Deputy Speaker, after consultation with my colleagues, I thought to use the first minute of this debate to inform the House of an unfortunate incident that happened on the border between Mozambique and South Africa yesterday. We had two fatalities. One was a South African, a member of the Reserve Force, the other, a Mozambican. One Mozambican woman was critically injured.
We, together with the Mozambican government, have formed a joint commission to look into the matter so that we can deal with it as expeditiously as possible. In the meantime, another Reserve Force member who was involved in the incident is in the hands of the police, and we are also looking at possible wrongdoing on his part. I thought I should inform members, because it does involve our neighbours; it does involve our responsibilities.
The Second Amendment Bill of the Defence Force Act has been occasioned by three separate issues that needed our urgent attention. The first is the creation of a new dispensation for the Defence Force, with the establishment of the Defence Force Commission. The second is the creation of an obligation by Reserve Force members to serve in peace time, and the third is the definition of "military command".
To this end, this marks the end of a saga around a Bill, a saga based on a deliberate misunderstanding intended to inflame and misrepresent. However, I will come back to this later on. As it marks the end of the saga, so it ushers in the beginning of a better dispensation for the Defence Force and the opportunity to deal with the needs of our soldiers in a very unique environment that requires unique responses.
When we took over government in 1994 and adopted a minimalist approach to our Constitution, our intention was very clear. Defence had to be changed from what it was in apartheid days to reflect the ethos of the present. In our engagement and our eagerness to do this, we rode roughshod over a number of matters. We are now saddled with a situation where the conversion of the Defence Force to a department of state is not working and which impedes the development of a force as a force. We have sought, therefore, to pause awhile and create a dispensation that responds to the uniqueness of the Defence Force.
The Constitution requires the SA Defence Force to be "a structured institution managed as a disciplined military force". Internationally, service in the military differs from that in the civilian sector. The high standards of patriotism, discipline, courage and self-sacrifice that are demanded in the execution of these duties are very unlike those which you find in the civil service. Unity of command and obedience to legitimate orders from superiors are the foundation of military cohesion and the attainment of military objectives. By their very nature, these prerequisites underscore the uniqueness of military service and therefore require a different approach towards determining conditions of service within the military. The proposed establishment of the National Defence Force service conditions responds to this need and seeks to create a unique military service dispensation outside the general Public Service.
With this legislation, we create the commission that will do for the Defence Force what the Public Service Commission does for the Public Service. The Minister of the Public Service and Administration issues regulations that govern the Public Service. The regulations governing the Public Service can hardly be the environment in which we manage a military force.
Through this legislation today, we will now have the Minister of Defence issuing the regulations for the Defence Force. These regulations are called - and I underscore this - conditions of service for the Defence Force, with recommendations that come from the commission. In the Public Service, these conditions are called conditions of service of the Public Service. So too, in the Defence Force, do we call them conditions of service for the Defence Force. They will cover a whole range of matters, from promotions to rank, and many others. In short, conditions of service cover the totality of how the state relates to the Defence Force, and the terms of engagement, as it were.
Unfortunately, the reading by some of us, fuelled also by the media, has been a misreading of the conditions of service relating to salaries and living conditions. It is not about what you have been reading in the media. The Bill relates to conditions of service, which is a technical term used exclusively in the Public Service to mean the conditions under which both the state and the entity will abide as they continue to conduct their relationship.
Through this Bill, the commission that will be established will align us with internationally accepted best practice. A commission of this nature is part and parcel of the governance structures of the Defence Force. We have sought and received a great deal of support from the Public Service Commission. They see in this sectoral, but much-needed, help in their constitutional mandate. We have negotiated what we will be responsible for and remain committed to ensuring that we will provide the Public Service Commission with reports on our work on an annual basis.
Having said that, please allow me to offer my profound gratitude to the Interim National Defence Force Commission, whose job included assistance in crafting the Bill before you now. For the past two years, the department has been engaged in studies involving several countries, and when the interim commission was established, the work was handed over for them to complete. I wish to thank them most sincerely, and especially those of them who are in this House, for the hard work they have put into this. I want to underline here that the creation of the Defence Force Commission had nothing to do with the protesting soldiers. It is a commission mooted two months before the protests in this House during my Budget Vote speech on 3 July 2009. It is an institution we established in the intelligence services in 2002 and it worked very well. It gave me the experience that I sought to bring into this environment.
It is an institution the Defence Force has been battling to establish for some time, and at this point I would encourage the hon Lekota to listen. Had the hon Lekota not been busy fighting for the leadership of the ANC, he might have attended to this much earlier. However, we are here now and we are attending to the matter, hon Lekota. [Applause.] [Interjections.]
When the interim commission has concluded its work, the report will be presented to Cabinet and, thereafter, tabled here. I repeat, for emphasis, that the establishment of the commission was not in response to the deplorable conduct that took place at the Union Buildings. Instead, the Bill establishes a mechanism to deal with the unique position of the Defence Force and the governance that it requires. I move on.
Secondly, the Bill, in its amendment, fills a lacuna we experienced in the appointment of Chiefs of the Defence Force. What we have defined here is "military command". This is spelled out in the Constitution, section 202(1), and it directs the President to appoint the military command of the Defence Force. The Constitution, however, does not define or provide any guidance on who would constitute the envisaged military command. The Defence Act, 2002, also does not provide any guidance in this regard. The proposed insertion of a new section 4(a) of the Defence Act Amendment Bill seeks to address this lacuna in the law and create certainty as to the composition of the military command.
The military command, as agreed to by the portfolio committee, consists of the following: the Chief of the Defence Force, the Chief of the SA Army, the Chief of the SA Air Force, the Chief of the SA Navy, the Surgeon- General, the Chief of Joint Operations, the Chief of Defence Intelligence, the Chief of Human Resources, and the Chief of Logistics. This composition is informed by the level of the posts, which is a three-star-level general, and the responsibility for the command of the forces under them.
Finally, the Bill also regularises the deployment of the Reserve Force in peace time, a much-needed step that will assist us in overcoming a number of impediments. Reserve Force members currently serve on a voluntary basis or render service in terms of a contract. Put simply, they are only compellable to serve during war time or a state of national defence. Now that we have this Bill before us, we are hoping to utilise this much-needed resource to assist us in the work that we are doing, especially around the borders. I thank all of those members of the committee who supported the Bill. The Defence Force needed this a long time ago, and now that we have come to this, I would like to thank them most sincerely, despite the glitches that we had with assenting to this Bill. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
Thank you, Deputy Chair and Deputy Speaker. Thank you, Minister, for being able to put into perspective what we think is very important regarding Defence and Military Veterans. The work is done and we have engaged on it. We have gone through the legislation and it is in front of Parliament now. Different members of our committee have really applied their minds. As the Minister has already indicated, we are very thankful for the type of work that we have been able to do together.
The work that we have done has always been in consideration of the ordinary soldier in terms of what is expected of him and what he expects from Parliament. We have managed to do that work.
I must indicate, Minister, to you today again, that the level of reporting that has taken place through your annual report and through your speech today clearly indicates to us that the winds of change are taking place within Defence itself. We do sincerely hope that the contribution that we are making as Members of Parliament will be able to help you to strengthen your hand in being able to do what is in front of you. Regarding a concern that was expressed on the role that should be played by the service commission, we have been able to get around it. Regarding the matter that has been raised in that it might create some unconstitutionality, we have been able to deal with it.
We have indicated to you and to the broader service that what was called irregular expenditure - an amount of R1 billion - we have been able to sort out today. We have applied our minds and, within the Bill, we have been able to say that we are giving you back that power, the power to be able to decide. It is a necessary power that we thought should be legislated.
The issues that have been indicated in terms of the Bill, that there is a dysfunctional Military Bargaining Council and Military Arbitration Board, are challenges. We are very clear in our minds as Members of Parliament that it is not our obligation to assist the trade union movement to be put together with Defence. Your job is not to go and create unions. If there are those who are interested in doing that, let them do that. But we have an obligation to be able to make decisions on behalf of Defence.
So, when we introduce section 55(3) that gives you the power to make decisions on behalf of Defence with the interim commission, we are quite clear that you deserve to do that because it is not your responsibility to make sure that the Military Bargaining Council and the Military Arbitration Board function. We do know, as a matter of fact, that you tried it and you tested it, former Minister, and that it was always judged against you.
As Members of Parliament, using the institution itself and our power for legislating, we have arrived at that particular decision and we have given the power back to the Minister to be able to make that type of decision.
With the primary Bill, we would constitute those structures. But we say that that power should rest with the Minister to use whenever she thinks things are very difficult in the department and she is unable to tolerate them.
We have also applied our minds quite strongly to the issue that has been raised by one of our members in terms of national security and the commission itself. We thought it was an important development, and we need to be able to protect it and be able to give power to it because the permanent national commission will have a lot of access to the department itself and that might touch on sensitive areas. We thought that that power should not be taken away. Our encouragement is that whenever you come across confidential reports in the department, those reports must not be accessed by the department.
In terms of the mindset of the committee, we are dealing with a military institution that deals with life and death. It is very important that we should be able to protect those men and women who are active in the department. This is not to say that we don't recognise transparency; we do, but we say that there will definitely be a lot of sensitive information that will go through the hands of the commission, and that has to be protected in the interests of our own country and the security of the country. We do give that power to the national commission to reflect on it.
We have also dealt with the issue that if ever a Reserve Force member, or anyone of us here, feels that he cannot go through the processes put in front of him and feels that his democratic rights are being taken away, we will definitely maintain, after applying our minds, that we are not here to criminalise different people who want to come in as Reserve Force members. However, we maintain that it is in the interests of those who want to play an active role in the Defence Force that we should encourage them to go into the Reserve Force. But it is recognisable that we should also not undermine our Constitution and some of the rights of individuals. We therefore crafted the Bill in a manner that it protects that particular right so that people do try all mechanisms. But at the end of the day, the appealing board and final appealing person will be the Minister herself.
We have been very clear that this is a ministerial commission, and not a presidential commission. We have given quite number of powers to the Minister to be able to run the Ministry and the commission itself. We were not blind to that. We are quite conscious about it after having applied our minds to and engaged with it.
Even at the level of looking at the different commissions, we are giving you that particular power regarding the nominations and creation of the nomination board, not because of overzealousness, but after a lot of interrogation and reflection within the committee on the challenges and the nature of these types of commissions and where those types of powers reside. The committee has come to the decision that it is not a presidential commission but a ministerial commission.
For us to be able to make these types of decisions and to give the Minister the capacity to make decisions, it should remain her responsibility that she gets to be the one who controls the commission and makes sure that the commission does deliver on the expectations because it is an advisory body to her. It is not a body that lies all over; it's an advisory body that is going to assist the Ministry to have the capacity to be able to do and make decisions within the institutions. For us, that is a very dynamic and progressive thinking to allow the Minister to be the one who takes full responsibility.
With regard to the reflection on the military command, as the Minister has already outlined, we thought that those powers, as reflected in the Bill, are powers that could be shared. But after reflecting on the Constitution, we realised that that responsibility is the sole responsibility that we would have to give to the President himself. That is what the committee seems to have come to an agreement on - that the military command has to be commanded by the President himself as Chief of Defence, as directed by the Constitution. We have been able to give that responsibility to him to be able to reflect on it.
I must again thank the different members who were part of the committee. While there have been issues that we would all have eagerly wanted to be expressed earlier, throughout the work that we have been able to do in the past two weeks, it became very clear to us, that, one, the defence of the Constitution was very important and that's what members have been able to apply their minds to as they created legislation; and, two, it was very important that we maintained the integrity of Parliament, which has been maintained without a fight or tension between any people. We think the Bill reflects all those things, and the challenges have been incorporated in a helpful manner.
On behalf of the committee, I still want you to be able to say to the Minister that we do want to thank the interim commission that has been able to play that role. On our behalf, I would like to pass on our thankful regards to the commission for the manner that it handled this particular matter. We will be able to strengthen all these things in the near future. We do know from where we are seated that we have encouraged a relationship between ourselves and the commission. When the commission gets constituted, it will have to come back to Parliament, after it has reported to the Minister, and make sure that it does put a report before Parliament.
We have incorporated one or two sentences to say that sometimes you have to make some of the reports public so that you can know what is going on. So, Parliament will be the type of institution to sit down and receive those reports, go through them, reflect on them and see if they are able to help the ordinary soldier. That's the challenge, and we want to thank all members of the committee. Thank you, Chairperson. [Applause.]
Chairperson, the Defence Amendment Bill triggered an unprecedented political battle between the executive and the legislature, the outcome of which reflects poorly on the state of our constitutional democracy. The debate today should, therefore, focus not just on the merits of the Defence Amendment Bill, but also on the political battle that the Defence Amendment Bill triggered.
The Defence Amendment Bill's primary objective is to establish a permanent Defence Force Service Commission. The Defence Force Service Commission's purpose is to advise the Minister of Defence and Military Veterans on the improvement of service conditions in the Defence Force. We support the establishment of the permanent Defence Force Service Commission, because it will go some way towards improving the service conditions of our soldiers in the Defence Force. However, that should not be taken to mean that we support all the provisions in the Defence Amendment Bill which, in the end, was rammed, legislative warts and all, through the Portfolio Committee on Defence and Military Veterans.
On 26 August 2009 more than a thousand soldiers participated in a protest march which turned violent when soldiers went on the rampage in front of the Union Buildings. These soldiers did irreparable harm to the reputation of the Defence Force. But, at the same time, they focused political minds on the deplorable service conditions in the Defence Force. To her credit, the Minister moved swiftly to put a battle plan in place to deal with service conditions which included, despite what the Minister may say, establishing an interim National Defence Force Service Commission.
The commission was established, inter alia, to investigate and provide advice to the Minister on remuneration and service conditions in the Defence Force. By visiting several military formations, the commission aimed, in their own words, "To gain a deeper understanding of the nature and depth of the issues facing the SA National Defence Force". The commission was evidently so shocked by what they found, that they described service conditions in the Defence Force as a ticking time bomb.
Because of this, the commission produced two interim reports which were submitted to the Minister before the end of 2009. The interim reports were reportedly explosive and concluded that troop morale was so bad that it could threaten state security. This, of course, is a devastating indictment, not only of the civilian leadership of the Defence Force, but also of the military leadership of our Defence Force.
The Portfolio Committee on Defence and Military Veterans requested copies of the interim reports, because the interim reports were, after all, the only official findings and recommendations on service conditions in the Defence Force. But the Minister dug in her heels and refused to make the interim reports available. This triggered, firstly, a sort of Mexican political standoff, and then a full-scale political battle between the Minister of Defence and Military Veterans and the Portfolio Committee on Defence and Military veterans. What follows is a very short summary of these events.
The portfolio committee "loaded" with a legal opinion advising that the Minister could be compelled to produce the interim reports; then the portfolio committee "fired" - with a letter urging the Minister to produce the interim reports; the portfolio committee then "took cover", because it was not long before the Minister "fired back" with a legal opinion advising that the interim reports could not be produced because of executive privilege.
But the Minister made a fundamental error, because she did not score a "political head-shot" and so it was not long before the portfolio committee fired back: requesting that the reports be produced within a reasonable period of 30 days; stating that until the interim reports were received deliberations on the Defence Amendment Bill would be suspended, and suggesting that if the interim reports were not produced the portfolio committee reserved the right, as a last resort, to compel the Minister to produce the interim reports.
The fact that the portfolio committee had effectively given the Minister a deadline to produce the interim reports and had threatened what amounted to a "legislative go-slow" was a major escalation in the political battle. One could almost hear the political alarm bells ringing, not only in the Presidency, but also in Luthuli House.
At this point the Minister fired back, but this time with some very heavy- calibre political weapons which included the Deputy President Kgalema Motlanthe, the Leader of Government Business and Tony Yengeni, chairperson of the ANC NEC's subcommittee on peace and stability.
In the end, the ANC NEC's subcommittee pronounced ominously that: "We take a dim view of ANC deployees who make premature public announcements on the Defence Force Commission's interim report before all due processes are concluded."
Hon Chairperson, order!
What is your point of order, hon member?
I thought that we were debating the Defence Amendment Bill not these issues. This debate has nothing to do with the issues he is raising. If I were chairing, I would have reflected totally differently on the issue. [Interjections.] This has nothing to do with the Defence Amendment Bill that has been presented.
Hon members, I can't hear now. You are making a noise.
What I'm saying, Chairperson, is that the issues the member is dealing with have nothing to do with the Defence Amendment Bill. [Interjections.] They have never been debated anywhere, and the things that he is reflecting on are misleading the House. They have nothing to do with anything. He is talking more about press statements than about what happened within the committee itself.
Mr Chairman, on point of order, Sir. The hon Booi cannot stand up and say that the member is misleading the House. The hon member is making a speech. Under what circumstances does the hon Booi say that this member is misleading the House? That is unparliamentary. [Interjections.]
Hon member, I do not want to go into issues of misleading of the House, because there is still an outstanding ruling that is going to come to the House. So, we will then come to that issue later, combining it with the other one. But for now, the member should continue with his speech. I think that he was just describing the processes that led to the Bill itself being concluded. [Applause.]
Thank you, Chairperson. As the hon member often likes to advise me: Be patient; I will get round to it. In the end, the ANC NEC's subcommittee pronounced ominously that, "We take a dim view of ANC deployees who make premature public announcements on the Defence Force Commission's interim report before all due processes are concluded. We caution that such acts border on ill discipline."
The implication for ruling party members on the portfolio committee was clear: back down or you may be disciplined. With that the portfolio committee, with the exception of me, then furiously waved their white handkerchiefs and effectively surrendered to the Minister. [Interjections.]
In the end, democratic centralism of the ruling party made sure that Parliament was subordinate to the party, and in so doing undermined our constitutional democracy.
Ruling party members of the portfolio committee had effectively been brought back into line by what amounted to a political sjambokking by the Minister. So it was not long before the portfolio committee snapped to legislative attention and began deliberations on the Defence Amendment Bill. But after their political sjambokking, ruling party members of the portfolio committee appeared to get such a big "skrik" that they would not contemplate suggestions for any amendments to the Defence Amendment Bill. In the end, the Defence Amendment Bill was rammed through the Portfolio Committee on Defence and Military Veterans.
We support the establishment of the Defence Force Service Commission, because it will go some way towards improving conditions in the Defence Force. But we have reservations.
The fact is that in terms of this legislation the Minister has wide powers to appoint members of the commission, to intervene in the work of the commission and to terminate the employment of members of the commission. The commission will also be accountable to the Minister and not to the Minister and Parliament. Annual reports should not ominously contain: "Confidential information that may be detrimental to national security."
Taken together, this means that there is a danger that the commission will end up beyond the scrutiny of Parliament. Moreover, the fact is that the portfolio committee was advised that the section 55 amendment may possibly be unconstitutional.
Let me conclude with a cautionary note. We must not raise expectations of the National Defence Force Service Commission to unreasonable levels. The National Defence Force Service Commission will not and cannot solve the service condition crisis in the Defence Force on its own. We have to ensure that the chain of command functions effectively and deals with service condition problems before they explode on the streets, as in the protest march in front of the Union Buildings.
But in the end, we support the establishment of the Defence Force Service Commission, because it will go some way towards improving service conditions. This is a step in the right direction, and for that reason we support the Defence Amendment Bill with reservations. I thank you. [Applause.]
Mohlomphegi Modulasetulo, pele ke t?wela pele ka Molaokakanywa wa rena, ke rata go pho?olla temana ye nngwe. Ke gopola gore Tona ya t?a T?hirelet?o le Bagale ba Se? ole o imelwa ke kgoro ye ya gagwe. Ke a dumela gore ba swanet?e ba mo fetole. Ke a ikwa ge ke bolela ka tsela ye. Ke bolela se ka lebaka la gore ke ile ka mmot?i?a pot?i?o re le kopanong gore na ke kae moo ma?ole a nago le mokgatlo lefaseng - kontinenteng le dit?habat?habeng. Tona o ile a palelwa ke go araba pot?i?o ye gomme a re ke ye go bot?i?a mopresidente wa Cope, Khomoreiti Terror Lekota. Le lehono o sa dut?e a bolela ka tsela ye. Se se bont?ha gabotse gore o a imelwa. Ke gopola gore ba mo humanele se sengwe se bonolo. Le ga bjale ga se nke a nkarabe. Ke sa letet?e karabo.
Tona, re le ba Cope re thekga Molaokakanywa wo. Eup?a ke rata go laet?a gore karolo 62(c) go Molaokakanywa e bolela ka ga go hlongwa ga komiti yeo e swanet?ego go bop?a ke banna le basadi. Se se bohlokwa. Eup?a re swanet?e go hlokomela gore go se ?ome taba ya go kgetha ka boleloko gomme go kgethwe batho bao ba nago le bokgoni bjalo ka seo se diraget?ego dikgethong t?a khomi?ene ya lebakanyana yeo e lego gona. E na le banna le basadi bao ba nago le maikarabelo.
Ge re ka ?oma ka boleloko, re bea naga ya gaborena tseleng yeo e sego yona. O tla humana motho a se na tsebo eup?a a fiwa mo?omo wo it?ego ka gore e le leloko la ANC. Ka mant?u a mangwe, gore motho yo a gole ke pho?o.
Ge re thekga Molaokakanywa wo re thekga naga ya gaborena gore e sepele gabotse. Mohlomphegi Booi o bolet?e ka mekgatlo. Set?welet?wa sa Cosatu se ile sa nkgakant?ha. Ga se se gakant? he nna ke le no?i. Cosatu e gapelet?a gore mokgatlo wa ma?ole o akaret?we go Cosatu. Se se ra gore mokgatlo wo o ka gare ga mokgatlo wa dipolotiki gomme o tla ba le kgwerano le ANC. Taba ye ga e gabotse. Ma?ole a swanet?e gore a ikemele ka bowona. Ke a rena ka moka. Re le ba komiti, ga se re dumelelane le taba ya mohuta wo. Ba laedit?e gore ge re sa dumelelane le taba ye ba tla t?ea kgang le rena pele ga Kgorotsheko ya Molaotheo. Re le set?haba sa Afrika-Borwa, re duma gore re be ngatana e tee tabeng ye.
Tona, komiti ya khomi?ene ye e tlogo kgethwa e bohlokwa. Ma?ole a rena a na le mohola, gomme megolo ya bona e swanet?e go hlokomelwa. Go bolela nnete, seo re se bonego se diragala kua Union Building ga se botse. Re dira boipilet?o bja gore ma?ole e be mohlala wo mobotse bathong. Re le ba Cope re rata ma?ole a rena. Eup?a go a baba ge ma?ole a rena a emelela a ?wahla Union Building mola e le bona ba swerego dibet?a t?a rena. Bjale, re dira boipilet?o bja gore ba be le maitshwaro a mabotse.
Eup?a re swanet?e go kgonthi?i?a gore ma?ole a rena a a kgotsofala. Re swanet?e go leka go hlokomela megolo ya bona le moo ba ?omelago gona gore t?e ka moka di sepele ka tshwanelo. Le ge karolo 62(c), temaneng ya pele go fihla go ya boraro, e laet?a gore go be le banna le basadi tabeng ya go kgetha komiti, re swanet?e re lebelele le taba ya go akaret?a merafe ye mengwe komiting ye. [T?hwahlelo.] Ke a leboga. [Legofsi.] (Translation of Sepedi speech follows.)
[Mr L J TOLO: Honourable Chairperson, I would first like to correct something, before I continue with the Bill. I think the Minister of Defence and Military Veterans is unable to manage this department and should therefore be replaced. I hear what I am saying. I asked the Minister one day in a meeting to tell me of any place in the world where members of the Defence Force are affiliated to a union. The Minister did not give me an answer but instead told me to go and ask the Cope president, Comrade Terror Lekota. She is still repeating the same thing today and this shows that she is unable to manage the department. I think they should find her something easier to manage. Even now she has not yet answered me, I am still waiting for an answer.
Cope supports the Defence Amendment Bill. According to section 62 (c) of the Bill, we have to establish a committee and in that committee both males and females have to be represented. We have to nominate people according to their competency but not according to their political affiliations. We nominated competent people in the current interim commission. The members of the current interim commission are responsible men and women. Cadre deployment is unacceptable because it will mislead the country. People should be employed based on their competency but not on the fact that they are ANC members.
By supporting this Bill we are also supporting the smooth running of things in our country. Hon Booi talked about trade unions and we are confused by the fact that Cosatu is forcing the SA National Defence Union to join the alliance, meaning it will have political alliance with the ANC. We are against this as the committee members because the SA National Defence Force represents the whole nation. They even threatened to take us to the Constitutional Court if we do not agree on this matter. We would love to see the South African nation working together on this matter.
The committee that is to be nominated is very important. The members of the SA National Defence Force are playing an important role and therefore their needs have to be taken care of. We were not impressed by what happened at the Union Building and we therefore call upon the members of the SA National Defence Force to behave themselves well and be a good example to the public. We do love the members of the Defence Force as Cope members and we do not want to see what happened at the Union Building.
We have to ensure that the members of the SA National Defence Force are satisfied with their salaries and the conditions of their work environment. Even if the first three paragraphs of section 62 (c) indicate that both males and females have to be represented in the committee to be nominated, we should also nominate across the diverse racial groups. [Interjections.] Thank you. [Applause.]]
Hon House Chair, the Defence Amendment Bill seeks to ensure the contingent availability of all Reserve Force personnel at all times, inclusive of peacetime, as well as establish a permanent Defence Force Service Commission. Whilst the IFP strongly supports both of these initiatives, we also wish to raise the following reservations associated therewith.
One, the appointment of the commissioners by the Minister to the Defence Force Service Commission is most irregular, and will not lend itself to an accountable executive. Our country is already faced with enough incongruities regarding accountability in government. Surely, we should be looking at drafting legislation that enhances rather than detracts from an accountable executive.
Two, in terms of the current appalling service conditions faced by our servicemen and -women in the Defence Force, we note that the Defence Force Service Commission has been set up to address exactly these issues, but we urge the Minister to prioritise this aspect of her portfolio and implement immediate corrective actions herein.
Three, the IFP is still waiting, with bated breath, for the opportunity to revisit the issue of military veterans. We need to revisit the issue of the integration process, which left out a number of combatants who had sacrificed their future to join the liberation struggle. In addition, the IFP also believes that we need to relook at the definition of what constitutes a military veteran, so that we ensure that not a single person who contributed to the liberation and democracy of our country is left out.
In conclusion, this Bill is in a sense a natural evolution of our Defence Bill, the amendments seeking to address certain gaps and deficiencies therein. And we, as the IFP, although subject to our reservations as stated before, support the Bill. I thank you.
Thank you, hon member. The hon N R Mabedla, I understand, is making her maiden speech, so if you could note that please. [Applause.]
Hon Chairperson, as an elected representative of the people in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, the National Assembly should, according to section 42(3) of the Constitution, ensure government by the people under the Constitution. Government by the people is the essence of constitutional democracy, which in principle is underpinned by the maxim: "The voice of the majority shall prevail, and the voice of the minority shall be heard." In this regard, while the majority enjoys prominence, the minority views should however be neither diminished nor disregarded.
In her 2009 budget speech, delivered to the National Assembly on 3 July, the Minister of Defence and Military Veterans said: "I stand very proud that there is not a single South African that needs medical assistance at affected public hospitals that is not provided such assistance, as the Defence Force has stepped in to fill the gap left by the striking medical practitioners." This is but one of innumerous testimonies to the commitment of the Defence Force in not only securing South Africa, but also ensuring that the right to health and other rights in the Bill of Rights are protected, promoted and fulfilled.
As Parliament, we take our hat off in saluting the women and men of the SANDF for their display of gallantry and patriotism, particularly during the recent public-sector strikes, and at a time when the nation needed their help the most. Our commitment to building a national democratic society characterised by, inter alia, nonracialism and nonsexism is entrenched in section 9(3) of the Constitution, which states that: "The state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth."
In this regard, the ANC is committed to ensuring that women are allowed to take their rightful place in every area of South African life without impediment or discrimination. It is in recognition that patriarchal oppression was also embedded in economic relations that its manifestations and consequences, such as open or hidden exclusion from positions of authority and power, need to be eliminated.
In that light we want to acknowledge the gender transformation that continues to take place in the department. We, however, want to urge the department to fast-track the process of gender transformation. All programmes of the Defence Force must begin to reflect the demographics of our population, and thus we need to have more women, especially black women, trained and employed as fighter-jet pilots, navy captains, engineers, etc. It is in our government departments, such as the Department of Defence and Military Veterans, that we can and should be able to reverse and defeat the twin legacy of apartheid and patriarchy.
Coherence and focus are essential to maximum output and successful achievement of outcomes. A Defence Force management should in this regard be empowered to exercise full authority over all members of the Defence Force at all material times. However, this is currently not the case with our Defence Force, as it currently has limited powers when it comes to Reserve Force members.
The Reserve Force currently serves on a voluntary basis and renders services in terms of a contracted period. Furthermore, members of this force have no statutory obligation to report for training, exercises or any deployment for border-line control or peacekeeping purposes. The Reserve Force can only be compelled to serve in times of war, states of emergency or states of national defence.
However, if the Reserve Force is to serve as a force multiplier, it is critical that the Reserve Force members are compelled to serve once they have volunteered and when required by the SANDF both for training and operations. Enforcing of individual contracts through courts consumes a lot of time. Certainty demands that a matter of service in the Defence Force should not be left to the whims of an individual but to legislation. This approach will have the effect of eliminating contractual disputes at a later stage. In light of this background, as the ANC we support this amending Bill. I thank you. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Chairperson, hon Ministers and hon members, from reading the daily newspapers and the department's annual report we are deeply concerned about whether our Defence Force is in a state of readiness. Whilst we welcome this Bill, it should be noted, however, that it will not produce the desired results if government does not view military security as one of its priorities.
It would be prudent for the Department of Defence and Military Veterans to immediately produce a new Defence Force review, which would enable government to determine where Defence fits in in terms of national priorities. This is necessary since the previous review is 12 years old, and does not take into account the Defence Force's mandate to participate in peacekeeping missions nor its renewed border-patrol duties.
It should be clear to everybody that by approving this Bill, we are endorsing a general practice all over the world, namely, that a Defence Force is a unique service requiring a special human resources legal framework. The provisions in this Bill for the appointment of a permanent Defence Force Service Commission is intended to ensure that this special legal framework is properly managed.
The success of this Bill will largely depend on the readiness and willingness of the Defence Force leadership. There also needs to be closer co-ordination between the Department of Defence and Military Veterans and the Department of International Affairs, to ensure that the Defence Force is not committed to duties for which it has no budget, training or equipment.
Finally, one of the long-term human resource factors that needs consideration is the career prospects of soldiers. What is being done to provide soldiers with the skills that will help them find employment once they retire from the Defence Force? We hope that this Bill will make it easier and quicker to address the grievances of soldiers as well. The UDM supports the Bill. I thank you. [Applause.]
Agb Voorsitter, daar is nie twyfel dat die instelling van 'n permanente militre dienstekommissie die korrekte ding, op die regte tyd en op die regte plek is nie. Inderdaad ja, ek wonder wat dink die agb Mosiuoa Lekota, die voormalige Minister van Verdediging, as hy hier sit en na al hierdie kritiek luister. Ek wil vir die vorige Minister s dat hy die weermag laat verrot het. Dit is nie 'n goeie ding om teen u naam te h in die geskiedenis nie. Dit is dus nodig dat ons hierdie kommissie het. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[Mr P J GROENEWALD: Hon Chairperson, there is no doubt that the introduction of a permanent military service commission is the right thing, at the right time and in the right place. In fact, I wonder what the hon Mosiuoa Lekota, the former Minister of Defence, is thinking as he sits here and listens to all this criticism. I want to tell the former Minister that he let the Defence Force rot away. That's not a good thing to have against your name in history. So it is necessary for us to have this commission.]
The FF Plus, however, differs on clause 2: the definition of the military command. That was thumb-sucking. There are no direct criteria to say that it is lieutenant generals and upwards. That is not acceptable. What happened is that the Military Command Council was taken with the exclusion of the commander of the reserve forces. That is, in effect, what it is.
As lid van die kommissie wil ek vandag vir die agb Minister s dat 'n Lid van die Parlement - en dis my persoonlike ervaring - nie die tyd het om ook 'n lid van die kommissie te wees nie. Daardie lid gaan f sy parlementre pligte f die werk van die kommissie laat skade ly. Dink daaraan.
Minister, dit is ongelukkig ook so dat ons vir mekaar moet s dat die verslae van die bestaande kommissie wel 'n bepaalde leemte gelaat het. Die agb Maynier is reg rakende sekere goed wat hy s, alhoewel ek verskil oor ander aspekte.
Wat ons wel vasgestel het is dat dit 'n werklikheid is dat 'n portefeuljekomitee nie die mag het om 'n Minister te dwing om 'n verslag daar te stel voor dit nie by die Kabinet was nie. Dis 'n leemte in die parlementre Rels waarna gekyk moet word. As die Minister dit gebruik, dan is sy reg oor wat dit is. Hierdie wetsontwerp bewys nou egter dat daar 'n jaarlikse verslag van die kommissie aan hierdie Parlement voorgel moet word. Dan sal ek s dis beter om voort te gaan om hierdie wetsontwerp goed te keur en die VF Plus sal dit ondersteun. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[As a member of the commission I can tell the Minister today that a Member of Parliament - and this is my personal experience - does not have the time to be a member of this commission as well. That member will do damage to either his parliamentary duties or the work of the commission. Keep that in mind.
Minister, unfortunately it is also true that we must admit to each other that all the reports of the current commission have left a certain gap. The hon Maynier is correct regarding some of the things he has said, although I differ on other aspects. But we have determined that it is a reality that a portfolio committee does not have the power to force a Minister to make a report available before it has gone to Cabinet. This is a deficiency in the parliamentary Rules that should be investigated. If the Minister should use it, she will be correct in that regard. This Bill now proves, however, that an annual report by the commission must be submitted to this Parliament. I would therefore say it is better to proceed and agree to this Bill and the FF will therefore support it.]
Hon Chairperson, hon Minister, Members of Parliament, I want to start my speech by quoting from the summary of the minority judgment in the Dikoko case on ubuntu by Judge Albie Sachs. I quote:
Ubuntu is more than just a phrase to be invoked from time to time to add a gracious and affirmative gloss to a legal finding already arrived at. It is intrinsic to and constitutive of our constitutional culture. Historically, it was foundational to the spirit of reconciliation and bridge-building that enabled our deeply traumatised society to overcome and transcend the divisions of the past. In present-day terms, it has an enduring and creative character, representing the element of human solidarity that binds together liberty and equality to create an affirmative and mutually supportive triad of central constitutional values.
Ubuntu is indeed South Africa's gift to the world which transcends race, class, culture and gender barriers. Ubuntu is the glue that keeps humanity together because by affirming "I am because you are," imposes an obligation on everyone to not only be his brother's keeper, but to be ready to lay down his life for the sake of his brother or sister.
I venture to say that no greater form of humanity and no greater form of patriotism than the willingness to lay down his life for the sake of others can be demonstrated by anyone. It takes an exceptional character to demonstrate hatred for a system that thrives on oppressing and segregating the indigenous and the majority, not by rhetoric and well-sounding words, but by taking up arms against all odds to fight against the system.
Indeed, no amount of love and ubuntu can surpass the action and words of the young guerrilla, Solomon Kalushi Mahlangu, when he faced the gallows of apartheid executioners and when he said with a daring voice, and I quote:
Mama, tell my people I love them. My blood will water the tree of freedom. We shall overcome, we shall overcome someday. Deep in my heart, I do believe we shall overcome.
[Applause.]
In her 2009 budget speech, with reference to plans then afoot to establish the Department of Military Veterans and directing herself to the veterans, the Minister said, and I quote:
It is indeed a poignant and significant moment for all of us who sit in these Chambers and craft laws, secure in democracy which we owe to our veterans. It has taken us as a government a long time to get to this point. We recognise that without you, we would not be who we are, where we are. Finally, you are in your rightful place and that is cause for celebration.
I stole from your words, Minister.
The formation of Umkhonto Wesizwe, MK, on 16 December 1961 was a response to the brutality of the apartheid regime towards peacefully demonstrating civilians, as evidenced by the merciless shooting of the Sharpeville and Langa peaceful demonstrators. From thenceforth, MK continually attacked centres of apartheid symbolism, and the South African Defence Force, SADF, and its agents were at pains - running helter-skelter - to try to neutralise the elusive and agile MK-guerillas.
Arguably, the turning point was the memorable humiliation and defeat in the 1980s of South African Defence Force, SADF, by MK and Cuban soldiers at Cuito Cuanavale in Angola. The battle of Cuito drove the regime to the negotiation table whose outcomes were, among other things, the integration of the armed forces under one wing ... [Interjections.]
Chairperson, on a point order: I just want to ask to which clause the hon member is referring in his speech because there were complaints from the hon Booi that there was no reference to the Bill just now. I did not see uMkhonto weSizwe in there. I did not see Cuito Cuanavale in there. Which clause is he referring to?
Hon member, that is not a point of order. It is the nature of the debate. Could we allow the member to continue?
Hon Groenewald, just listen. I know you were a soldier at the time. It should be appreciated that the integration of former blood enemies under one flag and command and control had and still continues to have its challenges and casualties. It is common cause that former MK and Apla - Azanian People's Liberation Army - members were not receiving treatment equal to that of former SADF and TBVC states' soldiers.
This kind of discrimination has demonstrated itself in disparities and opaqueness in ranking of soldiers, remuneration and other service benefits. It was indeed as if the liberated had turned their backs against their liberators. What a painful sight it was to behold those who sacrificed their future and put their lives on the line to liberate their people, being relegated to the peripheries and margins of the very society they fought to liberate.
This Bill offers an opportunity to us as members of this august House of Parliament to demonstrate ubuntu to sons and daughters of South Africa who have dedicated their lives to and have vowed to even put down their lives in order to secure this hard-won democracy. It is now our turn as legislation crafters to demonstrate our heartfelt gratitude and acknowledgment for the sacrifices of the gallant men and women of the SA National Defence Force, SANDF. We would not be who we are and where we are.
The Bill establishes a Defence Service Commission whose functions, inter alia, will be to make recommendations to the Minister on improvements in salaries and service benefits; make recommendations to the Minister on policies in respect of conditions of service; consider, among other things, the rank structure of the Defence Force; and also consider, among other things, affordability of different levels of remuneration.
The commission is but one step towards fair and equitable treatment of the members of the Defence Force, not only verbally, but materially. The effect of the commission will be to improve the employment conditions of all Defence Force members. It is the commission that, through its investigations and consultations with members of the Defence Force and any other interested person or body as provided for in section 62(b) of the bill, will recommend to the Minister a workable plan to improve service conditions ... [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Order! While the Minister comes to the podium, I want to say that the hon member was quoting Solomon Kalushi Mahlangu, and I saw some members remonstrating this. I hope it is parliamentary, and will not be regarded as unparliamentary. Thank you. Hon Minister ...
So, do I understand you to say this is parliamentary? Thank you, Chairperson.
Chairperson, I wanted to start off with the question asked by the hon Groenewald of what relevance the input of the hon Maziya has on this Bill.
I was actually touched by the passion that the hon Maziya has for the Defence Force. I'm touched by the passion that he brings to his work; and I want you to compare it to the egotistic, vacuous rantings of some other member that we have in the committee.
Who could I be referring to? I wonder if Parliament allows me to be general. Just take any other, and if you feel worried about people who are vacuous then perhaps you have a guilty streak in you. However, I want to thank the hon Maziya for what he has said. I want to thank him for constantly reminding us that we are here because people sacrificed their lives for us to be here, at all times. [Applause.] This is what governance is about. We've promised our people a better life. In this particular case, we promised the Defence Force a better life. Thank you very much, hon Maziya.
I also want to thank the hon Mabedla on her maiden speech, putting a feminine touch on the fact that we have women in the Defence Force. I think it was a very good maiden speech. Hon Mabedla, keep it up; you make me very proud. [Applause.]
Hon Holomisa, we are seized with the matter of the review of the White Paper to ensure that we are in line with the concerns that you have raised. We are also very concerned about it and to make sure that our policies are in line with the issues that we have already taken on, especially the issues of a peacekeeping force. We worked very closely with the Defence Export Control Office, Deco, and we are attending to the matters that you raised as concerns.
Hon Groenewald, the definition we have for military command is not a thumb- suck. As I indicated to you, we came into a very sticky situation where the Constitution says the President shall appoint the military command. The Defence Act of 2002 is silent on this. In the absence of this, it means therefore that we fall back of what is provided by the public service.
What is provided by the public service is that we have to submit ourselves to putting up advertisements for people to fill those posts, something that, in fact, traditionally we do not do in the Defence Force. We had to come up with a definition that covered the problem and the lacuna that we faced. It was thoroughly discussed in the portfolio committee and this is what the portfolio committee agreed to. It is not a thumb-suck. You might not agree with it, but it is a three-star general who is commissioned by the President ultimately.
I wanted also to thank the chairperson and everybody else who has taken part in this debate. Finally, I was intrigued that here was a hon member from the DA, given the opportunity to express the position of the DA on an important matter such as this one. Instead, what he did was go off on something that sounded very much like a battle plan he had planned in his head when he couldn't sleep - he was lying half-awake because he always has these schemes - going on about: "This is what we did; then they did ..." That, for him, is more important than what we sit here to do: to legislate and ensure that the Defence Force in this particular case has a better life. [Applause.] This is what the ANC is here for.
We found a situation where it was necessary to move the Defence Force from where it is and put it in a situation where we can better attend to the uniqueness of this. What does he do? He goes on, on this egotistical trip: "This is what we did ..." In fact, it becomes quite clear that the battle scheme came from him. Feeding the media, he became dial-a-mania a day. Any media which wants any quote, David will give a quote. Dial-a-quote from David and he will give you a quote. It did not work, because the institutions of governance are very clear. They are very clear, and this is what we followed.
The matter will not serve until it has served before the Cabinet. Right now, when dealing with the situation where the report is being completed, the report will be given to me. It will be tabled in Cabinet. It will be brought to you, and you will see and the country will see that that report had nothing to do - nothing to do - with this legislation; and you know that. But it offered you a tangent; it offered you a platform to sell yourself at the expense of what you should be doing. I think this is the most extreme form of unpatriotism you could ever come across. I thank you, Chairperson. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Bill read a second time.