Department of Defence 2012 Annual Report

This premium content has been made freely available

Defence and Military Veterans

16 October 2012
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Secretary of Defence presented the Annual Report of the Department of Defence (DOD) for 2011/12. The DOD had two components - the Defence Secretariat and South African National Defence Force (SANDF). The Secretariat defence outcomes included enhanced civil control of DOD, through sound administration, financial management, information and intelligence, and ensuring that the country was defended and protected. The SANDF would attend to defence commitments in accordance with government policy and strategy, providing a mission ready for defence capabilities, providing sound defence direction, and ensuring defence compliance with Regulatory Framework. In carrying out its task, the DOD focused not only on the immediate priorities set out in the State of the Nation address but also on the long term and sustained defence mandate.

The performance against several strategic objectives was outlined. Safeguarding the borders, by land, air and sea, remained a key function, and seven SANDF units were deployed to the borders. Over 16 000 illegal migrants were apprehended, and 358 criminals, whilst 60 vehicles, 1 394 head of livestock and R14.6 million contraband goods were recovered. In the anti-poaching missions, eleven poachers were killed and 22 arrested, whilst 19 rifles, including AK47 assault rifles, were recovered. T
he Permanent Defence Force Service Commission was established, and this was now focusing on improvement of the conditions of service of the SANDF members. The Landward Defence Capability was not formerly included under Strategic Defence Packages, and had remained stagnant without the necessary modernisation, but this would be an essential component in the years ahead. The South African Maritime Strategy was developed, and was being integrated in the broader SADC strategies, and South Africa was involved in several joint operations to ensure maritime security. The DOD had managed to create and fill 900 posts, and 11 213 young South Africans were recruited to the Military Skills Development System. South Africa continued to participate in a number of United Nations and African Union peace support operations in Central African Republic, South Sudan, Republic of Tanzania, Equatorial Guinea and the DRC. Finally, it had established a Works Formation, which had begun to identify renovation projects for DOD facilities, as a step towards completing those in conjunction with the Department of Public Works. 263 qualified artisans and 877 artisans under training were located within the Formation. In respect of the financial statements, it was noted that an unqualified audit report was given. Of the final appropriation, of R34.3 billion, there was underspending of R17.5 million, since the Department of Military Veterans was only established during the year, but it was now fully operational.

Most of the Members’ questions could not be answered, due to shortage of time, but the Chairperson asked for written responses. Two Members commented that whilst the unqualified audit report of the DOD was to be commended, the Committee would nonetheless be monitoring the improvements that the Auditor-General required on matters of supply chain management, IT controls, submission of quality financial statements, HR processes and service delivery reports. Members asked why the National Security Strategy was not outlined in this report, and received feedback. Two Members said that the Airbus A400 contract needed to be explained in full, and it was noted that the contract was cancelled because of the escalation in costs that would have made it unaffordable, but that other options were being investigated. This had been noted as fruitless and wasteful expenditure. Members also wanted clarity on how the DOD interacted with South African Police Services, particularly on border operations, asked if the first employment and force design had been completed, and wanted more details on the financial implications for South Africa of its own maritime security strategy and its work with the SADC. More details were required on Operation Cooper and Operation Korona, what they had achieved, and the constraints faced, as well as the reasons and amounts for which the Department of Agriculture had subsidised the Grippen aircraft. Members asked how many soldiers were arrested for returning fire in the anti-poaching operations, the outcomes, and whether amending legislation was needed, whether Reserve Force salaries were on par with permanent forces, whether members from the non-statutory forces were included in Reserve Force leadership, the challenges with the Rooivalk, the state of readiness, and under what circumstances civilian aircraft might be diverted to SANDF airfields.

After the lunch break, the Committee postponed the presentation by the Department on its performance for another date. Members had a brief discussion on whether to submit written questions to the Department because some Members felt they were not done in terms of seeking clarity questions on some of the issues raised in the annual report of the Department.
Members of the Committee asked questions of clarity which included the issue of funded vacant posts, the issue of reserves whether they were covered for medical aid, clarify the huge disparities in the amounts, capital assets and financial assets, etc.

Meeting report

Defence and Military Veterans
Portfolio Committee on 17 October 2012

Department of Defence 2012 Annual Report

Chairperson:
Mr M Motimele (ANC)

Documents handed out
Department of Defence Annual Report Financial Year 2011/12
Vote: 22 Defence and Military Veterans Annual Audited Financial statements 31 March 2012
Auditor-General’s presentation to Portfolio Committee

Audio recording

Summary
The Secretary of Defence presented the Annual Report of the Department of Defence (DOD) for 2011/12. The DOD had two components - the Defence Secretariat and South African National Defence Force (SANDF). The Secretariat defence outcomes included
enhanced civil control of DOD, through sound administration, financial management, information and intelligence, and ensuring that the country was defended and protected. The SANDF would attend to defence commitments in accordance with government policy and strategy, providing a mission ready for defence capabilities, providing sound defence direction, and ensuring defence compliance with Regulatory Framework. In carrying out its task, the DOD focused not only on the immediate priorities set out in the State of the Nation address but also on the long term and sustained defence mandate.

The performance against several strategic objectives was outlined. Safeguarding the borders, by land, air and sea, remained a key function, and seven SANDF units were deployed to the borders. Over 16 000 illegal migrants were apprehended, and 358 criminals, whilst 60 vehicles, 1 394 head of livestock and R14.6 million contraband goods were recovered. In the anti-poaching missions, eleven poachers were killed and 22 arrested, whilst 19 rifles, including AK47 assault rifles, were recovered. T
he Permanent Defence Force Service Commission was established, and this was now focusing on improvement of the conditions of service of the SANDF members. The Landward Defence Capability was not formerly included under Strategic Defence Packages, and had remained stagnant without the necessary modernisation, but this would be an essential component in the years ahead. The South African Maritime Strategy was developed, and was being integrated in the broader SADC strategies, and South Africa was involved in several joint operations to ensure maritime security. The DOD had managed to create and fill 900 posts, and 11 213 young South Africans were recruited to the Military Skills Development System. South Africa continued to participate in a number of United Nations and African Union peace support operations in Central African Republic, South Sudan, Republic of Tanzania, Equatorial Guinea and the DRC. Finally, it had established a Works Formation, which had begun to identify renovation projects for DOD facilities, as a step towards completing those in conjunction with the Department of Public Works. 263 qualified artisans and 877 artisans under training were located within the Formation. In respect of the financial statements, it was noted that an unqualified audit report was given. Of the final appropriation, of R34.3 billion, there was underspending of R17.5 million, since the Department of Military Veterans was only established during the year, but it was now fully operational.

Most of the Members’ questions could not be answered, due to shortage of time, but the Chairperson asked for written responses. Two Members commented that whilst the unqualified audit report of the DOD was to be commended, the Committee would nonetheless be monitoring the improvements that the Auditor-General required on matters of supply chain management, IT controls, submission of quality financial statements, HR processes and service delivery reports. Members asked why the National Security Strategy was not outlined in this report, and received feedback. Two Members said that the Airbus A400 contract needed to be explained in full, and it was noted that the contract was cancelled because of the escalation in costs that would have made it unaffordable, but that other options were being investigated. This had been noted as fruitless and wasteful expenditure. Members also wanted clarity on how the DOD interacted with South African Police Services, particularly on border operations, asked if the first employment and force design had been completed, and wanted more details on the financial implications for South Africa of its own maritime security strategy and its work with the SADC. More details were required on Operation Cooper and Operation Korona, what they had achieved, and the constraints faced, as well as the reasons and amounts for which the Department of Agriculture had subsidised the Grippen aircraft. Members asked how many soldiers were arrested for returning fire in the anti-poaching operations, the outcomes, and whether amending legislation was needed, whether Reserve Force salaries were on par with permanent forces, whether members from the non-statutory forces were included in Reserve Force leadership, the challenges with the Rooivalk, the state of readiness, and under what circumstances civilian aircraft might be diverted to SANDF airfields.

After the lunch break, the Committee postponed the presentation by the Department on its performance for another date. Members had a brief discussion on whether to submit written questions to the Department because some Members felt they were not done in terms of seeking clarity questions on some of the issues raised in the annual report of the Department.

Members of the Committee asked questions of clarity which included the issue of funded vacant posts, the issue of reserves whether they were covered for medical aid, clarify the huge disparities in the amounts, capital assets and financial assets, etc.

Minutes
Opening Remarks
After the Chairperson’s welcome, Mr D Maynier (DA) raised a point of order about the manner in which the Committee was intending to deal with the Annual Report of the Department of Defence (DOD or the Department). He said that the Chief of the Defence Force and the Service Chief were not present, as they should be. Secondly, only one day was set aside to deal with the whole report. He pointed out that the Portfolio Committee on Police devoted a whole day to considering each programme of the South African Police Service and he thought that a similar approach should have been followed here. He would like a debate on this at some point.

The Chairperson suggested to Mr Maynier that the Committee should deal with the report first, and then decide if the time was sufficient, which seemed the logical way to proceed.

Mr A Maziya (ANC) said that he was not sure as to what Mr Maynier’s exact concerns were, and agreed that the Chairperson’s suggestion be pursued.

Department of Defence 2012 Annual Report briefing
Dr Sam Gulube, Secretary of Defence, noted that the Annual Report (AR) had been distributed well in time for perusal by Members. It was a long report, and he would be concentrating on highlighting issues of importance for the Committee. He briefly outlined the mandate of the DOD, which was derived primarily from the Constitution and the Defence Act, the White Paper on Defence of 1996, and the Defence Review of 1998. He also noted that the DOD comprised of the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) and the Defence Secretariat (Def Sec), established in terms of Section 202 and 204 respectively of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa and the Defence Act, 2002 (Act No. 42 of 2002). The outcomes of DOD were fully aligned with government policy on defence and would enhance national, regional and global security goals through the existence of combat-ready deployable defence capabilities. He also outlined the mission, vision and values, the organisational structure, legislative mandate and information on the Ministry of Defence (see attached presentation for details).

Dr Gulube said, in general, that the vision and mission would be achieved by having good management, and proper provision, preparedness and employment of Defence capabilities in line with the domestic and global needs of South Africa.

The organisational structure of DOD comprised of the Ministry of Defence and Military Veterans, two public entities – Armscor and Castle Control Board. There were four organs of state – Department of Military Veterans, Defence Force Service Commission, Office of the Military Ombudsman and Reserve Force Council. The DOD had two components - the Defence Secretariat and SANDF.

Dr Gulube wanted to draw the Committee’s attention firstly to the allocations. For 2011/12, an amount of R34.6 billion (bn) was allocated, and allocations would be, in 2012/13, the sum of 37.3bn and for 2013/14 the sum of 39.7bn.

The final appropriation, after movement of some funding in the 2011/12 financial year, was R34.3bn, and the actual expenditure by the Department showed underspending of R17.5 million. This was a sum originally allocated to the Department of Military Veterans (DMV), which was only established in the year on review. However, he reported that it was now fully operational, after only six months, and was no longer under-spending, but was now running on limited funds.

Dr Gulube said that the Secretariat defence outcomes included
enhanced civil control of DOD, and SANDF outcomes were to ensure that the country was defended and protected. The defence outputs linked to that would be ordered defence commitments in accordance with government policy and strategy, providing a mission ready for defence capabilities, providing sound defence direction, and ensuring defence compliance with Regulatory Framework. The defence activities within the Secretariat involved sound administration of the DOD, and employment of the SANDF where necessary. This would include provision of professional and supported DOD Human Resources, provisioning of appropriate and sustained Material, provisioning of integrated and reliable defence information and intelligence, and providing sound financial management of the DOD.

In terms of the Service Delivery and Organisational Environment for the year, the Minister of Defence & Military Veterans (MOD&MV) provided strategic direction for the Department and set out priorities to be pursued by the Department over a given period of time. The execution of these strategic priorities enhanced the effective realisation of the defence mandate, while contributing to the national priorities of Government. Ongoing monitoring and evaluation of performance against these strategic priorities tested the extent to which the defence function had been able to do things differently and achieve more with less. These defence priorities sought, on the one hand, to implement the State of Nation Address pronouncements applicable to the DOD, and on the other hand focusing also on important defence sustained agenda matters.

The strategic priorities of the DOD for the year under review included execution of the Border Safeguarding function, establishment of the new service dispensation, enhancement of the SANDF’s Landward Defence capabilities, Maritime Security, job creation, enhancement of the SANDF’s Peacekeeping capability, National Youth Service (NYS), revitalisation of the Reserves, restructuring and support of defence industry, and DOD Works Capability.

Dr Gulube said that
the safeguarding of the borders of South Africa remained one of the key functions of the SANDF, and encompassed three environments of land, air and maritime. Seven SANDF sub-units were deployed to the borders of Limpopo, Mpumalanga, KwaZulu-Natal and the Free State provinces during Phase 2 of the Operation.  Successes achieved included the apprehension of 16 850 illegal foreigners, and arrest of 368 criminals, recovery of 60 stolen vehicles, recovery of 1 394 livestock and confiscation of contraband goods worth R14.6 million. The deployment of the SANDF in the Kruger National Park in support of anti-poaching resulted in 11 poachers being killed and 22 poachers being arrested, and the confiscation of 19 hunting rifles, including AK47 assault rifles.

In terms of the establishment of the new Service dispensation, he noted the promulgation of the Defence Amendment Act No. 22 of 2010, which came into operation on 15 April 2011, and provided for the establishment of the Permanent Defence Force Service Commission (PDFSC). The mandate of the PDFSC, amongst others, focused on the improvement of the conditions of service of the SANDF members. Support structures to facilitate the mandate of the PDFSC were completed during the 2011/12 financial year.

Dr Gulube said t
he Landward Defence Capability had not enjoyed the advantage of being part of the Strategic Defence Packages (SDPs) and lacked the required technologically advanced Primary Mission Equipment (PME) due to limited financial resources. The modernisation of the Landward System had furthermore remained stagnant, pending the finalisation of the Defence Review, which would inform the required future Landward Defence capabilities of the SANDF. In order to undertake the required missions, the enhancement of Landward Defence remained an essential capability, to operate jointly with the Air Defence and Maritime Defence Capabilities.

D
uring 201112, DOD had developed and adopted the South African Maritime Strategy, which was currently in the process of integration with the broader Southern African Development Community (SADC) Maritime Security Strategies. Simultaneously the SANDF, as a strategic partner within the Southern African region, was involved in a number of initiatives on a bi-lateral and multi-national basis to ensure maritime security in SADC waters.

Job creation remained a Ministerial priority in support of the Government’s initiative. The DOD had, in the reporting period, created 900 vacant and funded positions, which were filled. 11 213 young South Africans were recruited to the Military Skills Development System (MSDS) in the reporting year.

 Dr Gulube stated that
the role of the SANDF in promoting peace and security in the region and the Continent necessitated the enhancement of the SANDF’s peacekeeping capability, and that would include the SANDF’s Forward Deployment capability. The SANDF continued to participate in the UN Peace Support Operation (PSOs) in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the UN/African Union (AU) hybrid Peace Support Operation in the Sudan and the provision of training to the Armed Forces of the Central African Republic. The SANDF executed five general military assistance operations in the Central African Republic, South Sudan, Republic of Tanzania, Equatorial Guinea and the DRC.

Dr Gulube outlined that, in terms of Works Capability, the DOD had established a Works Formation, which had begun to identify renovation projects of DOD facilities, and it would, in co-operation with the National Department of Public Works (NDPW), execute these projects. 263 qualified artisans and 877 artisans under training were located within the Formation during the reporting period.

Discussion

The Chairperson thanked the Secretary of Defence, and congratulated the Department for receiving an unqualified audit report from the Auditor-General. However, he noted that the sustainability of the achievement was important, as the Auditor-General (AG) had pointed out certain areas needing attention by the DOD. The Committee would be exercising oversight on matters such as supply chain management, IT controls, submission of quality financial statements, HR processes and service delivery reports, in order to assist the DOD to improve to getting a clean audit report.

Ms N Daniels (ANC) also thanked the Department for the unqualified audit report, and also emphasised that the Committee would be ensuring that those areas identified by the AG received attention in future plans.

Ms Daniels asked for clarity as to why, in the AR, there was nothing said about the National Security strategy. She noted that national security was one of the Department’s core mandates.

Dr Gulube said that the issue of national security had been raised within the DOD and it was escalated to the Minister as well as the Ministerial Committee in the Justice, Crime Prevention and Security (JCPS) cluster. The DOD did develop a national security strategy that encompassed the threats already seen, current threats compared to past threats and a number of combating strategies were formulated, together with an assessment of the capabilities that might be required by the defence force. It was then decided in that Cluster that the lead department for the development of the national security strategy would be the Department of State Security. That line department was therefore leading the strategy. The DOD had seen and made contributions on the draft, and this was being processed through the structures of the JCPS. Once adopted by Cabinet, it would be adopted also within the DOD and DOD would then start working on its implementation. However, input had also been made to the Defence Review to address some elements of that strategy.

Ms Daniels She asked for clarity as how the DOD related to SAPS in terms of its core mandate. She pointed out that SAPS was also divided into areas of security in the maritime air and land sectors, like the SANDF, and wondered how they met and synergised to complement one another.

Dr Gulube noted that SAPS was responsible for crime fighting activities and SANDF was responsible for defence of territorial integrity and support of the people. A structure called National Joint Operations (NJO) was meant to coordinate various activities associated with safety, crime and security. Safety included disaster management, which sat with NJO, and crime fighting and security and defence activities. That structure was headed and led by the General from SAPS but it included Defence, Intelligence Services and State Security Agency personnel.

Dr Gulube said that when there were challenges that had to be corrected, the Chief of the NJO would most likely call meetings and come up with directives or orders which were supposed to be conveyed to the Department. In the past, it had been found that elements of the DOD were simply deployed to assist NJO, but now it had been corrected, and no deployment of the DOD units could now take place without also involving the Chief of the SANDF. There were areas of overlap, along the border and in maritime security, which was similar to border safeguarding. The kind of interaction here was that if DOD were to arrest anyone, this department would not take further action, but would hand the arrested person to SAPS. The two departments worked together, and it was realised that there was room for improvement, so attention was being paid to improving synergies, collaborations and cooperation.

Ms Daniels asked whether the first employment and force design had been completed by the Department, commenting that it could surely not still be outstanding.

Dr Gulube agreed that it had been dealt with. That issue was raised also in the strategic planning session in the previous week. A team was established to deal with the force design and force employment, and this would inform the deployments and the capabilities that were required. He noted that although the process was put to the Defence Review it had come back to the Military Command Council. The Military Command Council would come up with an updated force design and force employment strategies.

Ms Daniels asked for further information on the A400 Aircraft. which had been widely reported on in the media and said that clarity was required at some point.

Mr D Maynier (DA) supported Ms Daniels’ concerns and said it was high time that the procurement of the Airbus 400 be explained fully before the Committee. The Department had long resisted his enquiries for access to the procurement documents of the Airbus 400, and this matter was with the South African Human Rights Commission.

Dr Gulube said as far as the A 400 Military Aircraft was concerned, the contract was cancelled. The procurement process had been started and there was no problem with that process, but it was then realised that the aircraft would be built by Airbus and there was a huge escalation in costs. If the contract was proceeded with, the costs of simply maintaining it would take up a huge chunk of the defence budget. The country needed the capability, but could not afford it. That was the stark reality, and it was now necessary for the DOD to go back to the drawing board and see what other affordable options were available.

Dr Gulube said that whilst he was concerned that Mr Maynier had been asking for sensitive information involving a third party (Airbus), the DOD could provide information on the A400 aircraft. He noted that the AG had said that the expenditure around the aircraft was fruitless and wasteful expenditure, and the figures concerning that project were available for the Committee’s perusal.

The questions that were answered from this point could not be answered because of the shortage of time, but the Chairperson requested that they be answered in writing.

Ms Daniels was concerned about the lack of information in the AR on the financial implications of the maritime security strategy. South Africa had a navy and was responsible to safeguard the economies of the landward countries. She asked whether the maritime strategy talked to the financial implications of this work, because it would not help if only South Africa was putting money into SADC and offering assistance to other countries to achieve peace in the region, thereby over-stretching South Africa. However, she recognised also the difficulties of South Africa’s porous borders that hindered the government in fulfilling social obligations to its citizens.

Mr Maynier asked about the Operation Cooper in Mozambique, wanting to know what force was employed there, what exactly this operation had achieved, and what constraints, apart from the undoubted cost, the Department was encountering in the implementation of that particular programme.

Mr Maynier was pleased that the AR had clearly explained what Operation Korona, the border safety guarding mission, had achieved. However, he also wanted to know what constraints the Department had in implementing that mission, saying that once again he suspected that they were beyond mere funding difficulties, because it seemed that there was limited leadership, bureaucratic battles, and land claims that were all hindering implementation of that operation.

Mr Maynier wanted to know why some hours of the Grippen Aircraft were subsidised by the Department of Agriculture and Forestry, how much that subsidy was, what amounts were being spent, and noted that there were no interdepartmental transfers in the Department of Agriculture and Forestry. He hoped that the Grippens were not used for crop spraying.

Mr L Mphahlele (PAC) asked how many soldiers were arrested for returning fire when they were shot at by poachers during anti-poaching operations, who they were, and what had happened to them. He also asked whether the DOD was asking the Committee for any remedial action, reminding the DOD that long processes were usually involved in amending legislation.

Mr Mphahlele wanted to know if the Reserve Forces salaries were on a par with the permanent members of the SANDF.

Mr Mphahlele asked what the challenges were specifically with Rooivalk.

Mr Mphahlele wanted to know where South Africa ranked in regard to force capabilities, and its state of readiness.

Mr Mphahlele asked under what circumstances Airports Company South Africa (ACSA) might need to divert aircraft to Air Force landing fields.

The Chairperson asked whether members from the former non-statutory forces were included in the leadership of the Reserves.

The Chairperson asked if the units were named after the icons of the struggle.

Finally, the Chairperson assured the DOD that the Committee would continue to question it as part of the oversight function.

The meeting paused for lunch.

After the lunch break, the Chairperson asked the Director-General to make his presentation to the Committee

Mr Maynier noted that he had several questions that he wanted to ask and that it would take some time in to raise and discuss all of them. He therefore asked the Chairperson why he had limited questioning because some of the serious issues that he needed to address were still pending and his colleague Mr Essau had not yet posed his questions.

Mr A Maziya (ANC) said he heard what Mr Maynier was presenting to the meeting but was not sure whether he had further questions to raise to the Department. If the Chairperson had reached a point of closing the meeting Members should all adhere to that and if there were any further matters they wanted to raise which were not going to affect the budget itself they could always submit those matters to the Chairperson.

The Chairperson said that Members should follow that direction and submit in writing all questions they wanted to raise and this would be forwarded to the Department. This was not the last interaction.

Mr S Essau (DA) said that he had prepared himself for the meeting and was not sure whether this was a prerequisite for meetings to come. He had prepared questions on the whole budget of the Department and his colleagues had assisted him in formulating key questions for the Department. The Committee wanted to assist the Department and make the recommendations that would be reflected in the Budgetary Review and Recommendations Report (BRRR). Members therefore needed to be provided with the necessary information. The Department was meant to protect and preserve the country and its people. He wanted to support the Department but needed clarity on issues.

The Chairperson asked if Mr Essau wanted to take the route of asking questions in the meeting or submitting written questions to the Department to be responded to at a later stage.

Mr Maziya realised that they spent more time on issues that they did not understand than what the meeting was all about. He suggested that the Chairperson should allocate 30 minutes for Members to raise questions on important matters.

The Chairperson requested Members to quickly ask questions so that they could move to the next presentation.

Ms P Daniels (ANC) asked the Department to clarify on the issue of funded vacant posts that were filled because in the AG report there were processes that were not followed with some of the appointments. Secondly, she asked the Department to clarify the issue of reserves and whether they were covered by medical aid. Thirdly, she asked whether Denel with regard to its equipment would be sold to the highest bidder if the company did not go back to the Department. Fourthly, she asked whether the Department had an exit mechanism and what would happen to military veterans in terms of job creation. Thereafter, she noted that there were issues concerning the logistics of the Department and stated that the Committee should be furnished with a report on this matter. Finally, Ms Daniels asked about the highest training provided by the Department.

Mr Essau asked the Department to clarify the huge disparities in the amounts that had taken place with regard to the current payments of the Department, similarly with the capital assets and financial assets.

Mr Essau further asked if operational plans were given for specific sub-programmes and why there were huge disparities and shift of money from one programme to another.

Mr Essau asked for clarity in terms of policies because the Public Service Act had been in operation since 2001. They’ve got the Defence Amendment Act of 2002, where it spoke to the issue of anti-fraud, anti-corruption, etc. He asked why at that stage in 2012 in that department the legislation was not effective and used in the system.

Mr Essau noted that National Treasury had extensive rules surround Supply Chain Management and had conducted training with all governments. Despite this there was still so much irregularity, unauthorised spending and crime that had escalated in the Department. Why was the case

The Chairperson requested the Department to respond in writing to all the questions raised by Members. The presentation from the Department of Military Veterans was postponed for another meeting.

The meeting was adjourned.




Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: