganiso kwantlandlolo ukuba amandla omkhuseli wamalungelo amalungu omkhosi awasekelwanga phantsi kwemiqathango yesaHluko se-9.
Eyona nto aza kujongana nayo ngqo umkhuseli wamalungelo ziindlela zokusebenza kwamalungu omkhosi. Into yokuba ukuzimela geqe kwale ofisi kusemgciphekweni, ngamampunge kwaye lulwimi etywaleni. [Kwaqwhatywa.]
Umphathi wale ofisi nesekela lakhe, baza kuthatha isifungo sentembeko, sokuzibophelela, nokuhlela izikhalazo neendlela zokuzisombulula ngokukhawuleza nangokunyanisekileyo.
Kananjalo, into yokuba iLungu lePalamente elisandul' ukuthetha apha alizange livunyelwe ukuba lithethe entlanganisweni ngamaLungu ePalamente, ngamampunge. Imibuzo eyayibuzwe leli lungu yaphendulwa ntlandlolo, kwaye lo Mthetho oYilwayo wawuzile apha KwiNdlu yoWiso-mthetho, savumelana ukuba lo Mthetho oYilwayo awusekelwanga phantsi kwale miqathango. Amalungu omkhosi anawo amalungelo, kodwa la malungelo mawabe phantsi kwale ofisi yokujonga amalungu omkhosi. Enkosi, ndisatshaya. [Kwaqhwatywa.] (Translation of isiXhosa paragraphs follows.) [Ms N R MABEDLA: Chairperson, this is the resolution that was taken a long time ago in a meeting, that the Military Ombudsman's powers are not based on the provisions of the Section 9 institutions.
The Military Ombudsman will focus specifically on the working conditions of the members of the Defence and Military Veterans. The claims that the independence of this office is at risk are misleading and are lies. [Applause.]
The Military Ombudsman and his deputy will take an Oath of Office on trust and allegiance, and sort out complaints with possible ways of resolving them effectively and efficiently.
Also, the claim that the previous speaker, a Member of Parliament, was barred from speaking in the meeting by other Members of Parliament is a lie. Answers from the questions that this member asked were given a long time ago and this Bill came to the National Assembly and we agreed that this Bill was not based on those provisions. Members of the Defence and Military Veterans have rights but these rights must be under the office of the Military Ombudsman. Thank you [Applause.]]
Thank you, hon Speaker. I thought you would give me the honour of saying: "That brings the business of the day to an end, and the House is adjourned."
In any democratic society, healthy relations ideally operate in a triangular relationship comprising security services, civil authority and civil society. Such a relationship contributes positively to the enhancement of peace and security. This model also ensures greater transparency, accountability, and effective civil control. This is the premise on which Cope is addressing this issue. We are very mindful that democratic relations must constitute the manner in which all parties participate.
In the management of healthy civil-security relations, one of the fundamental requirements is that Parliament closely monitors the security forces. It is envisaged that the Ombudsman will address any military personnel matters which cannot be resolved through ordinary existing mechanisms. A military investigator was even positioned within the Public Protector's Office to investigate military-related complaints, but this has not been adequate.
Cope believes that the Office of the Military Ombud will assist in bringing about more transparency. It is, however, not going to be sufficiently independent from political interference because the incumbent will be appointed by the President.
During the public hearings it became clear that several organisations also criticised the Bill for failing to give the Ombud the power to compel the implementation of his or her recommendations. This is fundamental. Creating the office and denuding it of power is totally counterproductive. It does not take a stargazer to show that this inadequacy will subvert the functioning of the office.
The Military Ombud is intended to resolve both internal complaints in the Defence Force and external complaints against the Defence Force. It is, therefore, suggested that the Ombud should not be appointed by the body that it reviews, as correctly pointed out by the hon Maynier. While the Minister of Defence and Military Veterans does not appoint the Military Ombud and the appointment is made by the President, there is not enough independence to allow for quick and assertive action to be taken.
It seems that politicians want to keep control of the process and this will, therefore, limit its effectiveness. It is, therefore, Cope's view that it may be more appropriate for Parliament to have some role in the appointment of the Ombud. That is how Cope would have approached the creation of this very important office.
Cope's policy begins by aligning civil and government relations by asking questions such as: Is the South African Constitution really a people's document owned by the people? Does it alter the existence of those who are poor, homeless, marginalised and excluded? Does it allow for structures that are set up to succeed in their objectives without being constrained by the executive? That is what we would ask.
Hon member, I gave each speaker three minutes. You have exceeded your limit. So, if you can just conclude in the last remaining seconds.
In conclusion, Cope, in essence, does support the Bill. It is basically long overdue. Thank you Minister. However, we have reservations relating to the independence of the Ombud. Thank you. [Applause.]
Somlomo, neNdlu ehloniphekile, asiqale ngokuthi ngabe yini ngempela esikhuluma ngayo.
Uma sikhuluma ngokuthi uMongameli uyena ozokhomba ihhovisi elizimele, asikhulume ngokuthi unalo noma akanalo ilungelo lokumxosha nokumbheka ukuthi usebenza kanjani. Yilokho okufanele sikhulume ngakho. Konke lokhu okunye sikubeke eceleni, ngoba akusho lutho la kule ngxoxo esiyixoxayo.
Ngakho-ke, le ngxoxo esiyixoxayo iveza ngokusobala ukuthi kufanele ukuthi leli hhovisi libe khona. Sivumelana sonke lapha eNdlini, ngaphandle komuntu ogula ngekhanda ongathi akakuvumi lokho.
Okwesibili, sivumelana sonke la eNdlini ukuthi kufanele ukuthi kungabi nguNgqongqoshe kodwa kube umuntu ozomqasha, noma singaba nawo amandla noma ngabe asinawo amandla.
Thina la eNdlini sinelungelo - njengabantu abakhethwa ngabantu nanjengabantu abavumelana ngokuthi siyamxosha noma asimxoshi uMongameli - ukuthi sikwazi ukubheka ukuthi kwakhona lokhu akwenzile kuyiqiniso yini noma cha. Ngakho-ke, angazi ukuthi sixoxani manje. Ngiyathokoza Somlomo. [Ihlombe.] (Translation of isiZulu speech follows.)
[Mr V B NDLOVU: Speaker and this august House, let us begin by stating what it is that we are really talking about.
If we are talking about the President being the one who should choose the Ombudsman, let us talk about whether he or she has the right to monitor how that person works and to fire that person. We must put aside all the other issues because they are irrelevant in this discussion.
Therefore, this discussion we are engaged in clearly indicates that this office must be established. We are all in agreement in this House except for someone who is out of his mind, who would say he or she didn't agree with this.
Secondly, we are all in agreement in this House that it should not be the Minister, but someone that you are going to employ, whether we might or might not have the power.
We in this House, as the people who were elected by the people, have a right to agree whether to recall the President or not, so that we are able to verify if what he did is right or not. Therefore, I don't know what we are discussing now. Thank you, Speaker. [Applause.]]
Declarations of vote made on behalf of the Democratic Alliance, African National Congress, Congress of the People and Inkatha Freedom Party.
Motion agreed to (Democratic Alliance dissenting).
Bill accordingly passed.