Speaker, a young soldier returning home to South Africa after the Second World War received a message from the Union Defence Force, part of which reads as follows:
The aftermath of war and the process of readjustment are likely to produce many difficulties and problems. Patience and tolerance will be needed, and the demands upon your courage and spirit of service will remain as great as ever.
This message captures the dignity, respect and care that military veterans should receive in the aftermath of war. But the message also anticipates the many difficulties and problems that military veterans experience in the aftermath of war.
The objective of the Military Veterans Bill is to provide military veterans and their dependants with a wide range of benefits, including pensions, health care and housing, provided, of course, that they pass a means test. We must acknowledge that there are many military veterans, from all military organisations, who are in need. We must and we do have a duty to care for all our military veterans in need, and for that reason we support the objective of the Military Veterans Bill.
The processing of the Military Veterans Bill has been a complete shambles from start to finish. The Deputy Minister, who was responsible for driving the Military Veterans Bill, has been a political disaster. Some months ago, he had a bandage around his arm. But what he really needs is not a bandage around his arm, but a bandage around his mouth. [Interjections.] His public statements that former conscripts who served in the SA Defence Force are not military veterans and therefore not entitled to apply for benefits are simply wrong.
The definition of a "military veteran" is clear. A military veteran includes any South African citizen who rendered military service to any military organisation. [Interjections.] The fact is that former conscripts are military veterans and entitled to benefits, provided they pass a means test. Of course, the reality is that few former conscripts will pass the means test and therefore be eligible to receive benefits. However, they do remain military veterans.
The Deputy Minister must surely recognise that we have a duty to care for all military veterans in need and that his reckless public statements have caused unnecessary division and tension among military veterans. My challenge to the Deputy Minister is that he must do the right thing and tell us that he was wrong and let us all move on.
A Ministerial Task Team on Military Veterans was established to make policy recommendations on military veterans. The task team was soon zooming around the world, costing us a whopping R855 000. Its final report, which some task team members claim never to have seen, was simply not credible and, frankly, a big rip-off. The fact is that members of the task team did not earn the R375 000 in allowances paid to them. My challenge to the task team is this: Do the right thing and give the money back or donate it to military veterans.
The Military Veterans Bill could all too easily become a legislative gateway to massive corruption. There are insufficient legislative safeguards against corruption such as a requirement to prescribe a verification process to determine who is and who is not a military veteran. The Bill also provides for the facilitation of or advice on business opportunities for military veterans. One wonders how long it will be before the Department of Defence and Military Veterans is sucked into a corruption scandal, especially since some military veterans associations are currently being ripped apart by corruption and tender wars. [Interjections.]
The costing of the Military Veterans Bill veered from R7,2 billion through to R6,4 billion and was revised down to R1,6 billion over the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework, MTEF, period. However, the final revised costing of R1,6 billion was hidden from the Portfolio Committee on Defence and Military Veterans. The reason for this is that the objectives of the Bill are not aligned with the costing of the Bill.
The Department of Defence and Military Veterans based the costing on incorrect assumptions. They assumed that there are 56 000 military veterans eligible to apply for benefits, when the broad definition of "military veteran" in the Bill means that there may be up to 850 000 military veterans eligible to apply for benefits. The total additional cost of implementing the Military Veterans Bill is therefore likely to be much greater.
We recognise that there are military veterans from all military organisations who are desperate and in need. We also recognise that we have a duty to care for all military veterans who are in need. However, this Parliament is about to pass a Military Veterans Bill that is based on a policy framework that is not credible and has financial implications that are not affordable. We therefore risk creating a gap in expectations between what the military veterans expect and what the Department of Defence and Military Veterans can deliver. And it is only a matter of time before this gap in expectations explodes on the Minister's political doorstep.
We do support all military veterans who are in need, but we do not support the Military Veterans Bill. We urge the Deputy Minister to go back to the drawing board and make the necessary changes so that we can support the Military Veterans Bill. [Applause.]