Public hearings on Defence Review

Meeting report

Chairperson's opening remarks
The Chairperson welcomed everyone to the meeting, which was to hear submissions on the Defence Review, from the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), Aerospace Maritime Defence (AMD) and the Centre for Study of Democracy, University of Johannesburg (CSD). He reminded Members that the Defence Review served a triple purpose; firstly, it was to close the gap between the 1998 Review and the strategic situation of today; secondly moved away from the business management inspired organisation and processes that had demonstrably failed and thirdly provided the basis for long-term planning by the South African National Defence Force (SANDF). He noted the apologies.

Defence Review: Public hearings
Council for Scientific and Industrial Research submission
Mr Des Barker, Competency Area Manager: Aeronautic Systems, CSIR, indicated that the CSIR had been providing Science Engineering and Technology (SET) support to the Defence Forces for 70 years. Since the inception of democracy, the CSIR had transformed so as to provide SET support in line with the national priorities and the growing needs of the South African National Defence Force  in the future, as defined by the Defence Strategic Trajectory. The CSIR was an active participant in the Defence Review process, having provided inputs based on its experience of working with the SANDF since the advent of democracy.

The CSIR believed that the Defence Strategic Trajectory was well considered and defined the correct macro strategy for the SANDF. The selected administrative interventions can ease the challenges faced by the SANDF without significant implication to the defence budget and these could include changes to the acquisition and procurement process and strategic re-alignment between State Owned Entities (SOEs) like CSIR, Denel and Armscor. The Command and Control capability (C&C) was highlighted throughout the Defence Review and CSIR, Denel and Armscor agreed to form a work group to formulate processes to provide SANDF with improved C&C systems. This was critically important when taking into consideration that it was impossible to conduct any military operation without efficient C&C. The work had been expanded to include Defence Material Division, Command Management Information Systems, South African Army and Air Force and also Joint Operations. It was evident that there were already significant results that had been achieved, and this was about having more cost effective C&C systems in future.

The CSIR also supported the anti-piracy operations, special operations and anti-operations, which required new capabilities to be added to frigates, and the CSIR Technology for Special Operations (TSO) group led the process. The CSIR was tasked to design a modification of the frigates which would allow offloading of the Special Forces at maximum speed. This was not just for the technical side but also doctrine development and training processes. The management of SET support base had six core capabilities, including information, intelligence, and personnel and sustainment, equipment and budget. The SET support capability must be accessible to both the Command and Support Functions, as ultimately all support functions were there to achieve cost effective Joint Operations. The structures, strategy and processes of the Chief Scientist must allow for this.

In conclusion, CSIR believed that the challenges facing the SANDF had escalated since the advent of democracy, and a new approach to the management of the SANDF’s Science and Engineering and Technological support capability was needed. Investment in administrative and organisational interventions can yield significant results with no significant impact on the Defence budget. More importantly, the organisational structures, policy and strategy and processes of the Chief Scientist must ensure that both the Command and Staff functions have access to the SET support capability.

Discussion
Mr D Maynier (DA) asked about the role that was played by the CSIR in supporting the Defence Review Committee. He felt it was not sufficiently clear from the submission whether the CSIR supported the Defence Review in its existing form or was proposing changes, and if the latter, then he asked what changes it would propose.

Dr John Wesley, Research and Development Manager, CSIR, reiterated that since the advent of democracy, the demands of the SANDF had escalated beyond what was ever foreseen during the first Defence Review. During this period, the CSIR worked closely with the SANDF and had transformed both its organisational structures and technological capabilities to ensure it was in a best position to provide the required SET to the Defence Force.

The CSIR was able to sit down with the drafting policy to explain the changing requirement of Science Engineering and Technology, and Defence Science Engineering was seen as a function with a cross-cutting impact, to coordinate all other functions. The CSIR supported the current Defence Review and the strategic trajectory as defined, seeing it as a good starting point, and was aware that budget constraints and other political decisions would influence the time-scale. The CSIR believed that the right interventions now would start easing the plight of the Defence Force in terms of Science, Engineering and Technology. needed to be respected when dealing with the Defence Review. He also asked what was the developmental approach in the fight against piracy in the African continent, and the role of the CSIR in the reconstruction phase after a devastating warfare? He also wanted more detail on what was the role of the CSIR in Joint Operations, in countering numerous threats in the African continent?

Dr Wesley responded that the role of the Chief Scientist was mentioned in the Defence Review and the plea here was that the process where the Defence Review started must be intensively investigated. Up until now, science and technology had been largely confined to acquisition, but the need to support the commanders was increasingly becoming important. The proposal by the CSIR was not to break away the organogram of the SANDF. However, the Defence Review would identify new structures and administrative interventions that were required, and the role of the C&C would be essential to this.

He explained that the Chief Scientist would probably sit within the Secretariat but would still need to meet the requirements of the Command so as to support both the Secretariat side, which was responsible for acquisition of certain activities, and the Command side. The CSIR recognised the importance of post-conflict reconstruction and there was an operation concerned called "Defence, Peace, Safety and Security dedicated to defence. This was working closely with natural resources, the environment and built environment and was focused on looking at broader impact of a war on a society. Post-conflict reconstruction was often more important than the war itself, as it was about stabilising the area to prevent the insurgency from resurfacing to inflict further destruction. He highlighted that post-conflict reconstruction did not form part of the mandate of the CSIR in Defence Review, but it was a matter that needed to be considered, despite limited resources, as a peaceful Africa translated into a peaceful South Africa.

Mr D Gamede (ANC) wanted to know whether the CSIR had a clear and direct proposal on the issue of Intellectual Property (IP). He asked who remained the actual owners of whatever that was being researched by the CSIR, and who would be given credit for the research that would be conducted - Department of Defence, the institution or an individual.

Mr Gamede wanted to know the role of the CSIR in economic development, especially the issue of transformation and the empowerment of the Historically Disadvantaged Individuals (HDIs).

Dr Wesley responded that IP belonged to the government and there was a new IP Act that had come into place which governed the relationship in terms of governance-control IP, and the CSIR was conforming to this Act. The CSIR now hosted awards for inventors of systems and if these were commercialised then there could be shares for that, all of which encouraged good innovative research. The CSIR prioritised  transformation and empowerment of the HDIs and the exact figures of the progress on that aspect would be available from the Department of Science and Technology (DST).    

The Defence Force was highly internationalised and about 40% of the income of the CSIR came from international cooperation. The IP was fully available from the Department of Defence (DOD). The DOD was gaining 100% of the IP of the CSIR with 60% of the cost. This again highlighted the need for the CSIR to work internationally to generate new IP, which could then be exploited by the DOD at the lower cost.

Mr E Mlambo (ANC) sought further clarity on the current relationship between Denel, Armscor and CSIR. 

Dr Wesley responded that the relationship between Denel, Armscor and CSIR was driven by the realisation that the two other companies were organs of State. The CSIR needed to look at broader issues like human capital and transformation, and the way to jointly address these issues. The CSIR cooperated with Denel and Armscor, with one owner on responsibilities, and this was also about turning the contractual relationship to a cooperative relationship which was intended to offer the best t service to the country. He added that some people were board members of both the CSIR and Denel. He noted that it was important to satisfy the DOD requirements and assess how to approach international markets so as to bring in foreign currency.

Mr Maynier said it was still not clear to him, from the presentation, as to where the Chief Scientist Office should be located, considering the suggestion that the SET capability should be warehoused within the military Command. He asked if it was correct to assume that the CSIR did not develop the cost estimator models? This question was asked in relation to the CSIR’s role in supporting the Defence Review. 

Dr Wesley responded that the concept of Chief Scientist did not relate to a single individual, but to a structure that would take over the current activities of the current Defence Research and Development Board. It would probably sit within the Secretariat as it mainly around the acquisition of technology and developing the technology-base. However, the structure of the technology-base was such that it also supports the Commanders.

Mr Booi stated that the experience with the arms strategic package mainly related to fiscal concerns, and now there was a need to balance socio-economic demands, which meant that the National Treasury was reluctant to give more financial support to the Defence Force. He asked how could the CSIR help the country in terms of skills development programmes? It was important for the sector to assist in addressing the current challenges facing government including poverty, unemployment and inequality, so as to convince the National Treasury to increase the budget for the Defence Force. He also wanted to know how the international cooperation mentioned would impact on the fiscus.

Dr Wesley responded that in the current structure of the CSIR there was a body, known as Defence Research and Development Board, which was a joint Board between members from the Defence Staff and from the Secretariat of Defence. This Board was responsible for overseeing the acquisition of technology. It sat part-time, as members had other duties. In the human resources development plan of the Defence Force there was a strong drive towards having engineering and medical professionals.

Mr S Esau (DA) wanted to establish the position as to exactly where the CSIR fits into the whole equation, which was still not clear from the responses, as the assumption was made that the Chief Scientist might refer to the CSIR. He wondered if there was any international best practice that would look at the entity that worked within the Defence Force, and whether the scope of the current status (having organs of state with clear Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) and Memorandum of Understanding (MOUs) with the DOD was likely to be extended?

Mr Esau also enquired if there was even a need to be incorporated as part of the Defence Force? The Defence Review was currently looking at integrating Denel again under SANDF. However, the CSIR reported essentially to the DST, and this was only one part of the CSIR's work. This raised the question of why the CSIR should be incorporated if it was only partly involved, and the major portion of its research and technology went to the DST?  

Mr Maynier asked the CSIR to provide the Committee with a concrete written proposal that made reference to the Defence Review and that set out clear proposals for amendments to Chapter 15 or any other chapter.

Mr Booi reiterated that it was indeed difficult to locate the role of a Chief Scientist, as it became clear that it would disrupt the function of the Command structure. He supported the suggestion for the CSIR to provide the Committee with a concrete written proposal that made specific reference to the Defence Review and that sets out proposals for amendments to chapter 15.   

Dr Wesley responded that the Members needed to know that there were a number of Defence Evaluation Research Institutes and the intention was to pull all of these under the Chief Scientist within a Secretariat to provide a coherent pathway.  

Centre for Study of Democracy, University of Johannesburg (UJ) submission
Dr Sharon Groenmeyer, Senior Research Fellow, CSD, indicated that the White Paper on Defence for the Republic of South Africa and subsequent Defence Review of 2004 showed that women were appointed to senior roles in Ministry of Defence (MOD) and the Forces, to demonstrate commitment to gender equality, with the right of women to serve in all ranks and positions. It was now becoming clear that there was no development without security. Gender responsive peace and provisioning remained an imperative within the SANDF. Women had a major role to play in preventing conflict and in peace-building and peacekeeping, both inside South Africa and on missions across Africa and the world. This drew on experience gained from Truth and Reconciliation process and role of women as peace builders.

Dr Juliet Colman, Senior Researcher: Social and Gender Relations, CSD; stated that women made up 23% of full-time personnel in the SANDF. This number was still relatively high compared to the international standard but a lot still needed to be done to incorporate gender in the sector. Dr Lindy Heinecken, Professor of Sociology, University of Pretoria had said “as the military remains male dominated, patriarchal relations and militarised masculinities continue to affect women’s status and belonging, and thus ultimately, their ability to influence security sector reform”. There was still too little mention of the importance of gender equality in the military and persistent silence on challenges of patriarchy and the quality and extent of women’s participation in politics. There was no mention of gender sensitive training and development for all personnel. It was also concerning that there was still no reference to appropriate facilities and accommodation for women and budgets for these aspects.

Dr Colman pointed out that Chapter 7 of the Defence Review, dealing with Regional and Continental Peace Security, only mentioned gender in terms of “gender right violations”, with reference to the challenges of the 21st century. There were numerous amendments that were needed in Chapter 9 on the Defence Strategic Trajectory, especially in ensuring gender balance on all recruitment, including officers and the fact that the Defence Academy was to have 50/50 gender representation. It was pleasing to see that in Section 29e, Principle 5, the Defence Force promised to be as seen as gender representative, equitable and gender aligned national asset. 

South Africa was representing the G77 + China at the UN General Assembly in New York in September to agree the post 2015 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). There was a proposal to amend SDG 16 “Promote peaceful and inclusive societies” by adding: “Ensure equal representation and participation of women in key decision-making positions in conflict prevention, peacekeeping, conflict resolution and peace-building processes by 2030”. This would focus specifically on various indicators, including the percentage of women in security and defence forces, including military and the police, that should  reach 50% by 2030, and the percentage of women in decision-making in the peace and security sector that was also to reach 50% by 2030.

In conclusion, with the adoption of the changes proposed in this submission, the Defence Review would take account of previous MOD Policy, the SA Constitution, the SADC Gender Protocol and United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1325. If it was changed, it would further fall in tune with the National Development Plan (NDP) in the achievement of a democratic developmental state which was more representative, fully encompassing gender equity. It provided a sign post to the changes to UN SDG 16 for the South African leading role in G77 + China.

Discussion
Mr Booi said the proposal by Dr Colman was very straightforward as the emphasis was on transformation, especially gender equity in the Defence Force. However, he asked whether there was a strategy in place to address these gender inequalities in other African countries where gender was not often recognised even in policies. He warned that it was important to further explore the debate around 50/50 gender representation in the Defence Force so as to avoid writing policies that would hamstring the Defence Force. The Defence Force was structured in a way to promptly respond to a threat; therefore a 50/50 gender representation might not respond to the demand on the ground as it was evident from the recruitment process that women were not flooding into the Defence Force.

Mr B Bongo (ANC) also added that the 50/50 gender representation seemed to be radical and asked about the way to deal with the issue of gender equity in a manner that took into account the status quo. He suggested that the issue should be dealt with through a progressive realisation as opposed to being radically put in the Defence Review. 

Mr Gamede agreed that in principle the government already had accepted the need for 50/50 gender representation although this had not been translated into a reality. It was also imperative to take into consideration that the 50/50 policy might unintentionally set a precedent for other sectors (youth and disabled people) to demand an equal representation in the Defence Force. The Defence Force was structured in a unique way and often very sensitive to radical policy changes so that, for example, the disability sector might not fit in all the categories of the Defence Force. He highlighted that having 23% of women representation was still progressive by the international standard and the suggestion for a 50/50 gender representation was too stringent for the sector.  

Dr Groenmeyer responded that the fact that women made up 23% of the Defence Force was indeed progressive by the international standard. However, the Constitution supported gender equality in all sectors of government. There was a need to transform the leadership of the SANDF as it was still male-dominated. It was commendable that both the Minster of Defence (MOD) and of the South African Police Service (SAPS) were women and it showed a strong drive for transformation. She added that there should be gender awareness training and consciousness around gender relations in the country. She said gender awareness would be crucial to dispel the stereotype that women were more peaceful than men, especially when looking at countries like Sudan where women were warlords. South Africa was a post-conflict society and women had a major role in contributing to the prevention of conflict, and to peace-building and peacekeeping.

She stressed that the Defence Review needed to encompass progress towards a more peaceful world in which gender equality was an essential component. The training programme in the sector should focus substantially on how to train women from the ground up and the present leadership needed to be more aware of how to integrate women into peacekeeping and the Defence Force. 

Dr Colman also added that in terms of recruitment practices the Defence Force needed to attract women into the sector, as it still remained male-dominated, whilst patriarchal relations and militarised masculinities continued to affect women’s status and belonging. The presentation by the CSIR showed that the Defence Force was changing rapidly and the role of Science, Technology and Engineering was now seen as critically important to enhance the capabilities of the sector. She emphasised the point that there should be more gender sensitive training for both men and women and gender should not be seen as the first and foremost factor in the recruitment process. The fact that other African countries were not progressive in terms of gender representation meant South African could now play a leading role in driving gender equality. This also provided a sign post to the changes to UN SDG 16 for the SA role in leading the G77 + China at UN September 2015, as highlighted in the presentation.

Mr Mlambo said maybe the main issue was in the recruitment drive, as there was awareness about the Defence Force, and the Constitution of the country was very clear on the issue of gender sensitivity, although it would always be difficult to demand that women should join the Defence Force. This was similar to the trending situation that most white South Africans were no longer finding the army as an attractive sector, despite the adverts that were targeted to the minorities. 

Mr Booi mentioned that South Africa was still only 21 years into a democracy, and it was quite clear that the issue of gender representation remained the priority of the current government. However, he reiterated that whatever was to be written in a policy document needed to be properly investigated and reflected, and to push for 50/50 gender representation in the Defence Review presented challenges, as it had been indicated that the recruitment drive for women in the sector remains significantly low.

The Chairperson had already highlighted that it was not always easy to go to a society and tell women to join the Defence Force, as it was a personal decision. The decision to push for 50/50 gender representation should take cognisance of the environment and other challenges in the sector.

Dr Colman agreed that there had been progressive movement towards gender equality in the Defence Force, and also agreed that this was a complex process that required an enormous cultural shift, and it needed to be a progressive implementation. However, the Defence Review actually stated very clearly that Parliament should expect to see full gender representation in the sector, to see moves that were ensuring that there was equality between men and women, and every area should be looked at in terms of facilities for women. She also wanted to see more progress on implementing a National Action Plan (NAP) so as to deal with UNSCR 1325. At this stage, South Africa did not have a NAP although throughout the world there were 50 countries with an NAP.

Dr Groenmeyer mentioned that the Defence Review needed to set targets on gender representation, as the Defence Force was still "a closed institution" in the rest of the society and there should be more media coverage which invited and attracted women to the sector. 

Aerospace Maritime Defence (AMD) submission
Mr Dean Mogale, Chairperson, AMD, indicated that the AMD represented the South African Defence Industries (SADI) and, as an Industry Funded Association, it served the common interest of its members. The AMD was represented by 95% of South African industries and association was currently self-funded but had a good relationship with the Department of Trade and Industry (dti), DOD and the Parliamentary Committees and DST.

The main purpose of the AMD was to create an enabling environment for SADI to ensure long-term sustainability locally and internationally, as this would be able to attract export opportunities for the SADI. The mission of AMD was to legitimise activities and representatives of SADI that contributed optimally to national security, industrial and technological objectives. It was also important to ensure that the AMD became the single point of communication through which the DOD could communicate confidentially with the industry.

There was a need for government to secure the future of SANDF by ensuring the proposed funding for the implementation of the Defence Trajectory, as envisaged in the Defence Review, was available. The SANDF should commit to the 40:30:30 budgetary split for Human Resource (HR) cost, operational and capital costs. The Defence Review correctly identified exports as the lifeline to the sustainability of the SADI, and enjoined government to support these exports. Arms Control was a key enabler of successful exports. The AMD would support the creation of a strong Arms Control Agency (spanning Conventional Arms Control, housed in the DOD and Non-Proliferation, housed in the dti, and Small Arms and Explosives, housed in SAPS), as originally envisaged in the first draft of the Defence Review. This was particularly important as it would create a one-stop shop, ensure optimal resource allocation, and reduce turn-around times for permit applications.

He concluded that the Defence Review should look at ways to expedite the creation of the National Defence Industry Council (NDIC) to provide a new dispensation for the management of relations with the defence industry for direct support. There was a need for a “SADI Friendly” acquisition system that deliberately favoured the SADI with clearly understood home market advantages - visibility, flexibility and communication of short, medium and long term planning priorities - along with the envisaged budgetary allocations and schedules.

Discussion
Mr Maynier stated that he was sympathetic to the difficulty of the industry in regard to the three regulatory bodies, and said that trying to build one strong institution made more sense than having three relatively weak institutions. Industries could not afford to experience long delays in receiving permits. However, he enquired where AMD thought that this single body should be located.

Mr Maynier believed that the statement that AMD had a good relationship with the Parliament might be at this stage little more than an aspiration, pointing out that Members of this Committee were often not even invited to the annual Defence Show, something that should be looked into.

Mr Maynier noted that AMD had mentioned that the funding would not increase the strategic directory trajectory as proposed in their submission, and asked then what would be the implication of this to the industry.

Mr Mogale responded that the single body should remain as it was right now, under the Minister in the Presidency, but in line with the DOD. However, the DOD should second and offer a strategy so that whilst the Presidency retained oversight through the Minister in the Presidency, the operational aspect of that organisation must be within the DOD. Primarily, these were the accounting bodies for where the goods were going. He cited an example that if weapons were found in Libya, they should be reported through foreign affairs channels to the DOD.

Mr Mogale said the state of the equipment in the Defence Force was currently ageing and if the budget was not secured or approved then there was likely to be a downward spiral of that equipment. This was a danger for the Defence Force. This had been the case after 1994, when the IP was  moved from the government into private ownership, with those privately-owned companies in turn galvanised by the foreign-owned companies who acquired critical IPs. There was a possibility that this might recur, with more companies closing down and less capabilities being harnessed. The Defence Force had transformed, as was pointed out in the previous presentations, and was now technologically driven. However, sustaining that technology would require extensive research and sustainable funding.

Mr Booi mentioned that the submission made by the AMD was still not clearly defined in terms of what it was suggesting should be amended in the Defence Review, and what exactly AMD wanted from that Defence Review. The industry was a private sector and it was often difficult for Parliament to interfere and control this sector. The SANDF was involved in peacekeeping around the African continent and there was an agreement that the war in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) would be followed by a peace-building process to reconstruct the country. It was disappointing that this did not come out strongly from the AMD as it was an important process for a developmental state like South Africa. It was known that after the SANDF had stabilised the area, returns that should create employment opportunities for the people in war-ravaged countries usually went to the USA, since the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was often involved in building the first schools and clinics. This was an area that the AMD could further look at, especially focusing on how to build capacity.
 

Mr Mogale responded that the AMD had been fighting for recognition for a long time and it was encouraging that the dti now recognised AMD as the industry body and had now established an Export Council together with the AMD, to formally engage with clients to sell the goods at the international level. He stated that it was not the prerogative of the AMD to insist on what the Defence Review should say, as the DOD already knows the capability, mission and objective of the AMD.

Mr Mogale pointed out that the AMD would, however, like to get assistance from the Committee that would ensure that, prior to the incremental budget, the DOD should be asked to explain how that budget would sustain the operation of the industry. The core challenge of the AMD was always around planning, and the industry, whilst planning to survive, also needed to plan in order to be able to grow, and the current budget was not conducive to this. It was also difficult to quantify how the increments in the budget could be implemented in a sustainable manner.

Mr Bongo also wanted more information on what the AMD was expected from the amendment of the Defence Review as was not very clear in the submission.

Mr Mogale responded that the AMD highlighted that the current situation accommodated for  personnel anywhere. However, if there would be a budget increase of 40% for the personnel then the AMD should get at least 30% of the increments, as these increments, over time, would create a possibility of sustaining and providing the defence material. His presentation had highlighted that it was not sustainable for the AMD to depend solely on those increments. There was therefore a suggestion to look at the security cluster as a whole to further augment the revenue that could sustain the defence capability. It was important to improve and fast-track the processes that delayed the exports, which were mostly the securing of the permits and ensuring that goods were on time.

Mr Gamede asked what informed the 40/30/30 budgetary split. The Defence Force, by its nature, was personnel-driven. He wondered if an alteration might not lead to job losses, especially considering the size of the Defence Force in the country.

Mr Mogale responded that the thinking applied at the time was that the increments that were expected to happen were not necessarily in line with increments of physical bodies. The current challenge in the Defence Force was not so much in relation to people, but rather to ageing equipment and the capability to sustain that equipment. The suggestion was that the Defence Review should look at capabilities structural changes, to enhance the ability to sustain better, and for the budget to be made available for that sustainability.

Mr Booi pointed out that it was a generalised statement to claim that there was no capability in the SANDF. The Defence Force was able to deal effectively with peacekeeping missions in the African continent and also had received recognition from the United Nations (UN). It was important to further explore where the 40/30/30 budgetary split would be located within the Defence Force, whether in the landward, aerospace or governance level. He asked, since it was not clear from the presentation, how the AMD currently related to government.  

Mr Mogale apologised for a generalised statement about the capability of the SANDF, and said there was no doubt that the SANDF had done sterling work in the peacekeeping missions in the African continent. AMD was not suggesting that there was no capability in the SANDF, but was rather pointing out that the capability as it currently was was not being sustained and maintained in the way it should be, and this was mainly because of budget constraints.

There was a cordial relationship between the AMD and the government, as pointed out earlier. The dti recognised the AMD as the industry body, and Denel was a member of AMD and it was thus part and parcel of the decisions that the AMD took as an industry building body. Armscor used to be a member of AMD but it was agreed that it was for the best if Armscor step aside, as was part of the acquisition agency for government. There was, however, a concerted effort to ensure that the two industries worked together.

Mr Booi stated that it was already public knowledge that the Defence Force was battling with maintenance and budget constraints. However, the presentation by the AMD was still inadequate to encapsulate the key deficiencies in the capabilities of the Defence Force. 

Mr Mogale responded that he could provide a written response on the key deficiencies of capabilities in the Defence Force, as it was not helpful to mention all these challenges in the Committee.

Mr Maynier requested the AMD to outline specifically the key problems in the industry in dealing with the National Conventional Arms Control Committee (NCACC).

Mr Mogale responded that the most apparent problem facing the AMD related to time, as documents or applications for permits usually took some time to process. AMD believed that there should be means to expedite and fast-track this process to make it more competitive. These delays were caused by a number of factors, including organisational, structural and political problems, and this could be solved by the introduction of an automated system.

Concluding remarks
Mr Motimele thanked all those who made submissions regarding the Defence Review and said there seemed to be an agreement that the Defence Review needed to be amended to deal directly with the current threats, challenges and developments in the Defence Force. All the submissions would be combined in a report which would be considered and adopted on 26 February 2015.

The main challenges seemed to be around funding and the implementation of the policy. The Committee was equally concerned about these challenges, as the Defence Force should be resourced so as to achieve its constitutional mandate. The Defence Force needed to be equipped in a way to attend to the border control and meet its international obligations.

Mr Maynier raised a point of order, indicating that he had tabled a document suggesting an alternative way of dealing with the Defence Review. Although this had been submitted to the Chairpersons on 11 December 2014, there had not been any responses thus far. This document was intended as a counter-proposal to the suggestion to consider and adopt the presented submissions on the 26 February 2015. 

The meeting was adjourned. 

Chairperson's opening remarks
The Chairperson welcomed everyone to the meeting, which was to hear submissions on the Defence Review, from the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), Aerospace Maritime Defence (AMD) and the Centre for Study of Democracy, University of Johannesburg (CSD). He reminded Members that the Defence Review served a triple purpose; firstly, it was to close the gap between the 1998 Review and the strategic situation of today; secondly moved away from the business management inspired organisation and processes that had demonstrably failed and thirdly provided the basis for long-term planning by the South African National Defence Force (SANDF). He noted the apologies.

Defence Review: Public hearings
Council for Scientific and Industrial Research submission
Mr Des Barker, Competency Area Manager: Aeronautic Systems, CSIR, indicated that the CSIR had been providing Science Engineering and Technology (SET) support to the Defence Forces for 70 years. Since the inception of democracy, the CSIR had transformed so as to provide SET support in line with the national priorities and the growing needs of the South African National Defence Force  in the future, as defined by the Defence Strategic Trajectory. The CSIR was an active participant in the Defence Review process, having provided inputs based on its experience of working with the SANDF since the advent of democracy.

The CSIR believed that the Defence Strategic Trajectory was well considered and defined the correct macro strategy for the SANDF. The selected administrative interventions can ease the challenges faced by the SANDF without significant implication to the defence budget and these could include changes to the acquisition and procurement process and strategic re-alignment between State Owned Entities (SOEs) like CSIR, Denel and Armscor. The Command and Control capability (C&C) was highlighted throughout the Defence Review and CSIR, Denel and Armscor agreed to form a work group to formulate processes to provide SANDF with improved C&C systems. This was critically important when taking into consideration that it was impossible to conduct any military operation without efficient C&C. The work had been expanded to include Defence Material Division, Command Management Information Systems, South African Army and Air Force and also Joint Operations. It was evident that there were already significant results that had been achieved, and this was about having more cost effective C&C systems in future.

The CSIR also supported the anti-piracy operations, special operations and anti-operations, which required new capabilities to be added to frigates, and the CSIR Technology for Special Operations (TSO) group led the process. The CSIR was tasked to design a modification of the frigates which would allow offloading of the Special Forces at maximum speed. This was not just for the technical side but also doctrine development and training processes. The management of SET support base had six core capabilities, including information, intelligence, and personnel and sustainment, equipment and budget. The SET support capability must be accessible to both the Command and Support Functions, as ultimately all support functions were there to achieve cost effective Joint Operations. The structures, strategy and processes of the Chief Scientist must allow for this.

In conclusion, CSIR believed that the challenges facing the SANDF had escalated since the advent of democracy, and a new approach to the management of the SANDF’s Science and Engineering and Technological support capability was needed. Investment in administrative and organisational interventions can yield significant results with no significant impact on the Defence budget. More importantly, the organisational structures, policy and strategy and processes of the Chief Scientist must ensure that both the Command and Staff functions have access to the SET support capability.

Discussion
Mr D Maynier (DA) asked about the role that was played by the CSIR in supporting the Defence Review Committee. He felt it was not sufficiently clear from the submission whether the CSIR supported the Defence Review in its existing form or was proposing changes, and if the latter, then he asked what changes it would propose.

Dr John Wesley, Research and Development Manager, CSIR, reiterated that since the advent of democracy, the demands of the SANDF had escalated beyond what was ever foreseen during the first Defence Review. During this period, the CSIR worked closely with the SANDF and had transformed both its organisational structures and technological capabilities to ensure it was in a best position to provide the required SET to the Defence Force.

The CSIR was able to sit down with the drafting policy to explain the changing requirement of Science Engineering and Technology, and Defence Science Engineering was seen as a function with a cross-cutting impact, to coordinate all other functions. The CSIR supported the current Defence Review and the strategic trajectory as defined, seeing it as a good starting point, and was aware that budget constraints and other political decisions would influence the time-scale. The CSIR believed that the right interventions now would start easing the plight of the Defence Force in terms of Science, Engineering and Technology. needed to be respected when dealing with the Defence Review. He also asked what was the developmental approach in the fight against piracy in the African continent, and the role of the CSIR in the reconstruction phase after a devastating warfare? He also wanted more detail on what was the role of the CSIR in Joint Operations, in countering numerous threats in the African continent?

Dr Wesley responded that the role of the Chief Scientist was mentioned in the Defence Review and the plea here was that the process where the Defence Review started must be intensively investigated. Up until now, science and technology had been largely confined to acquisition, but the need to support the commanders was increasingly becoming important. The proposal by the CSIR was not to break away the organogram of the SANDF. However, the Defence Review would identify new structures and administrative interventions that were required, and the role of the C&C would be essential to this.

He explained that the Chief Scientist would probably sit within the Secretariat but would still need to meet the requirements of the Command so as to support both the Secretariat side, which was responsible for acquisition of certain activities, and the Command side. The CSIR recognised the importance of post-conflict reconstruction and there was an operation concerned called "Defence, Peace, Safety and Security dedicated to defence. This was working closely with natural resources, the environment and built environment and was focused on looking at broader impact of a war on a society. Post-conflict reconstruction was often more important than the war itself, as it was about stabilising the area to prevent the insurgency from resurfacing to inflict further destruction. He highlighted that post-conflict reconstruction did not form part of the mandate of the CSIR in Defence Review, but it was a matter that needed to be considered, despite limited resources, as a peaceful Africa translated into a peaceful South Africa.

Mr D Gamede (ANC) wanted to know whether the CSIR had a clear and direct proposal on the issue of Intellectual Property (IP). He asked who remained the actual owners of whatever that was being researched by the CSIR, and who would be given credit for the research that would be conducted - Department of Defence, the institution or an individual.

Mr Gamede wanted to know the role of the CSIR in economic development, especially the issue of transformation and the empowerment of the Historically Disadvantaged Individuals (HDIs).

Dr Wesley responded that IP belonged to the government and there was a new IP Act that had come into place which governed the relationship in terms of governance-control IP, and the CSIR was conforming to this Act. The CSIR now hosted awards for inventors of systems and if these were commercialised then there could be shares for that, all of which encouraged good innovative research. The CSIR prioritised  transformation and empowerment of the HDIs and the exact figures of the progress on that aspect would be available from the Department of Science and Technology (DST).    

The Defence Force was highly internationalised and about 40% of the income of the CSIR came from international cooperation. The IP was fully available from the Department of Defence (DOD). The DOD was gaining 100% of the IP of the CSIR with 60% of the cost. This again highlighted the need for the CSIR to work internationally to generate new IP, which could then be exploited by the DOD at the lower cost.

Mr E Mlambo (ANC) sought further clarity on the current relationship between Denel, Armscor and CSIR. 

Dr Wesley responded that the relationship between Denel, Armscor and CSIR was driven by the realisation that the two other companies were organs of State. The CSIR needed to look at broader issues like human capital and transformation, and the way to jointly address these issues. The CSIR cooperated with Denel and Armscor, with one owner on responsibilities, and this was also about turning the contractual relationship to a cooperative relationship which was intended to offer the best t service to the country. He added that some people were board members of both the CSIR and Denel. He noted that it was important to satisfy the DOD requirements and assess how to approach international markets so as to bring in foreign currency.

Mr Maynier said it was still not clear to him, from the presentation, as to where the Chief Scientist Office should be located, considering the suggestion that the SET capability should be warehoused within the military Command. He asked if it was correct to assume that the CSIR did not develop the cost estimator models? This question was asked in relation to the CSIR’s role in supporting the Defence Review. 

Dr Wesley responded that the concept of Chief Scientist did not relate to a single individual, but to a structure that would take over the current activities of the current Defence Research and Development Board. It would probably sit within the Secretariat as it mainly around the acquisition of technology and developing the technology-base. However, the structure of the technology-base was such that it also supports the Commanders.

Mr Booi stated that the experience with the arms strategic package mainly related to fiscal concerns, and now there was a need to balance socio-economic demands, which meant that the National Treasury was reluctant to give more financial support to the Defence Force. He asked how could the CSIR help the country in terms of skills development programmes? It was important for the sector to assist in addressing the current challenges facing government including poverty, unemployment and inequality, so as to convince the National Treasury to increase the budget for the Defence Force. He also wanted to know how the international cooperation mentioned would impact on the fiscus.

Dr Wesley responded that in the current structure of the CSIR there was a body, known as Defence Research and Development Board, which was a joint Board between members from the Defence Staff and from the Secretariat of Defence. This Board was responsible for overseeing the acquisition of technology. It sat part-time, as members had other duties. In the human resources development plan of the Defence Force there was a strong drive towards having engineering and medical professionals.

Mr S Esau (DA) wanted to establish the position as to exactly where the CSIR fits into the whole equation, which was still not clear from the responses, as the assumption was made that the Chief Scientist might refer to the CSIR. He wondered if there was any international best practice that would look at the entity that worked within the Defence Force, and whether the scope of the current status (having organs of state with clear Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) and Memorandum of Understanding (MOUs) with the DOD was likely to be extended?

Mr Esau also enquired if there was even a need to be incorporated as part of the Defence Force? The Defence Review was currently looking at integrating Denel again under SANDF. However, the CSIR reported essentially to the DST, and this was only one part of the CSIR's work. This raised the question of why the CSIR should be incorporated if it was only partly involved, and the major portion of its research and technology went to the DST?  

Mr Maynier asked the CSIR to provide the Committee with a concrete written proposal that made reference to the Defence Review and that set out clear proposals for amendments to Chapter 15 or any other chapter.

Mr Booi reiterated that it was indeed difficult to locate the role of a Chief Scientist, as it became clear that it would disrupt the function of the Command structure. He supported the suggestion for the CSIR to provide the Committee with a concrete written proposal that made specific reference to the Defence Review and that sets out proposals for amendments to chapter 15.   

Dr Wesley responded that the Members needed to know that there were a number of Defence Evaluation Research Institutes and the intention was to pull all of these under the Chief Scientist within a Secretariat to provide a coherent pathway.  

Centre for Study of Democracy, University of Johannesburg (UJ) submission
Dr Sharon Groenmeyer, Senior Research Fellow, CSD, indicated that the White Paper on Defence for the Republic of South Africa and subsequent Defence Review of 2004 showed that women were appointed to senior roles in Ministry of Defence (MOD) and the Forces, to demonstrate commitment to gender equality, with the right of women to serve in all ranks and positions. It was now becoming clear that there was no development without security. Gender responsive peace and provisioning remained an imperative within the SANDF. Women had a major role to play in preventing conflict and in peace-building and peacekeeping, both inside South Africa and on missions across Africa and the world. This drew on experience gained from Truth and Reconciliation process and role of women as peace builders.

Dr Juliet Colman, Senior Researcher: Social and Gender Relations, CSD; stated that women made up 23% of full-time personnel in the SANDF. This number was still relatively high compared to the international standard but a lot still needed to be done to incorporate gender in the sector. Dr Lindy Heinecken, Professor of Sociology, University of Pretoria had said “as the military remains male dominated, patriarchal relations and militarised masculinities continue to affect women’s status and belonging, and thus ultimately, their ability to influence security sector reform”. There was still too little mention of the importance of gender equality in the military and persistent silence on challenges of patriarchy and the quality and extent of women’s participation in politics. There was no mention of gender sensitive training and development for all personnel. It was also concerning that there was still no reference to appropriate facilities and accommodation for women and budgets for these aspects.

Dr Colman pointed out that Chapter 7 of the Defence Review, dealing with Regional and Continental Peace Security, only mentioned gender in terms of “gender right violations”, with reference to the challenges of the 21st century. There were numerous amendments that were needed in Chapter 9 on the Defence Strategic Trajectory, especially in ensuring gender balance on all recruitment, including officers and the fact that the Defence Academy was to have 50/50 gender representation. It was pleasing to see that in Section 29e, Principle 5, the Defence Force promised to be as seen as gender representative, equitable and gender aligned national asset. 

South Africa was representing the G77 + China at the UN General Assembly in New York in September to agree the post 2015 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). There was a proposal to amend SDG 16 “Promote peaceful and inclusive societies” by adding: “Ensure equal representation and participation of women in key decision-making positions in conflict prevention, peacekeeping, conflict resolution and peace-building processes by 2030”. This would focus specifically on various indicators, including the percentage of women in security and defence forces, including military and the police, that should  reach 50% by 2030, and the percentage of women in decision-making in the peace and security sector that was also to reach 50% by 2030.

In conclusion, with the adoption of the changes proposed in this submission, the Defence Review would take account of previous MOD Policy, the SA Constitution, the SADC Gender Protocol and United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1325. If it was changed, it would further fall in tune with the National Development Plan (NDP) in the achievement of a democratic developmental state which was more representative, fully encompassing gender equity. It provided a sign post to the changes to UN SDG 16 for the South African leading role in G77 + China.

Discussion
Mr Booi said the proposal by Dr Colman was very straightforward as the emphasis was on transformation, especially gender equity in the Defence Force. However, he asked whether there was a strategy in place to address these gender inequalities in other African countries where gender was not often recognised even in policies. He warned that it was important to further explore the debate around 50/50 gender representation in the Defence Force so as to avoid writing policies that would hamstring the Defence Force. The Defence Force was structured in a way to promptly respond to a threat; therefore a 50/50 gender representation might not respond to the demand on the ground as it was evident from the recruitment process that women were not flooding into the Defence Force.

Mr B Bongo (ANC) also added that the 50/50 gender representation seemed to be radical and asked about the way to deal with the issue of gender equity in a manner that took into account the status quo. He suggested that the issue should be dealt with through a progressive realisation as opposed to being radically put in the Defence Review. 

Mr Gamede agreed that in principle the government already had accepted the need for 50/50 gender representation although this had not been translated into a reality. It was also imperative to take into consideration that the 50/50 policy might unintentionally set a precedent for other sectors (youth and disabled people) to demand an equal representation in the Defence Force. The Defence Force was structured in a unique way and often very sensitive to radical policy changes so that, for example, the disability sector might not fit in all the categories of the Defence Force. He highlighted that having 23% of women representation was still progressive by the international standard and the suggestion for a 50/50 gender representation was too stringent for the sector.  

Dr Groenmeyer responded that the fact that women made up 23% of the Defence Force was indeed progressive by the international standard. However, the Constitution supported gender equality in all sectors of government. There was a need to transform the leadership of the SANDF as it was still male-dominated. It was commendable that both the Minster of Defence (MOD) and of the South African Police Service (SAPS) were women and it showed a strong drive for transformation. She added that there should be gender awareness training and consciousness around gender relations in the country. She said gender awareness would be crucial to dispel the stereotype that women were more peaceful than men, especially when looking at countries like Sudan where women were warlords. South Africa was a post-conflict society and women had a major role in contributing to the prevention of conflict, and to peace-building and peacekeeping.

She stressed that the Defence Review needed to encompass progress towards a more peaceful world in which gender equality was an essential component. The training programme in the sector should focus substantially on how to train women from the ground up and the present leadership needed to be more aware of how to integrate women into peacekeeping and the Defence Force. 

Dr Colman also added that in terms of recruitment practices the Defence Force needed to attract women into the sector, as it still remained male-dominated, whilst patriarchal relations and militarised masculinities continued to affect women’s status and belonging. The presentation by the CSIR showed that the Defence Force was changing rapidly and the role of Science, Technology and Engineering was now seen as critically important to enhance the capabilities of the sector. She emphasised the point that there should be more gender sensitive training for both men and women and gender should not be seen as the first and foremost factor in the recruitment process. The fact that other African countries were not progressive in terms of gender representation meant South African could now play a leading role in driving gender equality. This also provided a sign post to the changes to UN SDG 16 for the SA role in leading the G77 + China at UN September 2015, as highlighted in the presentation.

Mr Mlambo said maybe the main issue was in the recruitment drive, as there was awareness about the Defence Force, and the Constitution of the country was very clear on the issue of gender sensitivity, although it would always be difficult to demand that women should join the Defence Force. This was similar to the trending situation that most white South Africans were no longer finding the army as an attractive sector, despite the adverts that were targeted to the minorities. 

Mr Booi mentioned that South Africa was still only 21 years into a democracy, and it was quite clear that the issue of gender representation remained the priority of the current government. However, he reiterated that whatever was to be written in a policy document needed to be properly investigated and reflected, and to push for 50/50 gender representation in the Defence Review presented challenges, as it had been indicated that the recruitment drive for women in the sector remains significantly low.

The Chairperson had already highlighted that it was not always easy to go to a society and tell women to join the Defence Force, as it was a personal decision. The decision to push for 50/50 gender representation should take cognisance of the environment and other challenges in the sector.

Dr Colman agreed that there had been progressive movement towards gender equality in the Defence Force, and also agreed that this was a complex process that required an enormous cultural shift, and it needed to be a progressive implementation. However, the Defence Review actually stated very clearly that Parliament should expect to see full gender representation in the sector, to see moves that were ensuring that there was equality between men and women, and every area should be looked at in terms of facilities for women. She also wanted to see more progress on implementing a National Action Plan (NAP) so as to deal with UNSCR 1325. At this stage, South Africa did not have a NAP although throughout the world there were 50 countries with an NAP.

Dr Groenmeyer mentioned that the Defence Review needed to set targets on gender representation, as the Defence Force was still "a closed institution" in the rest of the society and there should be more media coverage which invited and attracted women to the sector. 

Aerospace Maritime Defence (AMD) submission
Mr Dean Mogale, Chairperson, AMD, indicated that the AMD represented the South African Defence Industries (SADI) and, as an Industry Funded Association, it served the common interest of its members. The AMD was represented by 95% of South African industries and association was currently self-funded but had a good relationship with the Department of Trade and Industry (dti), DOD and the Parliamentary Committees and DST.

The main purpose of the AMD was to create an enabling environment for SADI to ensure long-term sustainability locally and internationally, as this would be able to attract export opportunities for the SADI. The mission of AMD was to legitimise activities and representatives of SADI that contributed optimally to national security, industrial and technological objectives. It was also important to ensure that the AMD became the single point of communication through which the DOD could communicate confidentially with the industry.

There was a need for government to secure the future of SANDF by ensuring the proposed funding for the implementation of the Defence Trajectory, as envisaged in the Defence Review, was available. The SANDF should commit to the 40:30:30 budgetary split for Human Resource (HR) cost, operational and capital costs. The Defence Review correctly identified exports as the lifeline to the sustainability of the SADI, and enjoined government to support these exports. Arms Control was a key enabler of successful exports. The AMD would support the creation of a strong Arms Control Agency (spanning Conventional Arms Control, housed in the DOD and Non-Proliferation, housed in the dti, and Small Arms and Explosives, housed in SAPS), as originally envisaged in the first draft of the Defence Review. This was particularly important as it would create a one-stop shop, ensure optimal resource allocation, and reduce turn-around times for permit applications.

He concluded that the Defence Review should look at ways to expedite the creation of the National Defence Industry Council (NDIC) to provide a new dispensation for the management of relations with the defence industry for direct support. There was a need for a “SADI Friendly” acquisition system that deliberately favoured the SADI with clearly understood home market advantages - visibility, flexibility and communication of short, medium and long term planning priorities - along with the envisaged budgetary allocations and schedules.

Discussion
Mr Maynier stated that he was sympathetic to the difficulty of the industry in regard to the three regulatory bodies, and said that trying to build one strong institution made more sense than having three relatively weak institutions. Industries could not afford to experience long delays in receiving permits. However, he enquired where AMD thought that this single body should be located.

Mr Maynier believed that the statement that AMD had a good relationship with the Parliament might be at this stage little more than an aspiration, pointing out that Members of this Committee were often not even invited to the annual Defence Show, something that should be looked into.

Mr Maynier noted that AMD had mentioned that the funding would not increase the strategic directory trajectory as proposed in their submission, and asked then what would be the implication of this to the industry.

Mr Mogale responded that the single body should remain as it was right now, under the Minister in the Presidency, but in line with the DOD. However, the DOD should second and offer a strategy so that whilst the Presidency retained oversight through the Minister in the Presidency, the operational aspect of that organisation must be within the DOD. Primarily, these were the accounting bodies for where the goods were going. He cited an example that if weapons were found in Libya, they should be reported through foreign affairs channels to the DOD.

Mr Mogale said the state of the equipment in the Defence Force was currently ageing and if the budget was not secured or approved then there was likely to be a downward spiral of that equipment. This was a danger for the Defence Force. This had been the case after 1994, when the IP was  moved from the government into private ownership, with those privately-owned companies in turn galvanised by the foreign-owned companies who acquired critical IPs. There was a possibility that this might recur, with more companies closing down and less capabilities being harnessed. The Defence Force had transformed, as was pointed out in the previous presentations, and was now technologically driven. However, sustaining that technology would require extensive research and sustainable funding.

Mr Booi mentioned that the submission made by the AMD was still not clearly defined in terms of what it was suggesting should be amended in the Defence Review, and what exactly AMD wanted from that Defence Review. The industry was a private sector and it was often difficult for Parliament to interfere and control this sector. The SANDF was involved in peacekeeping around the African continent and there was an agreement that the war in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) would be followed by a peace-building process to reconstruct the country. It was disappointing that this did not come out strongly from the AMD as it was an important process for a developmental state like South Africa. It was known that after the SANDF had stabilised the area, returns that should create employment opportunities for the people in war-ravaged countries usually went to the USA, since the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was often involved in building the first schools and clinics. This was an area that the AMD could further look at, especially focusing on how to build capacity.
 

Mr Mogale responded that the AMD had been fighting for recognition for a long time and it was encouraging that the dti now recognised AMD as the industry body and had now established an Export Council together with the AMD, to formally engage with clients to sell the goods at the international level. He stated that it was not the prerogative of the AMD to insist on what the Defence Review should say, as the DOD already knows the capability, mission and objective of the AMD.

Mr Mogale pointed out that the AMD would, however, like to get assistance from the Committee that would ensure that, prior to the incremental budget, the DOD should be asked to explain how that budget would sustain the operation of the industry. The core challenge of the AMD was always around planning, and the industry, whilst planning to survive, also needed to plan in order to be able to grow, and the current budget was not conducive to this. It was also difficult to quantify how the increments in the budget could be implemented in a sustainable manner.

Mr Bongo also wanted more information on what the AMD was expected from the amendment of the Defence Review as was not very clear in the submission.

Mr Mogale responded that the AMD highlighted that the current situation accommodated for  personnel anywhere. However, if there would be a budget increase of 40% for the personnel then the AMD should get at least 30% of the increments, as these increments, over time, would create a possibility of sustaining and providing the defence material. His presentation had highlighted that it was not sustainable for the AMD to depend solely on those increments. There was therefore a suggestion to look at the security cluster as a whole to further augment the revenue that could sustain the defence capability. It was important to improve and fast-track the processes that delayed the exports, which were mostly the securing of the permits and ensuring that goods were on time.

Mr Gamede asked what informed the 40/30/30 budgetary split. The Defence Force, by its nature, was personnel-driven. He wondered if an alteration might not lead to job losses, especially considering the size of the Defence Force in the country.

Mr Mogale responded that the thinking applied at the time was that the increments that were expected to happen were not necessarily in line with increments of physical bodies. The current challenge in the Defence Force was not so much in relation to people, but rather to ageing equipment and the capability to sustain that equipment. The suggestion was that the Defence Review should look at capabilities structural changes, to enhance the ability to sustain better, and for the budget to be made available for that sustainability.

Mr Booi pointed out that it was a generalised statement to claim that there was no capability in the SANDF. The Defence Force was able to deal effectively with peacekeeping missions in the African continent and also had received recognition from the United Nations (UN). It was important to further explore where the 40/30/30 budgetary split would be located within the Defence Force, whether in the landward, aerospace or governance level. He asked, since it was not clear from the presentation, how the AMD currently related to government.  

Mr Mogale apologised for a generalised statement about the capability of the SANDF, and said there was no doubt that the SANDF had done sterling work in the peacekeeping missions in the African continent. AMD was not suggesting that there was no capability in the SANDF, but was rather pointing out that the capability as it currently was was not being sustained and maintained in the way it should be, and this was mainly because of budget constraints.

There was a cordial relationship between the AMD and the government, as pointed out earlier. The dti recognised the AMD as the industry body, and Denel was a member of AMD and it was thus part and parcel of the decisions that the AMD took as an industry building body. Armscor used to be a member of AMD but it was agreed that it was for the best if Armscor step aside, as was part of the acquisition agency for government. There was, however, a concerted effort to ensure that the two industries worked together.

Mr Booi stated that it was already public knowledge that the Defence Force was battling with maintenance and budget constraints. However, the presentation by the AMD was still inadequate to encapsulate the key deficiencies in the capabilities of the Defence Force. 

Mr Mogale responded that he could provide a written response on the key deficiencies of capabilities in the Defence Force, as it was not helpful to mention all these challenges in the Committee.

Mr Maynier requested the AMD to outline specifically the key problems in the industry in dealing with the National Conventional Arms Control Committee (NCACC).

Mr Mogale responded that the most apparent problem facing the AMD related to time, as documents or applications for permits usually took some time to process. AMD believed that there should be means to expedite and fast-track this process to make it more competitive. These delays were caused by a number of factors, including organisational, structural and political problems, and this could be solved by the introduction of an automated system.

Concluding remarks
Mr Motimele thanked all those who made submissions regarding the Defence Review and said there seemed to be an agreement that the Defence Review needed to be amended to deal directly with the current threats, challenges and developments in the Defence Force. All the submissions would be combined in a report which would be considered and adopted on 26 February 2015.

The main challenges seemed to be around funding and the implementation of the policy. The Committee was equally concerned about these challenges, as the Defence Force should be resourced so as to achieve its constitutional mandate. The Defence Force needed to be equipped in a way to attend to the border control and meet its international obligations.

Mr Maynier raised a point of order, indicating that he had tabled a document suggesting an alternative way of dealing with the Defence Review. Although this had been submitted to the Chairpersons on 11 December 2014, there had not been any responses thus far. This document was intended as a counter-proposal to the suggestion to consider and adopt the presented submissions on the 26 February 2015. 

The meeting was adjourned.