Chairperson, we do not step back often enough to reflect on what we have all achieved in South Africa. The establishment of the National Defence Force, forged from seven different armed formations, which were once sworn enemies, was always going to be a challenge.
I would like to begin, therefore, by acknowledging the hard work being done by the Minister and the department in dealing with many of the challenges facing the Defence Force. We may not always agree on what must be achieved, but that does not mean that nothing has been achieved.
The Minister should take credit for the role the Defence Force played in providing security during World Cup 2010, the deployment of a warship on antipiracy operations off the coast of Mozambique, the role the Defence Force is playing in safeguarding our landward borders, and the deployment of the Defence Force in antipoaching operations in the Kruger National Park.
The Minister should also take credit for the appointment of Mpumi Mpofu, the Secretary for Defence, and the appointment of Mziwonke Dlabantu as chief financial officer, and audit reports which are going in the right direction as a result of "Operation Clean Audit". The new Secretary for Defence, Mpumi Mpofu, has shown that she does have the right stuff. She is a military version of a "Tiger Mom", whose management motto, we hear, is: "Comply or die." The Defence Secretariat is being pushed harder than ever before and we are beginning to see the results.
The final report of the Interim National Defence Force Service Commission was made public in 2010. The commission effectively took an official peek at service conditions within the Defence Force, and what the commission observed, during visits to military bases throughout the Defence force, was shocking. The commission found a broken chain of command, a politicised promotion system, a dysfunctional grievance system, a breakdown in discipline and a career management system that did not work.
The shocking state of the Defence Force was symbolised by the crisis the commission found at the Doornkop-Lenz military base, home to 21 South African Infantry Battalion. The commission observed troops simply idling about the base, because there were no proper facilities; leaks in roofs and pipes, broken doors and windows, caved-in ceilings, blocked urinals and toilets - and the troops reported for duty at 08:00 and then left the base at 09:00 with the knowledge of their officers. The situation was so bad that the commanding officer, who was acting in that position and who was merely a major, conceded that he had lost control of the soldiers. In the end, the commission provides official confirmation that the Defence Force is in deep trouble.
The commission made several recommendations, many of which were poorly defined, but the commission was absolutely correct to recommend that a properly funded and extensive Defence Review be undertaken as soon as possible. The last Defence Review was carried out in 1998 - more than 10 years ago - and is now completely outdated. The strategic environment has changed fundamentally since the last Defence Review. That is why we need to conduct a Defence Review to reset the mandate, capabilities and funding levels of the Defence Force. The Minister's statement in this regard was welcome.
Now, you would recall that the final report of the Interim National Defence Force Service Commission caused a political battle, which lasted for months, and which ended in a purge of ruling party ranks serving on the Portfolio Committee on Defence and Military Veterans. Winning the political battle was presumably a high moment for the Minister, but it was a low moment for our constitutional democracy. I, for one, cannot understand why the Minister, who worked so hard to build democracy in our country, is now working so hard to break down democracy in our country. In a constitutional democracy such as ours it is imperative for the Defence Force to be properly accountable to Parliament. However, the reality is quite different.
The Chief of the SA National Defence Force, together with the service chiefs, have never appeared before the Portfolio Committee on Defence and Military Veterans or, indeed, before the Joint Standing Committee on Defence.
Despite the fact that Parliament is expected to vote on the appropriation of more than R36 billion for the Department of Defence and Military Veterans, Parliament has never been briefed on the combat-readiness of the Defence Force. Major acquisition projects are buried in the special defence account, despite only a small proportion of expenditure on projects being tagged as sensitive projects. Written parliamentary questions are simply ignored, half answered and, in some cases, simply not answered, and now seem hardly worth submitting.
Access to information requests on the arms deal, on the Airbus A400M and on VIP flights are simply ignored. Grievances submitted on behalf of both serving and former members of the Defence Force, such as the more than 30 grievances in this box, are not efficiently dealt with and no feedback on progress is provided.
The Defence department unfortunately remains, to a large extent, a state within a state, resisting being properly accountable to Parliament. One of the best examples of the Defence department's resistance to security and oversight is the whole question of VIP flights. In the past, the Department of Defence provided Parliament with all the relevant details, including the routing, the names of passengers, a breakdown of the operating costs, and the total costs of VIP flights.
However, the Minister now refuses to provide Parliament with any of these details on the grounds that disclosure of the information may compromise - you guessed it - "national security".
I suspect that what the Minister is trying to hide from Parliament are the massive costs involved in laying on military aircraft, reserve force aircraft and chartered aircraft for VIPs. [Interjections.] There can be no better support for this proposition than the Minister's own flight schedule. The Minister is - to put it mildly - a "frequent military flyer", regularly using military aircraft operated by the SA Air Force. The Minister would not want you to know the actual number of flights she undertakes each week.
The Minister would also not want you to know the number of "ferry" flights - that is when empty military aircraft transit from Pretoria to Cape Town or Cape Town to Pretoria - to collect the Minister; and the Minister would really not want you to know that the cost of operating some of the aircraft she uses exceeds R50 000 an hour. [Interjections.] That means that every time the Minister flies between Pretoria and Cape Town return, the total cost of the flight would fund the building of approximately two houses for military veterans; or it could fund the employment of approximately four young people for a whole year in the Defence Force's Military Skills Development System programme. [Interjections.] Surely, now the Minister will consider scaling back her flight schedule? [Interjections.] Now, I know that going back to chicken and beef will be a real pain, but perhaps the Minister could even try flying commercial on South African Airways.
Of even more concern is that we hear that the Defence department was looking to buy two Boeing 767s, two 737s, and two Bombardier Global Express XRS aircraft for use by the President and Ministers. Now we hear that the department has settled for two Embraer Lineage 1000 aircraft to transport VIPs, at a cost of R800 million. I suspect there is something very wrong here, and in the coming weeks this deal needs to be scrutinised.
In any event, we need to look into the excessive secrecy that surrounds VIP flights and the massive increase in costs of VIP flights. I wrote to the chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Defence and Military Veterans, Mr Stanley Motimele, in this regard. And, I am sure that the Minister will be delighted to hear that I never received a reply.
In the end, the fact is that proper parliamentary scrutiny and oversight of the Defence department is in danger of collapsing. And the parliamentary defence committees are now in danger of turning into a political charade where members ask questions and officials pretend to provide answers.
The struggle to keep proper scrutiny and oversight of the Defence department has not collapsed, however. The battle will culminate sometime this year, I suspect, in a battle to prevent the Minister from turning the Joint Standing Committee on Defence into a joint standing committee on intelligence, which meets behind closed doors.
Now, rather than take the easy road and hide behind the Defence Force's favourite fig leaf, namely national security, let us take the hard road and find a proper balance between secrecy and transparency. Let us also do this because in the words of one distinguished legal scholar: "A society that demonstrates no concern for this problem has ceased, or is ceasing to be democratic."
In the end, effective scrutiny and oversight may not always be good for the Minister of Defence and Military Veterans, but it is good for the Department of Defence and Military Veterans. [Time expired.] [Applause.]