Feedback on the Reserve Force Indaba; Reserve Force future plans; with Deputy Minister

Meeting report

Deployment's impact on DoD budget

The Chairperson said he had not added the latest defence force deployment to the current agenda, because he felt that the Committee needed a presentation on it. The Department needed adequate notice to prepare for the meeting. The latest deployment would be added to next week’s agenda items.

Mr S Marais (DA) said he agreed with the Chairperson, as the Committee knew the budget and the impact of the deployment on the budget. The Department’s baselines had been cut last week by R700 million, but there seemed to be an additional R500 million. That would have an impact on the matters that the Committee had decided and recommended. It was obviously going to affect that, and add to the cost of employees. While it was commendable that the defence force could step in to make up for the poor service of the police, it still impacted the budget of the defence force. The Committee would need a proper briefing on that.

The Chairperson said he had seen R500 million cut from one of the programmes, but there had been an overall net increase. In other words, the budget had gone up by over R1 billion, but he was not pre-empting any discussion on the matter. The Committee would call the Chief Financial Officer of the Department to come and present the revised budget.

Mr Marais added that the allocated extra R1.2 billion was due to the cost of employees increase by the bargaining council. It would not assist the Department to do extra deployments.

Chief of Reserves' term of office

The Chairperson welcomed Mr Thabang Makwetla, Deputy Minister of Defence and Military Veterans, Lt Gen Fhurani Ramantswana, Chief of Staff, South African National Defence Force (SANDF), and Brig Gen Zoleka Niyabo, Director: Defence Reserves, SANDF, who was standing in as the Chief of Reserves, SANDF, as the previous Chief of Reserves had been given a one-year contract.

The Chairperson doubted whether a new Chief of Reserves would be competent to present on item 4 of the agenda.

Mr Marais said he was in agreement with the Chairperson, as the Committee had previously vocalised its interest in meeting with the previous Chief of Reserves of the SANDF in order to have a discussion with him about his vision for the SANDF. It was incredibly important that the Committee speak to the previous Chief of Reserves, as leadership was important in the Department.

The Committee received an update on the presentation two hours ago. It was practice for the Committee to have more time to prepare. It would be sad if it became the practice for the Department to send their presentations at the last minute, as it would hinder the Committee’s ability to adequately prepare for the meeting.

Mr D Ryder (DA, Gauteng) pointed out that he had not had time to go through the updated presentation due to a meeting he had been attending running over its allotted time.

Gen Ramantswana said the Department respected the Committee, and did not wish to take advantage of it. The Department was open to receiving pointers on how it could function better. He apologised profusely for the late submission of the updated presentation and explained that a few things needed to be added to two slides in the presentation. The Department could have proceeded with the presentation without the additions to the slides, but had felt that it was important that the additions appear on the slides.

The Chairperson accepted the apology. Regarding item four of the presentation, the Committee wanted to engage with the new chief on their vision for the SANDF. He requested an explanation as to why the previous chief had been appointed for one year only.

Deputy Minister Makwetla said that his office had been informed that the term of the Chief of Reserves had expired. He assumed that the chief’s term of office had been long enough for the incumbent to make the necessary impact. The Chief of Reserves position was not a full-time responsibility. The reserve’s business was being taken care of by Reserve directors, such as Gen Niyabo, but the chief oversaw the work of the various directors. Accurate information about the Chief of Reserves’ position would have to be provided. The office of the Chief of the SANDF must provide clarity on this matter, because it was the chief’s office that guided the Minister to reach the decision to appoint the previous Chief of Reserves for one year only.       

Regarding item four, he was unsure how the Department explained matters about the reserves. The Reserve Force Indaba process sought to flesh out the future plans of the reserve force and how the future system should function. Indaba Two of the new reserve force system had advanced a dialogue around a number of areas that had been identified for closer interrogation. He thought that it was the product of Indaba Two of the reserve force system that was going to be shared in this meeting. There was not going to be any product which was going to be shared with the oversight Committee by the Chief of the Reserves.

The Chairperson asked what the protocol was around designating someone as the Chief of the Reserve Force. He thought that whoever was appointed would be appointed for a term that was aligned with the term of the Chief of the Defence Force.

Gen Ramantswana said that the Chairperson’s belief made sense. However, it was not always the case that the term of the Chief of the Reserves would be aligned with the term of the Chief of the Defence Force. The Chief of the Reserves did not cost the defence reserve much in terms of employment costs, because the chief would be called to come in on certain days. He aligned himself with the Deputy Minister’s sentiments that the Department should write to the Committee and provide an explanation on why the Chief of the Reserve Force was appointed for only one year.

Mr Marais said that he knew for a fact that the term of a past Chief of Reserves had been tied to the term of another past Chief of the Defence Force. It was obviously expected that the new chief would make a similar recommendation to the Minister. It had never been disclosed to the Committee that the previous Chief of Reserve’s appointment was temporary for a year. What was the purpose of appointing the previous Chief of Reserves for one year only? Had the Department received valuable money from this? The Committee had seen only now that there had been a reserve force indaba. It appeared that a Chief of Reserves was not needed, but he did not agree with that. However, one could do without a Chief of the Reserves if he did only what the bosses told him to do, and not what he wanted to do.

What was currently happening in the Committee looked like the Department’s delegation was taking advantage of the Committee. He expressed his disappointment at how the Department had handled things. It appeared that there had not been a proper application of the mind to this. Perhaps the Committee needed to hear what the vision of the chief of the Defence Force was concerning the position of the Chief of the Reserve Force, and whether he felt that this role was important. The reserve force played a big role in the country's defence readiness. He did not know what the objective was if things were done in this fashion. He expressed his disappointment with the way things were being handled.

The Chairperson stated that the Committee should not say that the Department was taking it for granted, considering the fact that the Department had stated that they would write to the Committee explaining why the Chief of Reserves was appointed for only one year. The entire Committee had thought that the Chief of Reserves would serve for a longer period. The Department could come back to explain why this position had not been filled. The Committee hoped that this position would be filled by the time Indaba Two took place so that the Chief of Reserves could also give input into the process.

Feedback on Reserve Force indaba

Gen Ramantswana introduced the presentation to the Committee, stating that the reserve force Indaba had taken place. The purpose of Reserve Force Indaba Two had been to take stock of the progress of the strategic resolutions that came out from the first Reserve Force Indaba. The Department had also looked at the status of the reserve force at the Indaba, and looked into the four areas that the new reserve force system had to focus on. There were decisions that guided the meeting after the work session which showed that a lot of issues needed to be dealt with in a workshop mode in preparation for Reserve Force Indaba Three.

Gen Niyabo outlined the aim of the presentation, and provided feedback on reserve force Indaba Two.

Strategic aspects had been discussed, including a proposal that 36-month contracts should be used for the reserves to tidy up the administration of the reserves. The contract would stipulate the number of days a member was called up for, instead of continuously calling members for 30 or 31 days of the 36-month period. The contract would stipulate the number of days a member would be called up for.

There was a need to update the reserve force service system, as some services felt that some aspects of the reserve force service system could not be implemented due to budget constraints.

There was a need to finalise the "one force" policy, because it was currently not defined and inconsistently applied. The Division Chief: Reserve had written a problem statement regarding the one force policy that had been submitted to the office of the chief of staff of the SANDF so that there was a consistent understanding and implementation of the one force plan across the Department.

There were plans to deploy an additional seven companies for Operation Corona, considering that the Department’s borders were notorious for not being properly secured. It had been stated that 22 companies would be needed to properly secure the borders. There was a suggestion that the additional seven companies should come from the reserve force component, but the reduction of the mandate and the cost of employment hindered this from being achieved.

The Department was considering implementing a new feeder system for the reserves. This had been discussed with the chief of human resources of the SANDF. A letter had been written to National Treasury to revert back to the 2.6 mandates, and do away with the 25% reduction because this did not work for the Department. Almost all the services had overspent in their reserve force mandates, even though reverting to the 2.6 would not assist with a second stream of recruitment that would be required to rejuvenate the reserve force component, although it would make up for continuation training. The chief of human resources agreed that there was a need to have a second stream of recruitment for the reserve, even though there had not been a percentage that had been agreed on. The SANDF hoped to achieve this during the next financial year.

The tactical aspects from the Indaba Two included that the SANDF was always told that an estimated 7 500 reserve force members had not been called up in the past five years. However, the Department could not find the number they were looking for in 2021 when they wanted to call members up, so a decision was made to clean up the system to ensure accuracy and integrity of the data. The business processes of the systems were making it difficult to do this, but the Department continued to do it. The concept of “admin” code was to ensure clarity as to which reserve force members were called up. The Department realised that most of the reserves would be placed in the "admin" code, and it would seem like many reserve force members had been called up, even though some of them were for deployment and operations. The admin code was to ensure accuracy when reporting when reserve force members were called up.

So far, 136 members have been appointed through training and development. Due to budgetary constraints, there were no new training or training plans in the last two years. The budgetary constraints had also adversely affected the leader group development programme. No reserve members had been taken through the senior staff course, or the strategic defence programme, because these courses run for 12 months and would require continuous utilisation, and most services did not have the budget for this.

The Department continued to reskill the reserves with project Koba-Tlala. It had conducted three courses in the Eastern Cape where reserve force members were trained in construction, plumbing, and water purification. The DoD foresaw that the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure (DPWI) would return the task of managing infrastructure back to the DoD. There was a database of all the members that had been reskilled in construction and other skills that had to do with matters of the defence force, and these reserves would be used when needed.

There was currently no reserve force council, as the Minister of Defence had given them a six-month extension that had ended in June. The Minister would announce the future of the reserve force once she had applied her mind to the situation.

The Department was participating in revising the general regulations to formulate an overarching policy for the Reserve Force administration. There were no specific policies for reserves in the past, but most services had indicated that there was a need to have an overarching policy for the reserves to ensure consistent administration.

The Air Force had had to reduce their call up mandates for the reserves due to budgetary constraints from 30-31, to 15 and, at times, ten or 20. This had halted the revitalisation of the air squadron.

The Department had changed the name of the Defence Provincial Liaison Councils to Defence Reserves Support Boards, wherein the boards partner with companies to upskill reserve force members and assist reserve force members in finding alternative employment.

The ministerial task team appointed by the previous Minister of Defence had indicated that the administration of reserves left reserve force members vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. The Department had been instructed to find ways to mitigate the exploitation and abuse, such as by implementing call-up committees.

The desired effect and outcomes of the reserve force Indaba Two had been that the current reserve force system must be reviewed to make way for a modern and fit purpose. The divisions of the SANDF would go out and educate people about the reserve force.

The ageing force needed a focused effort to rejuvenate the reserves by recruiting young members, but all of this would exert more pressure on employment costs. Including more reserve force members would add to the wage deficit the reserve force was already facing. The defence reserves and human resources (HR) were in consultation to plan for a two-stream recruitment system which would allow for a separate reserve force intake of soldiers.

Gen Niyabo concluded the presentation by confirming the strategic purpose of the reserves, re-prioritising the roles of the reserve force, and reinforcing the business case of the reserves, stating that the international norm for a reserve force was to have 30% to 40% reserve force members, yet in South Africa it was only 19%. She also stressed the need to address the ageing force and gender imbalance linked to the lack of a new intake. There were plans to develop the four systems that were required for the reserve force, and to develop direct recruitment for a separate reserve force intake to rejuvenate the reserve force.

See attached for full presentation

Discussion

Mr Marais referred to slide one of the presentation, in which the Department referred to the 2015 Review and presumably used it as the basis of their presentation. The Minister of Defence and Military Veterans had stated that the 2015 Review was irrelevant to an extent, and that the new Defence Review must be urgently developed. If the Department based its presentation on the outdated 2015 review, why had it been chosen to start off the presentation?

The next slide referred to the defence force as being proven to be cost effective, providing more than 40% of the 14 companies for Operation Corona. He was under the impression that the Department had 15 companies on the border -- were there 15 or 14 companies? If there were 15, then how much did they contribute? He referred to where the presentation spoke about the DoD’s mandate and involvement, and reminded the Department that it had already been reported that it was over the 1.9 million mandates. What was the expectation of the reserve force? How many mandates did the Department foresee it would reach in this financial year and onwards? If it was repetitive that the reserve would be used as indicated, that meant that the 1.9 million was not realistic.

What did the expenditure in item 10 of the presentation include? The presentation regularly referred to the Mzansi Homeguard, so the Department should present a presentation on the role and functions, the cost and benefits, and the need for the Mzansi Homeguard. There was no purpose in talking about it, just to find out eventually that they could not afford it. A case needed to be made out that the Mzansi Homeguard was an essential cost that would contribute to the Department’s constitutional mandate.

Slide eight of the presentation referred to the 7 500 members of the SANDF who had not been called up. Could the Department explain how many force members were called up on a yearly basis? How big must that pool be after the clean-up going forward?

On the utilisation of reserves, although it had been mentioned that the budget was the actual problem, the reason given in the presentation was that there was no availability of pilots and aircraft. Many Reserve Force pilots had approached him in the Western Cape, so stating that there was a shortage of pilots did not correlate with how many Reserve Force pilots had approached him. The Department should provide clarity in this regard.

Did the SANDF have to use their own personal aircraft when they carried out their services -- if so, what effect would that have on the country’s defence readiness? If small civilian aircraft were used, how would this affect the overall objective of making the country safer in terms of maritime and search and rescue. If it was because of budget, then they must say so right from the beginning. The Committee needed to know how much was actually required, so it could see the practical financial implications and could say what it needed for frigate and submarine upgrades when it sat and negotiated with National Treasury.

The next page of the presentation referred to the input of the guest speaker Mr Heitman – was it possible for the Committee to get that kind of input, as it would be of value to the Committee? What was the current age of the reserve force? From where would the Department rejuvenate? What was the idea and place for rejuvenation? Would the Department rejuvenate from former SANDF members who had not been given contracts for the regular force, or would it be rejuvenating from the street? Rejuvenation requires young people. Effective management and service conditions had financial implications. The Department had to look into what the financial implications and requirements of effective management and service conditions would be.

The presentation spoke about a managed limitation on mandates. What were they talking about regarding the mandates? Where were they at the moment with mandates? What was envisaged for mandates going forward, based on the current trajectory of deployments of reserve force members?

Mr Ryder referred to the Department’s statements that the system for the management of the availability of people did not allow it to do certain things, such as updating its records. A serious problem was present if the Committee and the Department could not fix the system. The DoD needed to tell the Committee exactly what needed to be done to fix the system and ensure it worked. There could not be a process that was hampered by a poorly designed system. The requirement of a death certificate before taking someone off the system might be appropriate if one was paying out their life insurance, but it was certainly not appropriate if the Department was counting its standing force. If the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) could access the Home Affairs database, then the SANDF could surely manage it on a similar basis, and obtain the information from another government department. The Department could not be a victim of the system.

He asked for details of the 15-day problem that the Department was facing. Was this an SANDF-coordinated life policy? What were the issues with it? Was the Military Ombudsman or Defence Force Service Commission assisting the Department with getting that matter resolved? People’s life insurance should not be put at risk when putting their lives on the line for the country.

He requested clarity on the Department’s call-up process. During his days as part of the reserve force, they were occasionally placed on standby when there was an imminent but unconfirmed threat. In the modern era of telecommunication, this would be easier to manage and get an immediate response from targeted people that the Department wanted to call up and ensure their availability. With the South African Medical Service's (SAMS') reliance on doctors, there might be a number of people in the reserve force who might require a little bit of notice, or some engagement before they were called up at the drop of a hat. How exactly did the call up process work?

The Committee had huge sympathy for the reserve force, as they received no payment when they were not in active service. He always related to the comments made by people when they said that a cash-in-transit heist, or another crime, was carried out with military precision – he always wondered who trained the people involved. The people who formed part of the reserve force needed to be taken care of, and it had to be ensured that they got other forms of employment.

He said that the Mzansi Homeguard was irresponsible to be spending money, or even contemplating something that was underfunded at the moment. There was a massive change in the country’s financial outlook and the appropriations to the Defence Department. He did not see its relevance in the present discussion.

Mr K Motsamai (EFF, Gauteng) said that the reserve force members carried guns, and wore SANDF military uniforms, yet they could not go to military clinics. Were these people registered as members of the military reserve force, or was this just a company or tender that someone had granted? There was a danger where a military reserve force member was carrying a gun, but was not well trained or could not go to a military hospital when they were shot. What was going to happen to that particular person?

Mr T Mmutle (ANC) was concerned that the strategic objective had not come clearly out of the Indaba. His worry emanated from the challenge that the defence force was experiencing regarding calling up its reserves. He thought that the Indaba would curb those challenges, and a clear strategy would be produced to ensure that those challenges did not come up again. Had the DoD engaged to an extent to address some of these challenges? Were there plans to tighten management insofar as the reserve forces were concerned?

DoD's response

Gen Niyaba responded on whether it was still relevant for the Department to quote the 2015 Review, and acknowledged that the Minister had indeed stated that it needed to be reviewed, especially the parts of it that were not affordable. However, the Department had begun its presentation by touching on the 2015 Review because it was still relevant today, and the Department did not foresee the roles of the reserve changing even if the Defence Review was reviewed.

On whether the Department had 14 or 15 companies, she replied that the Department had 15 companies. The number 14 had been a typographical error. There were 15 companies, and 40% of them were reserves.

On the number of mandates that had been overspent, she replied that the Department had always stated the number of mandates when they presented in the past. It was just that this presentation was concentrated on the strategic part, therefore the mandates were not included. The Department knew exactly what the trend had been with the mandates and what was anticipated for this year. The trend had been between 2.7 and 2.8 when the mandates were reduced, so the Department had stated that when the mandates were reduced by 25% to 1.9, if one looked at the trends of how it had been utilising and calling up the reserves, it did not make sense that they had to be reduced by 25%. However, the Department had been compelled by circumstances -- the cost of employment -- to make submissions because it had realised it was not realistic for them to reduce mandates because they would always overspend on mandates when the DoD did not have as much commitment as it does now. The project for this year was that the Department would spend just above 2.8, even though the allocation was 1.9, as the army had already overspent on their mandates because of operations and exercises. The environment that did not overspend had cut the mandates, even though the requirement was still there, and the activities carried out by those reserves had been put on hold, even though all the services had stated that they required more mandates.

She referred to the expenditure listed in item 10 of the presentation, and said it included salaries for both the regular force members and the reserve force wages. That was where the Department’s cost of employment came from.

The process involving the cleaning up of the Personnel Salary System (PERSAL) had been delayed. The Department also had data integrity problems with the information it got from the State Information Technology Agency (SITA), but it was an ongoing process. Obtaining certificates from the Department of Home Affairs (DHA) was not easy because it was a legal issue, but the DHA was continuing with the process. It was not impossible, but the process was not as quick as the Department had anticipated it would be.

She said the information the Department had on the air defence squadron was provided by the Air Force. Those were the challenges that the Air Force had given, but the DoD had conveyed to the Air Force that members were available to serve as reserve pilots. The reserve force members were pilots in the past and were part of the air reserve squadron, utilising their own aircraft.

She stated that the Department would provide the inputs given by Mr Heitman, as they had the Word document he had used when he was presenting.

The current average age of reserve force members was 45.

She said the Department would recruit reserve force members who formed part of the Military Skills Development System (MSDS), who were quite young in age and were interested in being reserves because the DoD had trained them, and it would be cheaper to retain them. The Department would continue with its university reserve training programme, as most services had shown an interest in it, as it provides the DoD with specialists and professionals. Most services wished to continue with it, but they could not do so as currently, they could not afford the programme. Employment in South Africa was structural, and there was a belief that most graduates had skills that did not match the labour market’s requirements. The Department would also be recruiting unemployed graduates with the hope of professionalising the Department.

Gen Niyaba responded to the challenges to remove people from the Department’s PERSAL system. She said it was not impossible, but the DoD had had data integrity issues due to its reliance on the State Information Technology Agency (SITA) and it was not easy to access members’ death certificates from the Department of Home Affairs (DHA) if one was not related to that person. It was not impossible, but it had slowed the process down. It was a continuous process that was done together with the directory for the HR services system.

She said an insurance policy was available for both regular and reserve force members that was underwritten by Sanlam, where premiums were deducted from the member’s salaries. This issue has been resolved. She did not believe any intervention from the Ombudsman would be required, because the Department had a member who attended those meetings. Those discussions took place, and now the reserve force members were accommodated.

On how members were called up in the SANDF, she replied that all the services had a call-up system. There was no third party involved. Reserve force members were members of the defence force, just as regular members were. They had their systems, and the Department knew the number of reserve force members it had and the skills they possessed. Members would be called up, depending on the Department’s needs and requirements at the time.

The Mzansi Homeguard requirement had come from the army, because it was mostly the army that had been deployed in Operation Corona, and they had felt the need to have a component that commandos had performed in the past. The SANDF could be requested to present on it to the Committee.

On Mr Motsamai’s questions about what happened to reserve force members, she replied that reserve force members were members of the SANDF and were not called up through any intermediary company or any third party. When reserve force members were called up and injured while on duty, they did get medical care. It was only when they were not called up that they could not access the medical care provided by the SANDF.

She said the existing call-up system had provisions to prevent the errors that had occurred in the past. There were verification processes in the system when reserve force members were called up that allowed one to verify whether the person being called up was a reserve force member. This was so that members who were not reserve force members were not kept for more than three days, and were not paid for that.

The Chairperson said he had heard that the reserve force council had been appointed for six months, and there were currently no council members in office. He told the Deputy Minister that he was not happy with the way the council’s term was renewed. Their term of office terminated after a year. After a year or so, it came out that the council’s term had been extended. This was an issue that the Minister should look into. The current term was coming to an end in May next year, but there was no Chief of Reserves, no reserve force council, no permanent Secretary of Defence, no permanent chief financial officer, and the deputy director general of the Department of Defence and Military Veterans was currently suspended. He pleaded that all these vacancies be attended to before the end of the term.

He was happy that Indaba Two had happened, and there were ideas on how to improve the reserve force and the conditions of service of its members in the process.

He opened the floor for the Chief of Staff to give his comments, but he could not connect to the meeting platform due to technical issues.

Deputy Minister Makwetla thanked the Committee for its efforts in advocating for implementing a reserve force system. He said that the Department should favour the Committee with a summary report of the milestones of the dialogue involved in fashioning a new reserve force system, from the time this was started in 2019 when the first Indaba had been convened. These milestones would include what the reserve force Indaba had focused on and what its outcomes were, what the dialogue of Indaba Two had focused on, and what the proposed recommendations were, what the purpose of Indaba Three was going to be so that the expectations of the Indaba would be clear to everyone. The Indaba Two dialogue had appreciated that the Department needed to convene a workshop before Indaba Three was convened so that the DoD's position on the different aspects of this system for the future would be discussed and confirmed. Only after that would Indaba Three be convened, where the generals and chiefs of services could sign off on the Department of Defence’s proposal. A summary that spelt out the milestones of that process would assist so that those doing oversight work would know how far this matter had been dealt with, and what had been put forward as the agreed solution.

The dialogue around fashioning a new reserve system had been led by the former Chief of the Defence Reserve and the chair of the Reserve Council. As a result of the vacancies in the aforementioned positions, he observed that the design of the new reserve force system had not had the proper ownership. It had been agreed at the Indaba that the recommendations must be made, but this would be for the military defence force or the Chief of the Defence Force to decide. The work streams that the Reserve Force Indaba One established must be reported to the Reserve Force board, because it appeared that the Reserve Force Board may be the appropriate leadership body to which the staff work around the defence reserve should be reported. This judgment call must be left to the military command council.

The Department’s officials had done a lot of work on the different areas of the reserve force system which had been troubling the Department. Whether this was about recruitment into the defence reserves, the rejuvenation of the military community, or the one force concept application concerning what was due to the reserves or the regulars, whether concerning training or support – solutions had been proposed for all these things. It should be clarified that these were not new reserve force systems, but were only components of practices as to how the system must function administratively. They were relevant and appropriate to resolve the current problems. They were still relevant and appropriate to be utilised in the future reserve force system. It would be important for the Department to flag the awareness of the oversight committee.

The board of inquiry had discovered uMzimvubu Regiment experience had been a deviation from the normal way of doing things, which was why there had to be consequences regarding what had happened.

The Chairperson agreed with the Deputy Minister that a compilation of the discussions that had taken place at the various indabas was needed. There had been different leaders of services when the previous Indabas took place, and there was a likelihood that there would be a different set of leaders when the next Indaba took place. The Committee was anticipating receiving the summary when it was ready.

The Committee still wished to follow up on the letter to the Minister regarding the Chief of Reserves vacant position. The position had been vacant since 2021, and the Committee had been informed that it was filled, yet it was vacant again.

The Chairperson thanked the Department’s delegation, and excused them from the meeting.

Committee minutes

The Committee considered the minutes of the meeting dated 26 October.

Ms N Nkosi (ANC, Mpumalanga) moved their adoption, and Ms A Mthembu (ANC) seconded.

The minutes were adopted.

The Chairperson raised the matter of an invitation from Melco to witness a milestone flight at its airbase. It had put in an application for R3 000 to attend but it had been turned down due to financial constraints. The Committee had received a response from the staff of the House Chairperson that all oversight visits are strictly prohibited. This response was circulated to Members. The Chairperson said it was not proper curtesy to not receive a response from the House Chairperson himself but from his staff.  The Chairperson noted that the Committee had not met in person for a long time and had since saved on the catering budget, which is usually between R4 000 and R6 000 – what is R3 000 just to transport Members? The Chairperson said he could not convey this to the House Chair directly as the response came from an official. The visit to Lohatla could then also not take place. This Chairperson said he was raising this to be transparent with Members.

Mr Marais thanked the Chairperson for informing the Committee, and agreed with him that the trip to Melco was important for the Committee as the Committee fought hard for its use. It was a pity that the application had been rejected. This was not a “jollification”. Similarly, with Lohatla – the Committee often asked the Force to invite Members. He said the Committee had saved Parliament a lot of money by meeting online and not spending money. Members should keep their heads high that they did not waste money. What they did spend money on, was valuable.

The Committee Secretary added that the NCOP did approve the trip but the application was still with the NCOP Chief Whip. The official in the House Chair’s office requested that the Secretary amend the application to include the times of the Melco visit. She did this but did not receive a reply yet.

The Chairperson was pleased with this and hoped their stance would also be reviewed on the Lohatla visit.

The meeting was adjourned.