interim national defence force service commission final report briefing

8/3/2019 Interim National Defence Force Service Commission Final Report Briefing

1/6

Published on Parliamentary Monitoring Group | Parliament of South Africa monitored(http://www.pmg.org.za)

Home > Interim National Defence Force Service Commission Final Report: briefing

Interim National Defence Force Service Commission FinalReport: briefing

Created 7 Mar 2011 - 13:33

Meeting Report Information

Date of Meeting: 4 Mar 2011

Chairperson: Mr J Maake (ANC)

Documents handed out:

Interim National Defence Force Service Commission presentation [1]

Final Report of Interim National Defence Force Service Commission (NDFSC) [email [email protected]]

Audio recording of the meeting:

JC Defence: Briefing by Interim National Defence Force Servie Commission on their Final Report [2]

Summary:

The Chairperson and Commissioners of the Interim National Defence Force Service Commission briefed the Committee on the

final report of the Commission submitted to the Minister of Defence and Military Veterans during November 2010. The

presentation included an overview of the background to the establishment of the Interim Commission, its mandate and terms of

reference, the methodology followed and the observations made during the course of its operations.

The focus of the briefing was the recommendations made by the Interim Commission concerning the relationship between the

Military Command and the Defence Secretariat; the disempowerment of Officers Commanding; the defence budget allocation

and composition; the need for a new Defence Review; the state of defence infrastructure; transport; career management; the

Military Skills Development System (MSDS); trans formation; the grievance mechanism; command, control and communication

in the SANDF; promotion and ut ilisat ion; remuneration and conditions of service; the es tablishment of the permanent NDFSC;

the international benchmarking visits to the United Kingdom, United States of America and Russ ia; the rank audit of

demilitarised finance functionaries and the total wellness of the Department of Defence.

The Defence Amendment Bill made provision for the establishment of a permanent National Defence Force Service Commission

and was adopted by Parliament in December 2010. Some of the recommendations made by the Interim Commission concerning

the remuneration and benefits of members of the South African National Defence Force had already been implemented by the

Department of Defence. The drafting of the regulations were nearing completion and the proces s of es tablish ing the permanentCommission was under way.

Members of the Committee welcomed the report and asked questions about one of the conclusions of the Interim Commission;

details of the prevailing conditions at the Doornkop and Lenz military bases; the underlying causes of the unacceptable

conditions at the bases ; the disparity between the pension benefits of members of the integrated Defence Force; the reasons

for the old force numbering system remaining in place; the basis for the recommendation that the Defence budget was

increased to 2% of GDP; the position of the military unions in the SANDF; the recommendations concerning other legislative

changes and the recommendations concerning the promotions and utilisation system.

The Committee planned a briefing by the Department of Defence on the final report of the Interim Commission in due course

and gave the assurance that it would exercise its oversight responsibility to ens ure that the recommendations made by the

28/04/2011 Interim National Defence Force Service

http://www.pmg.org.za/print/25596 1


2/6

Commission was implemented.

Minutes:

Members of the Committee and the delegates from the Interim National Defence Force Service Commission were introduced.

Mr D Maynier (DA) questioned the organisation of the Committee. Members only received two days notice and there was

poor attendance at the briefing, particularly by Members from the ruling party. The briefing dealt with a very important matter

and it was necessary to ensure that there was maximum attendance by Members of the Committee.

The Chairperson replied that the issue was an internal matter and would be looked into.

Briefing by the Interim National Defence Force Service Commission (INDFSC)

Judge Ronnie Bosielo, Chairperson of the INDFSC, presented the briefing to the Committee (see attached documents ). The fina

report of the Commission was submitted to the Minister of Defence and Military Veterans, the Honourable Lindiwe Sisulu, on

16 November 2010.

The briefing included the contextual background to the establishment of the Commission in October 2009. Ten Commissioners

from diverse backgrounds were appointed. The INDFSC was a Ministerial Commission and not a Commission of Enquiry. The

original terms of reference of the Commission issued on 5 October 2009 were to advise and make recommendations on a unique

service dispensation for members of the South African National Defence Force (SANDF); to advise and make recommendations

on the amendment of the regulatory framework to give effect to the service dispensat ion; to inves tigate, advise and make

recommendations on the remuneration and conditions of service of members of the SANDF; to consult widely with all

stakeholders and to engage a team of experts to as sist the Commission. An Urgent Interim Report was submitted to the

Minister on 3 November 2009. The terms of reference was amended on 9 November 2009 to provide more guidance to the

INDFSC.

An overview of the background to the proceedings o f the INDFSC was provided. A programme of action was developed and

seventeen major areas requiring investigation were identified. The uniqueness of the military was recognised and the

Commission made recommendations to the Minister on the es tablishment of a s pecial service dispensation for members of the

SANDF. Provision was made for the es tablishment of a permanent National Defence Force Service Commiss ion (NDFSC) in the

Defence Amendment Bill, adopted by Parliament in December 2010.

Chapter 3 of the final report outlined the methodology followed by the INDFSC. Chapter 4 detailed the observations, responses

and asses sments. The recommendations and conclusions of the Commission were included in Chapter 5.

The presentation summarised the recommendations made by the INDFSC with regard to the relationship between the Military

Command and the Defence Secretariat; the disempowerment of Officers Commanding; the defence budget allocation and

composition; the need for a new Defence Review; the state of defence infrastructure; transport; career management; the

Military Skills Development System (MSDS); trans formation; the grievance mechanism; command, control and communication

in the SANDF; promotion and ut ilisat ion; remuneration and conditions of service; the es tablishment of the permanent NDFSC;

recommendations emanating from the international benchmarking visits to the United Kingdom, United States of America and

Russia; the rank audit of demilitarised finance functionaries and the total wellness of the Department of Defence.

The conclus ions of the INDFSC highlighted the need for multi-party support for the Defence Force; the requirement for the

support and participation of the entire nation in the defence of the country; the resolve of members of the SANDF to address

the challenges; the implementation of the recommendations made by the Commission; the establishment of the permanent

NDFSC; the improvement of remuneration and conditions of service of members of the Defence Force; the ongoing nature of

the process; the urgent need to address the lack of habitable accommodation at certain bases and the state of affairs at 1

Military Hospital.

Discussion

Mr N Diale (ANC) welcomed the report of the Commission. The survival and integrity of the Defence Force had to be assured.

The members of the SANDF have to be looked after and it was clear that the budget needed to be increased in order to take

care of their basic human needs. The SANDF was a unique organisation and it was vital that the conditions under which it

operated were improved. He thanked the INDFSC for the work that was done.




3/6

Mr Maynier also welcomed the report and thanked the Commission. The recommendation for a new Defence Review was

particularly welcome. He referred to Annexure 5 of the report and asked for clarification of the statement made in conclusion no.

29 that It is the opinion of the Commission that failure to address some of these concerns might affect the morale of the t roops

further and could poss ibly even threaten the security of the state. (see page 93). The report of the Commission referred to the

crisis at the Doornkop and Lenz bases (see page 15). He asked for more information on the findings of the Commission and for

comment on what had caused the crisis.

Mr S Montsits i (ANC, Gauteng) welcomed the report as well. The need for a proper exit mechanism for older members of the

SANDF was mentioned in the report on the integration of the formal liberation forces into the SANDF in 1998/99. The reporthad commented on the payment of golden handshakes to members leaving the SANDF. There was disparity between the

pensions paid to members of the former SANDF and members of the liberation forces. He asked if the Commission had made

any recommendations concerning pension benefits.

Mr M Steele (DA) asked why the old force numbering system was still in place after 17 years. He wondered if there was a

logist ical problem in replacing the sys tem as it was a relatively simple administrative matter that should have been dealt with

years ago.

Mr P Pretorius (DA) referred to the Commissions recommendation that the Defence budget should be increased to 2% of the

Gross Domestic Product (GDP). He asked if the needs of the Defence Force had been costed or if the recommendation was

merely based on the percentage spent by developed nations.

Bishop M Mpumlwana, Commissioner, INDFSC, replied that the unacceptable state of conditions observed by the Commission

amongs t the troops could threaten the security of the State. An example was the finding that soldiers were living in informal

settlements instead of in base accommodation. This meant that there would be s low respons e to an urgent call for soldiers to

report for duty. The comment did not imply that the soldiers would revolt. The Commission had found that barracks were in an

appalling condition, were badly designed and did not meet the needs of the military. The Department of Public Works (DPW)

was responsible for the maintenance of buildings on military bases but this respons ibility was not a high priority for the DPW.

The Commission sugges ted that the SANDF strengthened its works detail, which would also help the training drive. The officer

corps was aging and there was a need for a proper exit mechanism to encourage older members to leave the SANDF, thereby

allowing for more new entrants. An effective works regiment would allow members of the Defence Force to acquire skills that

could be used to set up businesses or to get jobs in the civilian construction industry.

Lieutenant General (Ret) L Moloi, Commissioner, IDNFSC, confirmed that the force numbering system currently in place was thesame system applicable at the time the various forces were integrated. Extra allowances were payable to members on active duty

but in certain cases these allowances were paid on a monthly bas is. The Commission found that there were a number of

transformation issues that needed to be addressed. The Defence budget had effectively diminished and was inadequate to mee

the needs of the SANDF. The recommendation to increase the budget to 2% of GDP would allow the SANDF to meet its

mandate and ass ist in address ing the transformation challenges . The Defence Force had attempted to stretch its budget by

reducing the numbers but was experiencing difficulties in meeting the costs of new 21st century requirements, for example

international peacekeeping missions and border control. Members of Parliament were responsible for ensuring that the iss ue of

funding was addressed, in the interests of the country. The SANDF was a national body, tasked with protect ing and serving

the nation and the contribution and support of the entire nation was necessary. The SANDF was respected by the United

Nations and the countries where the force was deployed on peacekeeping missions but required more support from the State.

Mr Maynier called a point of order and as ked that delegates responded to questions from the Members and refrained fromspeech-making.

Bishop Mpumlwana referred to the recommendations of the Commission on the Defence budget allocation and composition

(see page 40 of the report). The INDFSC recommended that the budget was increased in line with the international norm of 2%

of GDP. The allocation to the Department of Defence was inadequate and a more equitable distribution to the different arms of

the Defence Force was required. He appealed to the Committee to cons ider the recommendation that the Defence budget was

increased to 2% of GDP.

Judge Bosielo explained that the INDFSC had a specific mandate and its scope was limited by the terms of reference. Not all the

questions as ked by the Members could be answered. During the course of its invest igations , the Commission did come across

additional information, which was brought to the attention of the Minister. Because of the time restriction, the Commission was




4/6

unable to investigate the issues in depth and its findings could therefore be seen as being inadequate. He hoped that the

permanent NDFSC would be able to investigate matters more thoroughly.

Mr Zoli Ngcakane, Commissioner, INDFSC reiterated that the 2% of GDP for a Defence budget was the average international

norm. He urged the Department of Defence to implement better financial management practices and to avoid receiving qualified

audit opinions from the Auditor-General, thereby strengthening its position in obtaining additional State funding.

Judge Bosielo advised that the Commission had recommended that the financial management function of the Defence Force

was demilitarised. The process was long-term and involved iss ues of transformation.

Mr Maynier repeated his earlier question concerning conditions at the Doornkop and Lenz bases . It was apparent that the

issues were not limited to matters concerning infrastructure. For example, the Commission reported t hat t roops left the base one

hour after reporting for duty and that the grounds were unclean. The findings indicated a breakdown in command and general

ill discipline at the base.

Judge Bosielo was aware that the content of the report had resulted in much debate. He agreed that clear resonses to questions

were necessary. The observations of the INDFSC as well as the response of the Department and the SANDF were reported on

page 15 of the report. The Chief of the SANDF reported that the command and control situation at the bas es had been

corrected, discipline had improved dramatically and money was subsequently made available to improve the facilities. The

DPW would completely refurbish the facilities over the following three years. The Commissioners were horrified by the

appalling conditions at the bas es and were aware that members of the unit had participated in the protes t action on 29 Augus t

2009. The soldiers had been suspended and denied access to the base. The soldiers felt that they had been isolated and thatthe leadership of the Defence Force had turned its back on them. The Base Commander confirmed that he was not in charge of

the men and was reluctant to appear before the INDFSC. Initially, there was confusion about the role of the Commission and the

INDFSC was labeled the sweethearts of the Minister by the military unions. It was clear that the troops were disillusioned,

unhappy and demoralised by the negative environment.

Mr Mayner asked the Commission to comment on the root causes of the conditions prevailing at the bases. He asked if the

persons respons ible for damaging the facilities had been identified and were held accountable. In his opinion, the root causes

were the breakdown of the command structure and a lack of discipline.

The Chairperson unders tood that the bas e Commander had no control over the suspended s oldiers. Mr Maynier had a differen

understanding and asked that the response was clarified.

Judge Bosielo replied that the INDFSC was not mandated to investigate the caus es and could only listen to the troops , obtain

submiss ions and make recommendations . The dys functional grievance sys tem and the low salaries were major causes. The

Commission observed the prevailing conditions and the s tate of the facilities, reported on its obs ervations and sugges ted that

repairs were carried out as a matter of urgency.

Mr Pretorius noted that the INDFSC was prevented from having any interaction with the military unions in the amended terms

of reference. Clearly, the human resource element was a major concern and he wanted to know what the position of the military

unions was within the SANDF.

Mr Monts itsi observed that the briefing by the INDFSC was only the beginning of the process. A briefing by the Department

of Defence would be required by the Committee as well. He did not think that it was fair to expect the Commission to comment

on an issue that fell outs ide its mandate. The conduct of the suspended soldiers was of grave concern and the Departmentwould be asked to brief the Committee on the grievance procedures in place.

The Chaiperson asked if any recommendations were made concerning legislative changes. He asked if the recommendations

were prioritised so that funds could be made available according to priority.

Judge Bosielo confirmed that the INDFSC was not mandated to engage with the military unions . The Commission understood

that the military unions were stakeholders and had held initial discuss ions with the unions but the amended terms of reference

prevented further engagement. He was not in a position to express any opinion on the des irability of the military unions. The

legislative priorities of the INDFSC were to establish the permanent NDFSC and remove the military from the Public Service Act

The necessary changes were made and the Defence Amendment Bill was adopted. The INDFSC was not qualified to inform the

Defence Force on what its priorities should be and how funds shou ld be budgeted and spent. The recommendations made by




5/6

the Commission allowed the Department and the SANDF to determine which areas would be focused on.

Mr Maynier considered the flimsy recommendations of the Commission to be the weakness in the report. For example, the

issues concerning the relationship between the Military Command and the Secretary for Defence, the disempowerment of

commanding officers and career management should have been investigated in more depth and more detailed recommendations

shou ld have been made. The Commission s at for a year and the report could have been more detailed.

Judge Bosielo replied that the INDFSC adhered to the terms of reference and carried out its mandate. The Commission focus ed

on improving service conditions, the establishment of a permanent Commission and ens ured that the necessary legislative

framework was in place. The regulations were nearing completion and would be in place by the time the NDFSC wasestablished. Certain recommendations concerning salaries and the occupation-specific dispensations were implemented. In the

course of its proceedings, the Commission had found additional areas of concerned and had included thes e matters in its

observations. Detailed reports on the visits to the UK and USA would be submitted. These visits had resulted in

recommendations on military veterans and career management that would be pass ed to the NDFSC for further action. The

Secretary for Defence controlled the funds and the Chief of the SANDF was frus trated and felt that the Secretary lacked

understanding of military matters. The Secretary for Defence and the Chief of the SANDF had subsequent ly developed a better

understanding of their respective responsibilities and the relationship had improved.

Bishop Mpumlwana said that the SANDF was an important agency for the development of the youth. Mos t recruits came from

poor families. It was neces sary to invest in the development of the recruits, to the benefit of the country. The Defence Force

played a critical role in shaping recruits to become good citizens and should receive the same recognition as the Department of

Education. The family of a soldier needed recognition as well as the family support structure was an important element indeveloping good morale and quality of life.

Mr Pretorius agreed that the international benchmarking visits undertaken by the INDFSC was of value. He noted that separate

reports on the visits would be submitted and asked if any of the recommendations included in the report arose from these

visits.

Mr Maynier referred to the recommendations on promotion and utilisation (see page 29 of the report). The asses sment stated

that promotion must be earned on merit and that the necessary training must be completed. The recommendation on page 43

made no mention that promotions should be earned on merit and only recommended the development of a fair, transparent and

efficient system of promotion.

Bishop Mpumlwana replied that a number of additional factors had to be taken into account. The major iss ue was that thepromotion and utilisation system had to be fair and transparent.

Mr Ngcakane added that the Commission paid particular attention to how promotions were dealt with in the UK and USA

military. The fact was that promotion opportunities were limited and there were many more candidates than vacancies. The

sys tem would only be accepted if it was open and transparent. A p roper exit strategy was part of a career management sys tem.

There was a complex inter-relationship between career management, promotion and utilisation.

Judge Bosielo advised that the international benchmarking visits were reported on pages 34 to 36 of the report. The

Commission investigated the regulatory frameworks and the mechanisms in place to determine remuneration, allowances and

benefits; the personnel strategy, career management, recruitment and retention policies; the education, training, development

and accreditation p rogrammes;, the conditions of service and service benefits; military remuneration and allowances; unique

military dispensations; military health care; military grievance mechanisms and discipline; military communities and veteransaffairs.

Mr Maynier accepted that the promotion mechanism needed to be open and fair. He asked the Commission to explain how the

current sys tem operated, how it compared to the USA and what lessons were learned. Both countries had a diverse Defence

Force. He agreed that the budget allocation should be reviewed but disagreed that the Defence budget should be 2% of GDP.

The budget should be based on the need of the Defence Force. He was of the opinion that the 2% of GDP recommendation was

based on the World Bank recommendation applicable to developed count ries during times of peace.

The Chairperson pointed ou t that the Commissioners were not military specialists and were only required to present an

overview of the work of the INDFSC. The Commission considered the Department and the Defence Force to best know what

needed to be done.




6/6

Mr Maynier remarked that there would have been no need for the INDFSC if the Defence Force knew best what needed to be

done.

Judge Bosielo referred to page 18 of the report, where information was provided on the composition and extent of the Defence

budget. The White Paper on Defence and the Defence Review sugges ted a ratio of 40:30:30 for the components of personnel,

operating expenditure and capital expenditure. The 2010/11 budget reflected a ratio of 44:43:13. The budget represented 1.1% of

GDP (3.9% of total Government expenditure) and was inadequate to meet the needs of the Department. An additional amount of

R2.6 billion on top of the existing budget was requested for the 2010/11 fiscal year but the final allocation was instead reduced

by R2 billion. The information was provided by the Department of Defence.

The Chairperson suggested that Members s tudied the report of the Commission. If necessary, the Committee would recall the

INDFSC to provide further input. He complimented the Commission on the s tandard of the report and thanked the

Commissioners for their participation during the briefing. The Committee would discuss the report with the Department and

adhere to the Parliamentary procedures to ensure that the recommendations were implemented.

The meeting was adjourned.

Defence

Copyright Parliamentary Monitoring Group, South Africa

Source URL:http://www.pmg.org.za/node/25596

Links:

[1] http://www.pmg.org.za/files/docs /110304interim.ppt

[2] http://www.pmg.org.za/node/25557

