Hon Chair, hon Minister, hon Deputy Minister, hon members, hon members of the SA National Defence Force, dignitaries and audience here today, it is indeed a privilege to speak on this occasion, because whenever we celebrate Freedom Day, we celebrate veterans. We celebrate the memory of those who have liberated our country. This reminds us of our responsibility to a special class and category of people, people that deserve to be honoured and respected.
My speech here today will focus on that particular area for which the hon Deputy Minister is responsible, that is the military veterans.
I would like to indicate that in the vision of the document, reference is made to the military veterans as, "a dignified, unified, empowered and self- sufficient military veterans' community". That's the vision.
This department's mission is to facilitate delivery and co-ordinate all activities that recognise and entrench the restoration of dignity and appreciation for the contribution of military veterans to our freedom and nation-building; in the words of the executive authority: "to leapfrog the restoration of dignity and entrench appreciation of the contribution of military veterans".
However, the following is stated in the strategic plan, on page 40, clause 3.11: Critical cost drivers for the medium term:
The allocation received from the fiscus was entirely for the development of systems, policies and processes for delivery to military veterans.
By implication, no allocation had been provided for the benefits as espoused in section 5 of the Act. Service delivery programmes will, nonetheless, receive preference over the MTEF period.
Now, this is slightly contradictory to me.
Invoking the provisions of section 26 will require aggressive mobilisation of resources of a minimum of R486 million to R555 million ...
Almost half a billion -
... over the MTEF period, as was determined during the costing of the Military Veterans Bill, 2010.
In the annual performance plan,on page 17, I quote:
Notwithstanding the fact that the current allocation provided by the National Treasury for the 2012-13 MTEF caters only for the development of policies, systems and processes, delivery on the socioeconomic needs of military veterans and service delivery programmes will receive preference.
Again, a contradiction.
On page 18 of the annual performance plan, reference is made to "... a substantial budget will ensue to realise delivery on these benefits ..."
On page 51, Table 17, we read of the high risk, and risk number one says, "insufficient funding has been identified as a possible risk that must be managed over the MTEF". Funds are lacking concerning the following: its entire programme. Every section of the three programmes and its subprogrammes is affected. The impact on output is to invoke the provisions of section 26. What is the risk treatment that we apply? The executive authority must intervene in the cluster meetings of the Medium-Term Expenditure Committees, MTECs. We must solicit the executive authority, secondly, to intervene, or the intervention must encourage Parliament to provide adequate resources to service the mandate.
So, clearly, if we look at these issues that are raised ...