Title: OCR Document
Author: Readiris
Last saved by: PC10
Company: I.R.I.S.

SUBMISSION BY (SASFU) South African Security Forces Union

July 2010

RE: DEFENCE AMENDMENT BILL

1. Consultation of Stakeholders

The amendment to the Defence Act should be done in a sober manner that seeks to foster National Interest. National interest is guided by the Constitution of South Africa (Act 108 of 1996). This is the same Constitution that has allowed Military Trade Unions to be formed and joined by the members of the Defence Force. This therefore means that Military Trade Unions are a primary stake holder in the Department of Defence. These unions function legally and are regulated by Chapter XX of the General Regulations of the Defence Act.

It is however not acceptable that a claim is put in the Defence Amendment Bill that all stake holders were consulted whilst the Military Trade Unions were left out.

2. Amendment to section 55 of the Defence Act 42 of2002.

As mentioned already in paragraph 1 above, members of the Defence Force have a right to form and join Military Trade Unions. Any endeavour to temper with this constitutional right is unconstitutional and therefore should not form part of any national legislation. The right to form and join Military Trade Unions implies that a Military Bargaining Council should exist to determine salaries and other issues of common interest affecting soldiers. To amend section 55 of the Defence Act 42 of 2002 is therefore unconstitutional.

3. Defence Force Service Commission

The events of 26 August 2009, in which soldiers marched to Union buildings highlighted huge problems in the Defence Force. Subsequently an interim commission was formed which confirmed the claims that have been made by Military Unions (MTU) for a long time. This means that if there was' a proper bargaining structure in the Defence Force these matters would have been dealt with long time ago.

The current minister of Defence and Military veterance, ms Lindiwe Sisulu has shown her negativity against MTU. It is always legally wrong to establish a legislation based on the attitude of an individual as parliament might be again called for another amendment when another minister takes over in future.

Apart from the fact that the Minister wants to establish a commission that she can control and manipulate as she wishes, our view is that a proper analysis of the present structure of the Defence Force needs to be done without creating a cumbersome structure.

It is our view that the proposed commission will interfere with the duties of both the Chief of the SANDF as well as the Secretary for Defence.

Our suggestion is that the duties of the Chief of Defence as well as the Defence Secretariat must be revised in order for these two institutions to be effective, without introducing the commission. E.g. section 204 of the Constitution calls for

the establishment of a Defence Civilian Secretariat to assist the Political Head of the Defence force to provide civilian oversight. The intention for this oversight is to make sure that soldiers respect the rights of civilians and the constitution. However, the Defence Act makes the Defence Secretary an accounting officer, a duty we think that it should reside with the Chief of Defence.

4. Conclusion

Our view' is that the amendment. to the Act is a rush job that has not been. thought carefully to allow other options in establishing a disciplined military force as per constitutional requirement.

The role of parliament and Military Unions is undermined and that shows disrespect to the SA Constitution.

We therefore wish to be afforded opportunity to make representation during public hearing on this amendment bill.