Military Veterans’ Matters: briefings by Departments of Defence & Finance & Committee Algerian Study Tour Report
Defence
09 March 2007
Meeting Summary
A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.
Meeting report
JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON DEFENCE
9 March 2007
MILITARY VETERANS’ MATTERS: BRIEFINGS BY DEPARTMENTS OF DEFENCE AND FINANCE
& COMMITTEE ALGERIAN STUDY TOUR REPORT
Chairperson: Mr S Montsitsi (ANC)
Documents handed out:
Presentation on
the Special Pensions Fund
Presentation on the
Non-Statutory Forces Pension Fund
SUMMARY
The presentation on the Special Pensions Fund covered requirements for
eligibility and exclusion, the extension of new benefits under the Act; the
closing of applications to the fund and the numbers of people who had applied,
been approved or been rejected. Members felt unhappy with the requisite that
applicants had to have been 35 years of age by 1996 in order to benefit from
the fund. A second issue was the cut off date for applications, which Members
repeatedly questioned. Members also sought clarity as to how pensions were
calculated; who qualified and who were excluded.
The
presentation
on the Non-Statutory Forces Pension Fund covered eligibility criteria; the
benefit structure and member options. Statistics on applications were also provided. The
discussion focused on the ways in which the calculations were made and the
Members’ concerns that the Fund was not actually
providing access to pension monies for members of the non-statutory forces,
when that was its express purpose. Members also felt that the statutory
requirements for eligibility were unfair as they created additional hardship
for applicants. The Committee agreed that it needed to further engage with the
Act and the actuarial implications at a later meeting before it could make a
detailed evaluation.
MINUTES
Special Pensions Fund: Briefing
Mr Donny
Jurgens, CEO, Special Pensions Fund briefed the Committee on the purpose of the
Special Pensions Fund (SPF). The Fund was created by Act 69 of 1996 and aimed
to provide a pension to people who were fully involved in the struggle by their
active memberships of either Umkhonto We Sizwe (MK) or Apla and who had thus
made sacrifices in the cause of establishing a democratic constitutional order.
The presentation covered requirements for eligibility and exclusion, the
extension of new benefits under the Act; the closing of applications to the
fund and the numbers of people who had applied, been approved or been rejected.
The basic requirements for eligibility were that that
the applicant must be a South African citizen or entitled to citizenship and
must have been unable to build a pension for at least five years due to
involvement of those five years in the struggle. In addition, the applicant had
to have had full-time involvement in a political organisation, been banished or
restricted, or must have been imprisoned for a political offence or detained.
Families of applicants who died as a result of full-time involvement in the
struggle also qualified. A further requirement was that the applicant had to
have been 35 years or older on 1 December 1996.
The pension had now had new benefits added it to; including funeral benefits,
spouses' pension, an orphan's pension and the possibility for reconsideration
of decisions.
In terms of the statistical overview, there had been 54 515 applications
received to date, and 4 618 that were received after the closing date of 31
December 2006. In total, 19 366 have been approved; the remainder were either
not approved, outstanding, or on review.
Discussion
Ms P
Daniels (ANC) asked why the Act only applied to people who were older than 35
on 1 December 1996.
Mr Jurgens explained that this was a requirement of the Act. He added that on
two occasions, in November 2005 and in 2006, resolutions had been passed in
Parliament that something had to be done to accommodate those who had been
under 35 at that date. Despite these parliamentary resolutions, there had been
no amendments in this regard. Mr Jurgens expressed his wish again for
Parliament to take up this matter.
Ms Daniels and Mr J Schippers (ANC) asked questions relating to the calculation
of pensions.
Mr Jurgens explained that different amounts were paid to people depending on
their ages. In the 35-49 age group, the amount was R6 000 a year, no matter how
many years were spent in service. From 50 years old the person would be paid
R12 000 a year plus R1 200 a month for each year of service. The 65-plus age
group received R24 000 a year plus R1 200 for each year of service.
Ms Daniels asked about polygamous situations in so far as widows and orphans
were concerned. Mr Jurgens explained that a divorced wife was excluded, but if
two or more wives in an existing polygamous marriage were still alive, they
each received 50% of the pension. Children under 18, and children in full-time
study who were orphans were each entitled to an equal share of the pension.
Mr Schippers asked whether the CEO was aware that in the Northern Cape, it was
generally believed that soldiers in the Old Cape Corps and World War II
veterans were eligible. He and Ms Daniels asked what had been done about
communicating eligibility requirements around the country.
Mr Jurgens replied that he was aware of the situation in the Northern Cape, and
that in fact neither WWII veterans nor any members of the former SANDF were
eligible. The SPF was specifically for people who fought for democracy in the
struggle.
On the question of communication and outreach, Mr Jurgens added that his
department had undertaken road shows throughout the country, had regional
offices, had staff in every office to assist applicants, had printed one
million leaflets in 5 languages explaining the Fund and the application
procedure; had held workshops with political parties on the Act explaining how
to apply so that party members could help their colleagues.
Mr Schippers asked to be directed to the local office.
Ms Nobono Sonto of the Western Cape Regional Offices gave the phone number 021
424 8220/1 and address as 7th Floor, 106 Adderley Street, Cape Town.
Mr Jurgens promised to furnish the committee with a full list of regional
offices and contact details as well as the newsletter within the next two
working days.
Mr V Ndlovu (IFP), Mr Schippers and Mr R Sonto (ANC) asked about the number
of applications received, approved and
outstanding.
Mr Jurgens explained that a large number of applications (26% or 13 917) were
outstanding because most had come in shortly before the cut-off date and
therefore there had not been time to review them properly. There were 2 628
applications waiting for review, which represented 39%. This was owing to a
lack of capacity on the Board to deal with the applications. He explained that
the statutory term of the Board was ending in March 2007. The Board would now
be expanded in order to increase capacity. The services of the two advocates
who served as full-time Board members would also be retained on a consultancy
basis.
Mr Jurgens explained the criteria in regard to the number of applications now
approved. An applicant, in order to qualify, must have been in service for at
least 5 years; have been over 35 years of age on 1 December 1996 and be able to
provide sufficient supporting documentation to prove his or her full
involvement.
Mr Sonto asked whose responsibility it was to see that applicants were not
disqualified purely because they had not been able to fill in the necessary
forms correctly.
Mr Jurgens explained that during the struggle period, records were not kept for
obvious reasons, so applicants would be asked to prove their case on the
strength of supporting evidence, which must then be verified by the Fund’s
researchers. The primary onus was on the applicants to find the supporting
information. He said that the process was lengthy because the investigators had
to do the job properly. In some cases this had not been done, and the Scorpions
were now beginning an investigation into fraudulent applications.
Mr Sonto asked about a possible extension to the closing date for applications.
Mr Jurgens said that the date was set out in the Act’s Schedules and could not
be altered. The cut off date did not apply to any applications already in the system,
which were in the process of being processed or being reviewed.
Mr S Montsitsi (ANC) asked about the extent to which the various departments
dealing with pensions liaise. The question was not specifically addressed.
Non-Statutory Forces Pension Fund: Briefing by Government Employees Pension
Fund(GEPF)
Mr
Joel Ramatlhape, Chief Information Officer, GEPF told the Committee that the
aim of the Non Statutory Forces Pension Fund (NSFPF), which was created by an
Act of Parliament, was to create equity for those members of the non-statutory
forces who had later integrated into the SANDF or become a public service
official on or before 31 March 2002. It was recognised that these people,
because they had been in the struggle armies, had had no access to pensions
savings during those years.
The presentation set out the eligibility criteria; the benefit structure and
member options. Statistics on applications were also provided.
It was summarised that in order to qualify for the Fund, a member must have
served in either MK or Apla. Calculations were made from a starting point of 16
years of age, even if the member was younger when he or she joined. Members
with less than 10 years of service qualified for 50% of the pension, while
members with more than 10 years qualified for 100% of the pension. The proviso
to qualification was that members must meet all their financial obligations by
paying back the special benefits amount already received. Members could however
opt instead to reduce their period of service instead of paying back monies
already received. In terms of the statistical overview, the total number of
NSFPF members was 21 365, of which 7 015 had now exited the forces. A total of
14 171 quotes had been generated, of which 973 have been paid benefits in terms
of the NSFPF.
Discussion
The
majority of the questions posed by Mr Montstitsi, Mr Ndlovu and Mr Schippers
centred on the fact that, in order to be eligible for the Fund, a member must
either pay back monies which he/she had received on being demobilised, as well
as any monies received as a Special Pension, as well as 5% of the members
salary as it was in 2002. These three members all felt this was grossly unfair.
Mr Montsitsi said that the white members of the SANDF were not treated in this
way.
Major-General Solomon Mollo, Chief of Human Resources Support, SANDF agreed
that it was very difficult to understand the formulas relating to the NSFPF,
and said it was very sad to sometimes have to explain to applicants that not
only would they not get anything from the Fund, but that they owed the Fund
money if they wanted to join.
Mr Ramatlhape explained the reason for the way the Fund had been structured. A
pension fund was normally created by a contribution on the part of the
employer, and a contribution of on the part of the member, which totalled 7.5%
of salary. In the case of the NSFPF, those members who reintegrated into the
public service had already received the State’s contribution in the form of a
lump sum demobilisation amount, together with a Special Pensions Fund lump sum
or monthly payment. Therefore the amounts that those members applying to the
NSFPF were obliged to pay back was in fact what they would have paid out of
their salaries (as the member contribution) if they had been contributing to a
pension fund at the time they were in MK or Apla. If there is no payback of
this contribution by the applicant, it meant that the applicant would receive
the State’s contribution twice, and would not have made any contribution to the
Fund himself.
Mr Sonto stated that people who had received special pensions and
demobilisation money were now enduring great hardships in an effort to pay back
the Fund, so that they could then qualify for a pension from the Fund.
Mr Ramathlape summarised the various options that people in such a situation
could choose from. He set out that they could either choose to meet all the
financial obligations required (by paying back all monies owed), or they could
choose to have the number of years of service reduced by an amount equivalent
to the financial obligations, or they could not opt for the NSF fund at all,
but rather remain with the Special Pensions Fund.
Mr Schippers asked whether benefits were taxed, and whether GEPF would assist
people who qualified for NSF to get surety at banks.
Ms N Dlamini asked what happened to people who were discharged, for whatever
reason, and what would be the case of a person who had been discharged
dishonourably but who then won their case against SANDF
These questions went unanswered as members grappled with the discussion above.
Mr Sonto asked how many people had been successful in their applications to the
NSF.
The Chairperson replied that it was less than 1 000 out of 21 000.
The Committee agreed that it needed additional documentation in order to
properly evaluate the Fund.
The Chairperson commented that the Committee was not convinced that the NSFPF
was actually helping the non-statutory force members. He said that most people
could not repay the contribution and that, as representatives of the public,
the Committee would like to review the pension system with a view to answering
the question of whether it was being effective in levelling the playing field. He suggested
that the Committee would need additional documentation to properly evaluate the
Fund.
There was general consensus in the Committee that the Chairperson’s suggestion
be followed.
The meeting was adjourned
Audio
No related
Documents
No related documents
Present
- We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting
Download as PDF
You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.
See detailed instructions for your browser here.