The Department of Defence presented a picture of its immovable assets to the Committee which showed that most of its assets were in a fair condition, requiring major work, with small numbers either in good condition or uninhabitable. It also outlined complications in its working relationship with the Department of Public Works and the capacity of the Defence Works Formation.
Members questions focused on the R1.4 billion of the R3.3 billion which the Department of Defence had allocated and paid to the Department of Public Works for the maintenance of its facilities. They wanted to know about the exact state of the buildings in very poor condition and the Department's plan to destroy these buildings. The Department replied that the spending of these funds had been discussed in a forum which had included the National Treasury and Department of Public Works.
The Department then outlined its action plan to deal with the qualified audit findings by the Auditor-General on major, minor and intangible assets; predetermined objectives; compliance with laws and regulations; financial reporting; policies and procedures; irregular expenditure; the reconciling of it transactions and the status of its internal auditing. DOD had progressed from six bases for qualification in 2011/12 to two in the 2013/14.
The Committee accepted this report without much inquiry, restricting itself to questions on the scope of irregular expenditure and the details to be reported on at the operational level. The Committee noted that the Irregular Expenditure Board that had been formed to combat this type of expenditure, ought to deem DPW spending of R1.4 billion of DOD’s maintenance budget on other departments, as irregular expenditure.
The Director General of the Department of Military Veterans presented his responses to the concerns raised by Members about the regulations to the Military Veterans Act and the third quarterly report which he had presented the previous week. These responses ranged from explanations about the reasons for problems with its database to explanations on the technical aspects of the benefits being rolled out to military veterans such as the approval of the means test for benefits and the R25 000 cap on burial benefits.
Members asked how much was spent on the Department's new office building, which the Director General said would be reported on in the fourth quarter. More information was requested on the status of the database, because it was felt that there were many military veterans, especially who had previously served in the statutory forces, who deserved to be included in the database, but did not necessarily qualify for benefits.
The Committee then adopted its report on the regulations to the Military Veterans Act, with the Democratic Alliance recording their objections.
State of Department of Defence (DOD) Facilities & relationship with Public Works and works regiment
Mr Sam Gulube Secretary for Defence, focused on the initiatives undertaken by the Minister of Defence and Minister of Public Works; an assessment of the physical state of the Defence facilities; the challenges faced by the DoD working with the Department of Public Works; and the status of the Department's Defence Works Formation.
The regulatory framework governing the DoD's immovable assets is section 239(4), as amended, of the Constitution which vests the assets of all forces referred to in section 224(2) the National Defence Force under the direction of the Minister of Defence, subject to and in accordance with applicable laws. The relevant acts are the Public Finance Management Act and the Defence Act. The treasury approved the Framework for the Devolution of Budgets and Introduction of Accommodation Charges. All of the above deals with the custodianship of immovable assets and ability to acquire new assets. Two other notable Acts are the Government Immovable Asset Management Act (GIAMA) and the Defence Endowment Property and Account Act, No 33 of 1922. These Acts regulate the custodianship of immovable assets generally and specifically by the DoD; by allowing the Minister of Public Works to assign control of any government property to any organ of state, except where this is already stipulated by other legislation in this case the Defence Endowment Property and Account Act.
The Secretary for Defence had in 2008 instructed Chief Logistics to begin a process to move away from reliance on the national Department of Public Works (DPW). This lead to the development of a draft Strategic Plan which was the beginning of the Defence Works Formation. In order to achieve this the two Ministers needed to resolve several issues to facilitate the hand over of custodianship and cooperation in this area. The Secretary for Defence was therefore tasked with securing a memorandum of agreement and consensus was reached on the restoration of Defence Endowment Properties, which were in fact under the control of the DPW, but accounted for by the DoD, and co-management of the GIAMA properties assigned to the DoD. Further the agreement contained the guideline that the DPW co-develop the Implementation Plan for the restoration and that a forum be established for the management of the capital and refurbishment projects presently headed by the DPW.
Moving to an assessment of the physical state of the DoD's properties, he outlined the regulatory source of the DoD's custodianship, with 24% (2 033 300m2 of building area ) of its property being Defence Endowment facilities, 4% (360 677m2 of building area) being leased by the DoD and 72% (6 111 910m2 of building area) being DPW facilities assigned to the DoD through GIAMA. The condition of these facilities was noted as 55% being in a fair condition, requiring substantial work; 38% in an acceptable condition, requiring minimal work; 4% in a poor condition, needing large amounts of refurbishment; 2% in a good condition, requiring no work and 1% in a very poor condition which are inhabitable and must be destroyed. The backlog on the maintenance and repair of DoD facilities was estimated in 2011 at R8 billion. This situation will continue to worsen unless three issues with the DPW are resolved:
▪ The use by the DPW of only R1.9 billion of the R3.3 billion paid by DOD over the past three financial years for rates, taxes and maintenance on DoD buildings, with the balance being used by the DPW for 'other purposes'.
▪ Of the R3.1 billion allocated by the DoD to refurbishment and capital projects, the DPW was able to spend only R1.5 billion over the past five financial years, forcing the DoD to spend the money ad hoc or surrender it to Treasury.
▪ The DoD's dependence on private sector leases concluded by the DPW which has cost R1 billion over the past five financial years. In sum this has lead to the DoD not receiving 49% and 43% of the value of the monies paid to the DPW in the 2011/12 and 2012/13 financial years respectively, with an estimate of 46% being projected for the present year. This severely affects the ability of the South African National Defence Force to effectively pursue its constitutional mandate, because of the negative effect on troop morale and non-compliance with basic occupational health standards and environmental legislative requirements.
The challenges faced in the working relationship between the two departments centre around the absence of strategic coordination which results in poor or no synchronisation of priorities between the departments leading to the misallocation of resources and does not aid in dealing with the maintenance backlog, changes and termination of maintenance plans or projects and the absence of performance monitoring and evaluation mechanisms. A further challenge is faced in communication between the departments which results in a lack of management where there are overlapping roles and responsibilities; a lack of responsiveness which makes the maintenance sectors unable to deal with emerging problems. Due to the negative effects of this relationship the DoD has established the Defence Works Formation to provide its own maintenance capabilities; while also appointing a consultant team to asses the situation, proposing that the DPW hand over control of critical GIAMA properties and establish an interdepartmental forum.
The Defence Works Formation (DWF) was established to provide the DoD internal facility maintenance and management services, without reliance on the DPW which outsources even minor maintenance and refurbishment work. It is also planned for the DWF to have the capacity to undertake larger and more complex tasks within two years, saving the DoD R1 billion. This is provided the mandate, staffing, information systems and policies, including procurement policy, are addressed. The DWF presently has a pool of more than 350 artisans, 90 site supervisors and 20 project managers; as well as a small pool of professionals such as engineers and architects. The DWF is also slowly procuring multi-purpose construction equipment and vehicles in order to satisfy its mandate.
The Chairperson requested a list of the buildings which the DoD planned to begin to maintain itself through the Defence Works Formation.
Mr Gulube replied that the list will be provided, but that it may be premature because the negotiations with the DPW were in progress and these may result in different buildings being maintained by the DoD.
Mr D Maynier (DA), referring to slide 18, asked what the current extent of the maintenance and repair backlog is. Referring to slide 19, he asked for the reason behind the DPW significantly underspending on the maintenance of DoD facilities. On slide 18 he quoted the DoD saying that the DPW had spent R1.4 billion on other departments and he wanted to know whether any of this had been used by the Presidency on the President's private residence Nkandla. He finally wanted to know what the implications of the Defence Review were on the number of properties and facilities managed by the DoD, seeing as he expected there to be a downscaling in this regard.
Mr S Esau (DA) requested a factual report on the very poor facilities, which details whether these have been closed down or if there are still people occupying these uninhabitable buildings. Next he wanted to know why the DPW was spending part of the R3.3 billion allocated by the DoD to maintenance of its facilities on other departments, who had authorised this and whether this is acceptable under the service level agreement in place? He also asked if the significant negative impact on morale caused by the state of the facilities contradicts the reports of good morale the Committee had been receiving. Lastly, he would like to see how the DWF plans to save the R1billion, especially seeing as DPW has a tendency to overprice their tenders.
Lt Gen Nkonyane replied that the R1 billion saving emanates from the savings the preventative maintenance and minor maintenance which the DFW has started to undertake rather than allowing the DPW to outsource this work to the private sector. This figure was calculated from the costs which DPW has required from the DoD for the planned maintenance. He also said that the negative impact on morale did not contradict the reports of good morale within the South African National Defence Force, rather it was just a negative effect which reduces the generally high morale of the troops.
Ms H Mgabadeli (ANC) commented that she wished the presentation had come earlier in the term, preferably soon after oversight visits, and that the DPW had also been present. She wanted to know under whose custodianship the Castle of Good Hope fell and whether it was a Defence Endowment or GIAMA property, because it is a valuable asset which ought to be maintained.
Mr Gulube agreed that the presentation had come late, but he hoped that the Committee would include the information presented in its legacy report. The Castle of Good Hope was an endowment property, accounted for by the DoD but managed by the DPW. A list of the endowment properties was available for Members.
Lt Gen Nkonyane added that the Castle of Good Hope was indeed an endowment property and a complete list of these immovable assets will be disclosed in the annual financial statement. The challenge was that while the DoD was accountable for these properties, it does not have the mandate to maintain them. He therefore hoped that this will be resolved with the DPW.
Ms N Mabedla (ANC) was concerned with the Department still working off of the Defence Endowment Property and Account Act promulgated in 1922 and perhaps the Committee needed to review this Act. Turning to slide 11, she asked whether there were timeframes in place for the negotiations on the ministerial agreements, so that the parties could keep track of their progress. Regarding the facilities in very poor condition she said that some of these buildings were being occupied illegally and she wanted information on where these buildings are and the DoD's plan to destroy these buildings.
Mr Gulube said that the Defence Endowment Property and Account Act dealt with the transfer of property from the British Crown to the Union and now to the DoD. The Department had felt that it was still relevant to the present, especially when read with GIAMA and the implementation thereof was more important than seeking amendment. However the Department would defer to the Committee as they are legislators.
Mr L Diale (ANC) commented that year on year the Committee has received reports of the poor conditions faced by the armed forces and this has been confirmed through oversight visits. This is unacceptable because the South African Defence Force is responsible for protecting South Africa's territorial integrity and the DoD needs to embark on a multi-party effort to deal with this recurring issue, moving past the reporting and theorising that has happened up to this point.
Mr A Maziya (ANC) was glad of the Department's commitment to destroy the dilapidated buildings which the members had seen during their oversight visits. He wanted to know if the R1.9 billion which had been spent on rates, taxes and maintenance was for one year. He also wanted to know what the R1.4 billion that had been used by the DPW for other purposes had actually been spent, because the PFMA did not allow the use of money allocated to a particular purpose on other projects. Lastly, what progress had been made by the DoD on its plan to take over the maintenance responsibilities? He had learned about this a few years back in a meeting with the then Minister Sisulu. It was necessary to stop relying so heavily on the DPW which was known to be a problematic department in order to ensure that DOD facilities are maintained for the sake of the SANDF's morale and functioning.
Lt Gen Nkonyane replied that the total accommodation charges paid to the DPW in the 2011/12 financial year were R1 104 261 000 and that a total of R558 972 898 had actually been spent resulting in a loss of 49% of the value which the DoD had allocated to this purpose. The remaining money was used for smaller departments which do not have the money to allocate for facilities maintenance as determined in the multi-department forum where National Treasury had requested the DPW to explain how this money was spent. The DPW would be the best to ask about this (this response is relevant to the questions of Mr Esau and Ms Mabedla above). He also said that former Minister Sisulu had determined that the 49% value which was being lost by the Department should be used to fund the Defence Works Formation's capabilities.
The Chairperson stated that DOD need not respond to two questions. The first was the one about the underspending by the DPW, because only the DPW could properly answer this question. Secondly, the question about the DPW potentially spending DoD funds on the President's homestead because it was completely irrelevant to the present meeting. He also said that the Department needed to determine the relevance and appropriateness of the Defence Endowment Property and Account Act to decide whether the Act needs to be amended and if so a request should be made to the Committee.
Mr Maynier called a point of order saying that it was inappropriate for the Chairperson to rule his question irrelevant; because if it were indeed the case that the Commander-in-Chief of the South African Defence Force was raiding the DoD's repair and maintenance budget for the construction of his private residence, they should be held accountable for this.
Mr Maziya then called for a point of order saying that the DoD is not responsible for the maintenance of any other department or individual's buildings and that the question needed to be asked somewhere else.
Ms Mabedla also called a point of order asking for the Chairperson to close this issue and ask the Department to respond to member's questions.
The Chairperson ended this part of the meeting saying that time was running short and also that this brief will be part of the Committee's legacy report to be adopted the following week.
Department of Defence (DOD) on its Action Plans on its Audit Findings
The Secretary for Defence, Dr Sam Gulube, presented the DOD planned response to the findings of the Auditor-General of South Africa (AGSA) audit of the Department in the financial year 2011/12. The focus of the presentation was on the challenges faced with regard to major, minor and intangible assets; progress with predetermined objectives; compliance with laws and regulations; financial reporting; policies and procedures; irregular expenditure procedures; the reconciling of transactions and the status of internal auditing. It also summarised the performance in the annual audit by showing that the Department had progressed from six bases for qualification in 2011/12 to two in the 2013/14.
The Department had received a qualified audit based on tangible and intangible assets in the previous financial year. It therefore wanted to report that its register of all major assets is complete, this includes all transport and specialised military equipment. However, the registry of minor assets and heritage assets was incomplete and would be at 40% by the end of March, with 1 052 items presently in the register. The challenge faced with heritage assets is that they are not dealt with in the Defence Act or regulations and it is difficult to determine the ownership of these assets, because they are in museums throughout the country and are used in events such as military parades. The DoD plans to establish permanent management and research structures for heritage assets. Regarding minor assets, 40% would be included in the current asset register with the other 60% included in the 2014/15 register. Current disclosure would remain the same as the previous period on prior period acquisition additions and current additions are at cost. The problems with the minor asset registry were however not critical, looking at the materiality of the value of the unaccounted for assets.
The Department was audited on its intangible assets for the first time last year. This includes the software licences which the Department has and the intellectual property developed by the DoD. The Minister has approved the management structure and posts for the intangible capital asset function, which will be under the Defence Materials Division (DMD). The DMD is acquiring a service provider for the training of the staff and compilation of the register. An audit management team was also established to monitor the activities of key role players regarding intangible assets, including DMD, Armscor, Government Information Technology Officer (GITO), Configuration Management Information System (CMIS) and Defence Corporate Communication (DCC), on a fortnightly basis. The financial management division will provide all Financial Authority expenditure reports per Services and Divisions for the past six years, including the current one, which are used to ensure the Services and Divisions can provide supporting documents and ensure the accuracy and completeness of the intangible capital asset register. Further accuracy and statutory audit readiness tests are also being carried out by the internal audit division (IAD), in order to avoid the nil return given by the Services and Division which was due to a lack of knowledge about the definition of intangible assets.
Turning to the predetermined objectives, these are the performance indicators audited by the Auditor-General. The finding last year was that the reliability of information presented for important targets with respect to the Force Employment Programme was not reliable because of a lack of reconciliation of supporting documents to predetermined objectives. The DoD has therefore developed the DoD Strategic Direction and an Integrated Strategic Management Enabler, which will direct various aspects of performance reporting and strategy, including the full scope of performance information management inclusive of storage and retrieval on request. To ensure the existence of supporting documents to reflect the achievement of predetermined objectives, the DoD has designed Performance Information Technical Sheets to ensure source identification and standard operating procedures are being developed at the lowest levels to guide record keeping to encourage reliability.
The Department was dealing with issues of non-compliance for human resource management, such as the verification of qualifications, criminal checks and confirmation of appointment. The DoD was therefore setting up internal controls to ensure that human resource protocol has been complied with and that the Chiefs of Services and Divisions are to be accountable for all appointments of civilians.
To address the Auditor-General’s concern with the financial statements, the DoD has developed a program of action and the Financial Management Division an accounting manual with standard operating procedures to guide the preparation and completeness of the compilation of the annual financial statements. This along with the Chief Financial Officer, gives guidance on disclosure requirements and does overall monitoring. Project teams have also been set up to review the data received on accruals, contingent liabilities and commitments. The management processes for the implementation of accounting principles have also been developed. The CFO went on an Orientation Road Show across the DoD to assess the levels of financial management competency within the Services and Divisions. The CFO is also filling the vacancy of Chief Director: Finance Management Services. The Internal Audit Division will also be performing quarterly audit to ensure this process of financial reporting compliance is completed.
Various policies and procedures have been created to ensure compliance with laws and regulations, including issuing of a policy on moveable and immoveable heritage assets and the disclosure of defence endowment property portfolio as Logistics Instructions.
The DoD has established a board on irregular expenditure to advise the accounting officer on where such expenditure is taking place, by whom and what action ought to be taken. This has resulted in a decrease of irregular expenditure with the Services and Divisions held individually accountable.
The Auditor-General highlighted that there was no regular, daily or monthly, reconciling of transactions between financial and asset registers. A Logistic and Finance workgroup was established where such reconciliation was prepared on a monthly and ongoing basis.
On the finding that the DoD did not have a functioning IAD, for the current financial year the budget has been granted for the posts and the application process had reached the short listing stage. The IAD has set up an audit management team consisting of the accounting officer and members f the SANF who represent all the Services and Divisions. This has resulted in the turnaround time for submission of information to the Auditor-General being reduced from 100 days to 13 days. The IAD is also currently doing a comprehensive audit of internal control issues and when this is completed the Services and Divisions will be invited to give their input so that the IAD can compile a state of readiness report for the next annual audit.
Mr Gulube said that when the Auditor-General had reported on the audit of the DoD to the Committee it had not given its opinion on how far the Department had come in dealing with the bases upon which it had been qualified. He therefore presented the Auditor-General's dashboard report of December 2012 which stated the Department had three red, or non-compliant, bases which when compared to December 2013 it had only one red base, on information technology systems.
Mr S Esau (DA) asked if the R1.4 billion spent by the Department of Public Works on maintenance of other departments facilities would constitute irregular expenditure in terms of the board set up to deal with irregular expenditure.
Mr Maake (ANC) was concerned that the Secretary of Defence had indicated that the Auditor-General wanted to know the daily operations of deployed soldiers, because this information was potentially harmful to South Africa's national security.
Mr Gulube replied that the reason the Auditor-General had raised the information provided in terms of force employment as an issue was because there was no consensus on what needs to be reported and he would appreciate the guidance of the Committee.
The Chairperson repeated what he understood Mr Esau to have been saying – that the Irregular Expenditure Board ought to deem DPW spending of R1.4 billion of DOD’s budget on other departments, as irregular expenditure.
Follow up meeting with Department on Regulations to the Military Veterans Act 18 of 2011
Mr Tsepe Motsumo, Director General: Department of Military Veterans, presented his answers to the concerns raised by the Committee about the Regulations to the Military Veterans Act, No 18 of 2011:
▪ On the problem of access to benefits pursuant to dishonourable discharges because of desertion, he said the Department of Military Veterans (DMV) was engaging with the Office of the Military Ombudsman. However this is what is stated in the Act and the DMV does not have the mandate to reinvestigate these cases.
▪ On the R125 000 income cap for vulnerability benefits, this figure was agreed to by the Minister of Finance and National Treasury.
▪ On the status of the Military Veterans Pension in relation to the Special Pension and Military Pension, he said that the Special Pension is administered under an Act by the National Treasury. The DMV would present the proposed Military Veterans pension after negotiations had been completed with National Treasury, the Department of Social Development and the Government Pensions Agency.
▪ On the 400 military veterans who qualified for pensions, these people were identified through a program established to deal with people who had been injured during service in the South African National Defence Force and had not received compensation and this brought the total number of people in the DMV's database who qualified for compensation under the Military Pension Act to 5 413, of which 503 are from the non-statutory forces.
▪ On the finalisation of the military veterans pension framework, which was incomplete, the discussions with the National Treasury for interim access to the Military Pension were in progress.
▪ On the issue of why the DMV decided to establish a Military Veterans Health and Wellness Centre, when military veterans are in dire circumstances; this centre is to serve as a 'step down' facility where veterans who have been treated at a health facility but require further care will go and the discussions with the Departments of Social Development and Public Works were in progress.
▪ On the DMV's policy on housing and clarifying access to this benefit, the DMV said that it had signed a memorandum of understanding with the Department of Social Development and had signed service level agreements with two provinces so far. The design and cost of the model house had also been finalised in August 2013.
▪ On the confusion with respect to the database and to explain the nature of the database, he said that the database has its origins in the Department of Defence before the DMV was created and the 6 500 names listed on the database were migrated in 2010. These names were those that had been transferred to the SANDF in 1994 and that the DMV was in the process of confirming names which were left off of the database.
▪ Regarding the issues with health cards which were introduced as part of the roll out of the health benefits program, he said that these cards were handed out in an effort to give military veterans on the database easier access to healthcare. However not having a card is not a bar to healthcare and to date 7 234 people who do not have cards access healthcare.
▪ On the housing means test and how the adjustment was agreed with the Department of Human Settlements, this was pursuant to the memorandum of understanding signed with that department and the DMV has committed to top up the difference with what the national housing policy stipulates and the DMV has already transferred funds in line with the service level agreements signed with the provinces.
▪ Regarding the regulations silence on the R25 000 cap on burial benefits, he said that regulation 18.1 stipulated that regulation 17 indicated that the burial costs should not exceed R25 000.
▪ On the access to business enterprise support needing to be regulated by policy, the DMV acknowledge the need for this and it will be promulgated early in the new financial year.
▪ On the need to recognise prior learning as part of skills development, this will be included in the DMV's skills policy and negotiations have started with the Department of Defence and Stellenbosch University.
▪ On the small number of military veterans in the welding skills program and the potential replication of the negative impact of the previous service core programs, the DMV took note of these concerns and said that this program has its origins in an memorandum of agreement signed with the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform and 62 military veterans had benefited so far.
▪ On whether the DMV did anything about the jobs advertised by the Department of Home Affairs, he said that the DMV had and continued to engage with the Department of Home Affairs on this.
▪ On the 955 job opportunities reflected in the quarterly report, these were pursuant to a memorandum of agreement with the Department of Water Affairs and a private security company, SSG Security. DMV was looking into further job opportunities with the Security Industry Education and Training Authority.
▪ On the 13 700 in the database, this related to the baseline figure of what was contained in the database on 1 April 2013 and this was determined through the data cleansing process embarked on in 2011.
▪ On the disabled military veterans workshop, the DMV was approached by such veterans wanting to know whether the DMV could assist in ensuring that these veterans were favourably considered in various employment programs and this resulted in the workshop. There is also an idea to establish a disabled military veteran desk in the South African Military Veterans Association.
▪ On the various parades and how they were funded, he said that this was reported in the first quarterly report from last year and this was funded from the supplementary budget for the 2012/13 financial year under empowerment and stakeholder management and the three medal parades held cost R46 000.
Mr Maake (ANC) asked about the 500 applications by military veterans who required healthcare that were approved and wanted to know what the status of the other applications was. Secondly, what type or categories of learning would be accepted in the recognition of prior learning program?
Mr Motsumo replied that the status of the Military Pension applicants were as stated, some approved, some rejected and some on appeal. He also wanted the Committee to know that this office is not in the DMV but is run out of the National Treasury. DMV intended certifying military veterans to recognise their skills, following processes which are being driven by the Department of Higher Education and the engagement with the University of Stellenbosch is still in the early stages of development.
Mr D Maynier (DA) said that the DMV had not answered a question he had posed, which was what was the total cost of the DMV's new office building.
Mr Motsumo replied that the DMV has not received the invoices in this regard from the contractor, because they have contracted with the Department of Public Works. This invoice will be forthcoming so that the payment process begins and this will be reported on in fourth quarter.
Mr S Esau (DA) spoke about the migration of the database from the Department of Defence, to the DMV, specifically the Personnel and Salary Administration system (PERSAL) which recorded retired soldiers. He said that the Military Veterans Act did contain a definition of ‘retired soldier’ and he wanted the Department to review this because he believed there were many more military veterans who ought to be on the database, but did not necessarily qualify for benefits.
Mr Motsumo agreed with Mr Esau and said that the DMV is in the process of ensuring that all people who had served the country were recorded on the database and that this issue is separate from who qualifies for benefits under the Act.
Committee Report on regulations for Military Veterans Act No 18 of 2011
The Chairperson read out the Committee Report on the regulations to the Military Veterans Act which details the Committee's concerns with the regulations.
Ms Mgabadeli moved for the adoption of the report and this was seconded Ms Mabedla and Mr Maynier wished for his objection to be recorded. The Committee adopted its report on the Regulations to the Military Veterans Act.
The meeting was adjourned.
- 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.