2014 Defence Review: Department of Defence briefing

Meeting report

Opening remarks
Ms T Mokwele (EFF – North-West) asked where the Minister and Deputy Minister of Defence were.

Dr Thobekile Gamede, Deputy Director General: Defence Policy, Strategy and Planning, Department of Defence, noted that she reported to the Secretary for Defence. She noted apologies from the Secretary of Defence, who was presently engaged with the Minister of Defence but hoped to join the meeting later. Dr Gamede’s delegation was directly involved in the Defence Review and she was thus able to answer all questions relating to the Defence Review.

Mr M Mhlanga (ANC – Mpumalanga) said that he was still concerned whether the delegation could answer any questions on political matters, since only the Minister or her Deputy could deal with those.

The Chairperson responded that political questions could be taken up with the Minister later.

Mr G Michalakis (DA – Free State) asked whether the Minister or Deputy Minister had been invited to the meeting, and if so, that this must be noted on the record.

The Chairperson replied that the Minister was invited.

Dr Gamede responded that she would make enquiries to the Minister’s office on this point.

Ms Mokwele expressed dissatisfaction at the lack of respect shown to the Committee by the Ministry and repeated her concern that the Committee would be unable to hold the delegation accountable with respect to political issues since the official can only answer questions relating to their offices/responsibilities. She noted that Dr Gamede had admitted her ignorance as to the Minister’s whereabouts. She recalled concerns and concerns which Members raised during plenary over this issue, and remarked that there was an impression that the Minister was undermining Parliament.

Ms T Wana (ANC–Eastern Cape) remarked that Wednesdays are set aside for Cabinet meetings and all ministers are expected to be there. She however expressed support for Ms Mokwele’s concerns, and advised that any apologies should be made in writing.

Ms Mokwele said that Ms Wana did not need to make this remark; proper  notice of this Committee meeting was given to the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and there was enough time to send a representative so that Parliament could fulfil its duty of holding the Executive to account.

Dr Gamede apologised on behalf of the Minister and repeated that the Secretary of Defence would join the meeting later.

Ms G Manopole (ANC – Northern Cape) said that it was disrespectful for both the Minister and Secretary of Defence to be absent at the same time.

The Chairperson clarified that Dr Gamede stated that the Secretary is with the Minister and will join the meeting later.

Department of Defence briefing on the Defence Review 2014
Dr Gamede introduced her delegation, as follows:

Major General Michael Ramantswana, Chief of Military Policy, Strategy and Planning
Brigadier General John Gibbs, member of the Implementation Project Team of the Defence Review
Mr Tendai Dumbutshena, Head of Research and Policy
Brigadier General LE Gardner, Director of Military Strategy
Mr Nick Sendall, Chief Director of Defence Policy
Mr Dumisani Dladla, Chief Director of Strategic Planning
Mr Siphiwe Dlamini, Head of Communications
Mr Peter Nkabinde, Parliamentary Liaison Officer for the MoD
Mr Reggie Marim, Parliamentary Liaison Officer

Mr Dumisani Dladla, Chief Director: Strategic Planning, Department of Defence, identified that strategic leadership, funding, personnel renewal, organisational renewal, capability renewal, defence industry and technology, and defence commitments were the priorities identified by the Minister for 2014 and 2015.  To achieve these aims, the MoD constituted a Defence Review Implementation Project Team, to produce this Defence Review (the Review).

The Review comprises five milestones, whose aim is to:
- Arrest the decline in defence capability
- Rebalance the defence forces
- Capacitate the defence forces
- Respond to challenges
- Limit war

The Department of Defence (DoD) had used 2016/2016 as a year of planning, with implementation to begin on 1 April 2016. The specific approaches were that it had:
- Developed a project schedule to ensure logical and systematic approach to development in both long and short terms.
- Signed the Defence Planning Instruction in August 2015
- Appointed two permanent planning teams
- Provided two main work packages to run simultaneously with two permanent planning teams

Mr Dladla proceeded to explain the Department’s project planning deliverables, as well as the timeline, which is planned to be completed by May 2017 (see attached presentation for full details). He explained several short term achievements of the MoD. The short-term achievements in personnel are that a Security and Defence Studies Programme (SDSP) would be offered at a Master’s degree level, to begin in the Defence College. The DoD had reworked the officer development path and the NCO development path. It was expanding the capacity of the Military Academy as the basis to migrate to the Defence Academy. This included development of a new degree on cyber warfare. A cyber warfare strategy development was in progress. There was renewed focus on the University Reserve Training Programme and an emphasis on personnel development

The short-term achievements in organisation were described. Planning teams commenced work from 1 August 2015. The DoD was already in a position to influence and add to the 16/17 Annual Performance Plan (APP). Planning teams were verifying the sequencing of interventions. In relation to the organisational renewal, there was a new military strategy being developed. The Force Design options were a prerequisite to the Force Structure in advanced stage, and there would be simulation with Centre for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) to test organisational combat readiness.

The short-term achievements in sustainability were set out. The National Defence Industry Council (NDIC) was to be launched on 3 March 2016. There was an accelerated armament acquisition process. The Armscor Strategy was approved by the Plenary Defence Staff Council (PDSC) for presentation to a higher authority

The short-term achievements in equipment included a capability development process being put in place. There was a project for ambulance and fleet replacement and maintenance, for improved serviceability of vehicles in place. The DoD had assisted the aviation sector with recovery of aircraft and capacity building in the SA Air Force. The DoD was intending to use its own capacity for maintenance and repair of Samil vehicles

The short-term achievements in doctrine were plans put in motion to achieve the stated milestones.

The short-term achievements in facilities were also described. The DoD intended to return the control of the dockyard to the SA Navy, and this was already in progress. An upgrade of the Naval Station Durban was under way. A Memorandum of Understanding on the function transfer of the defence endowment had been put in place and there were various research and development projects into technology force multipliers that were also under way.

The short-term achievements in briefings to oversight committees included the briefings to Parliament on 27 November 2015.

Overall, the main challenge facing the MoD and DoD was to arrest the decline in force capability. Overcoming this challenge would, however, be dependent on increased defence appropriation.

Discussion
Mr Michalakis expressed his frustration again that Members were unable to question the Minister on funding, and be told how the Ministers of Defence and Finance may have discussed the issues. He questioned the rationale for the selection of countries partnering in the training of military personnel, especially Cuba, and asked if this was a political or strategic decision. If it was the latter, then he wanted to know what advantages or lessons Cuba could hold for the South African military.

Mr Mhlanga questioned the timeline of the Defence Review. He wanted to know the budget, the milestones, the timeframe, and the implementation. He requested clarity on the areas experiencing decline in the armed forces, ambiguities in the Defence Review over funding, and the measures being taken to address the challenges. He also asked how often the project management team meets.

A Committee Member queried why the Defence Review failed to mention military veterans and asked if there would be benefits to them from the Review.

Ms B Engelbrecht (DA – Gauteng) congratulated the delegation for giving a succinct presentation of complex issues. She too requested to be apprised of the causes of decline in the MoD, the history of funding models, and what was in place at the moment.

Mr S Thobejane (ANC – Limpopo) remarked that there was still much uncertainty in the Defence Review, especially the deliverables. He questioned the DoD’s budget, and expressed concern at receiving aid from allies, noting that “there is no such thing as a free lunch” in international military relations.

Mr M Mohapi (ANC – Free State) also welcomed the presentation. However, he expressed concern at its vagueness (citing slide 15 as one example). He got the impression that this presentation was an appeal for funding. However, this appeal was not made in a clear manner, nor linked to identifiable areas. Most of the issues highlighted were vague, notably the exit mechanism for service personnel. He noted that the Minister had appeared before the NCOP recently and expressed satisfaction regarding retention of skills and expertise. Her responses there contradicted the concerns set out in this presentation. For this reason, it would have been preferable had the Minister been present here to clarify this contradiction.

Mr Mohapi also expressed concern over institutional safety, particularly in view of threats to cyber security, and asked why a cyber security strategy was still apparently being developed when the nation was already facing serious cyber warfare threats. He noted that a question was put to the Minister in plenary on the previous day, over the alleged cyber invasion of the MoD. He reiterated the absence of clarity around the challenges. After noting national austerity measures, he requested clarity on the MoD’s own austerity measures on budgetary constraints.

Ms Wana welcomed the presentation. She asked when the cyber warfare strategy was adopted and when it would be presented to the Committee. She sought clarity on staff shortage in the DoD and the approach to recruitment from universities. She also requested to know the number of the DoD or Ministry’s strategic partners and what the MoD stands to gain from these partners. She noted that Cuba and Russia are allies of leading nations.

The Chairperson asked the presenters to explain the allusion to “an accountability and delegation regime that eliminates the current obstacles that inhibit effective command and control.”. He suggested that the delegation must be transparent, but should exercise caution also to ensure that the correct information would be conveyed.

Dr Gamede promised not to mislead Parliament. She responded that, at staff level, the DoD outlined its budgetary requirements, and these were conveyed then via the Minister of Defence  to the Minister of Finance. She noted, in answer to Mr Mhlanga, that the deliverables stated are those that can be executed within the current budget. In relation to training, she asserted that the armed forces are capable of protecting the nation, and training is conducted on a needs basis. However, the DoD needs parliamentary support in engaging with National Treasury. The intention of this presentation was not to emphasise funding. The MoD was working on finding alternative sources of funding for the Defence Review. However, it does not intend to become a foreign-sponsored defence force, or to beg foreign governments for funds. Examples of how alternative funding can be sourced would include leasing out conference centres to other government departments.

She noted that the project management team used to meet frequently. Now, it meets monthly or on a needs basis.

She said that military veterans are not discussed in the Defence Review, but will be addressed by Brig Gen Gibbs. Overall, funding is declining. Whilst there may appear to be ambiguities in the presentation, none of these were deliberate and they would be explained also by Gen Gibbs. Exit mechanisms for service personnel were under way and would be presented when ready. The Minister was right in saying that military welfare is satisfactory and this was supported by a number of strategies. Some of them are technical allowances, and there are also occupational salary dispensation grants. Teams are looking at identified challenges, such as retention strategy and medical issues.

General Ramantswana explained that the milestones in the presentation are markers of plans and progress in core and non-core items.

Brig Gen Gibbs stated that the issue of military veterans was not included in the brief for the Defence Review. The oversight probably arose over the confusing roles of the Department of Military Veterans and Department of Defence within the overarching MoD. The analysis done for this briefing was made with historical budget allocations to the MoD in mind. In real terms, there had been a decline in allocations to the MoD when seen against the real value of the rand. Over the next twenty years, the Defence budget would needs to be doubled up from its current figures, in order to meet inflation and the nation’s defence needs. This would require a broad estimate of a 5% annual increase in the defence budget, over the next 20 years.

Dr Gamede asked Mr Dumisani Dladla, Director of Strategic Management, to answer the question on areas of serious decline without compromising combat readiness.

Mr Dladla explained the context for areas of decline. He stated that soldiers are deployed on UN missions and require equipment to match UN levels. The defence force personnel is ageing and thus the whole Force needs to have the capability for rejuvenation in skills and training. The Defence Review showed the areas in decline in more detail than the examples given here.

He commented that the strategic partners of the MoD are products of political decisions beyond the delegation.

In answer to the question on accountability, Mr Dladla then explained that the MoD has three basic role players: the Minister, the Secretary of Defence (who is responsible for accounting, governance, and legal policy matters), and the Chief of the SA National Defence Force, who commands the armed forces. The challenge is to create an environment where they can all play their roles. For example, the Constitution says that the commitment of forces is under the authority of the President. However, in order, practically, for the SANDF to be committed, all three players must be involved. If their roles are not well defined, there would be bound to be friction. The accounting and command relations regime seeks to resolve this dilemma.

The Chairperson asked what the obstacles around this regime are.

Mr Dladla replied that the challenge (although he would not go so far as to call them obstacles) is that if the Commander in Chief directs the defence forces to operate in a particular country, a liaison happens between the Commander in Chief and the SANDF commander, which involves a red line. But that red line must take into account the realities of financial accounting – and those are presented by the Secretary of Defence to Parliament, which in turn  constitutes a green line. It is the challenges around all these lines that inspired the DoD to set out the operational guidelines in a policy document.

Mr Mohapi requested Dr Gamede to shed light on austerity measures.

Dr Gamede explained that austerity measures are being followed, using exemptions allowed in the system, areas of saving, cuts in spending, making facilities available for income, and other initiatives.

A Member asked how personnel are recruited. He wanted to know how the Defence Review’s milestones are aligned with the National Development Plan and how military veterans were treated in the budget.

Dr Gamede requested that the question of how military veterans benefit from the budget could be put in writing as she did not have enough information with her to answer it. She noted that the recruitment policy is guided by the Public Service Act. Where the relevant skills are not obtained through the normal recruitment process, then the DoD may resort to head-hunting.

Gen Ramantswana stated that the SANDF tried to build internal personnel through skills training. Recruitment was done in all provinces through adverts. This was followed by interviews and training, after a shortlisting that takes into account racial demographics.

A Member expressed concern over unemployment and levels of recruitment. He requested whether recruitment drives are taken to schools, and again concern was expressed that the Minister was not there to answer the questions.

Dr Gamede promised that she would feedback on this point to the Minister. .

A member of the delegation answered that on Armed Forces Day, the DoD would run awareness campaigns in schools about careers available in the military. There were also career fairs in universities from time to time.

Brig Gen Gibbs explained that the reserve training programme was started as a pilot project a few years ago by the Minister and has proved very successful. It seeks to attract recruits from at least one university from each of the provinces. It takes undergraduates from universities and trains them in junior leadership and basic military skills, whilst they are still studying. Following their graduation, they are absorbed in either the regular military or the reserve corps. The first set of people trained in this way were presently awaiting their commission, following their graduation.

A Member repeated the question whether the Defence Review was aligned with the National Development Plan (NDP).

Dr Gamede responded that it is aligned with the NDP.

Mr Nick Sendall, Chief Director: Defence Policy, DoD added that there is alignment both at the level of the chairpersons of the NDP and the Defence Review and the working groups.

Mr Mohapi  insisted that the mere fact of parallel arrangements did not mean alignment. He advised Dr Gamede to return with better information if she did not have it now.

Dr Gamede agreed that parallel structures did not automatically mean alignment, and said that she would expand on this in writing.

Ms B Engelbrecht thanked the delegation, on behalf of the whole Committee, for presenting complex challenges in a succinct manner.

The meeting was adjourned.