department of military veterans response to public hearings submissions military veterans bill 25...

DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY VETERANSRESPONSE TO PUBLIC HEARINGS SUBMISSIONS

MILITARY VETERANS BILL

25 MAY 2011

11

military veteransDepartment:

Military Veterans

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

AIM

- To brief the Portfolio Committee on Defence on the Department of Military Veterans response to the Public Hearing submissions on the Military Veterans Bill held on 29-31 March 2011.

- DMV appreciates the opportunity to present its response to the PCD with regard to the Public Hearing on the Military Veterans Bill.

- DMV has taken note of the concerns expressed by approximately 14 groups/organizations during the Pubic Hearing.

- DMV further notes and appreciates the submissions made by other State Departments including Transport, Health, Human Settlement and Social Development on the implementation of the Bill in their operational and strategic plans.

- Department has also taken note of issues raised by honourable members of PCD during the preliminary briefing and public hearings.

22


Military Veterans


INTRODUCTION CONT.

- The presentation proposes to deal with issues arising from the hearings that impact directly on the proposed Military Veterans Bill.

- DMV takes note that all parties who made submissions during the Public Hearing support the policy perspective of the Bill.

- Each Party that presented during the public hearings sought to influence the Bill in one direction or another rather than reject its policy objectives, this is very encouraging.

33


Military Veterans


SCOPE

Response

-Section 1

-Section 2

-Section 4

-Section 5

-Section 8

-Section 9

-Section 11

-Section 13

-Section 20

44


Military Veterans


Section 1

- The concern raised relate to the definition of “Military Veterans”. One suggestion is that this definition should include non-military veterans.- Response: This Bill is Military Veterans Bill and deals exclusively with persons or group of persons regarded as military veterans. This is a deliberate policy decision of government of the day. The inclusion of non-military veterans would result in expansion of the scope of the Bill and deviate from the policy stand point. It is our view that auxiliary services personnel must be dealt with in another legislation. As this a policy matter, we therefore recommend that the Bill should not extend its scope to include auxiliary services but restrict itself to military veterans.

55


Military Veterans


Section 1 Cont

The second issue in sec 1 that concerned public was “dishonorable discharge” as used in the definition of Mil Vet

- Response: Bill establishes Appeal Board to attend to issues such as complaints relating to dishonourable discharge. We acknowledge that this has enormous impact as members of former forces may lose their status as mil vet and subsequently forfeit benefits they would have been entitled to had they not been dishonourably discharged. In order to minimise the impact of this and eliminate possibility of unfair discharge, the Appeal

Board will have jurisdiction to review each discharge on a case by case basis. - The third issue raised was the determination and proof of legality of the dependent.

- Response: The Regulations will provide for the requirements of

documentary proof;

66


Military Veterans


Section 1 Cont

- There is a concern about the usage of the word “completed training” in the definition, the understanding is that the training must be completed before one may qualify as mil vet, will this cover those who couldn’t complete the training?

- Response: We accept that this may create confusion as to when one qualifies as far as training is concerned, we therefore propose that the definition be revised to include people who couldn’t complete training for reasons beyond their control e.g injury or disability during training.

- Clarity was sought on the role of mil veterans in SANDF.

Response: Veterans plays no active role in SANDF. Mil Vets no longer render service in SANDF but are former members of SANDF or other former constituent forces.

77


Military Veterans


Sect 1 Cont

-The concern is that the definition may exclude the dependant of the

deceased mil vet in its current form. The following is suggested:

Insertion: or at the time of the military vet’s demise was…

Response: We are of the opinion that the provision should be retained

as it is, it covers the dependants of the Military Veterans after the

commencement of the Act, not at a certain time of the Military Veterans’ life.

88


Military Veterans


Section 1 Cont.

- General Imprecision of the Definition of “mil vet”, the concern is that other military forces may be excluded & that military forces be specified,

- Response: The Policy Frame Work stipulates and the Bill confirms that status of being Mil Vet is conferred by virtue of military participation in conflict/struggle for freedom, and not exclusively by being a member of an military forces. SADF members who integrated and then exited SANDF after 1994 are considered as mil veterans. Rights in the Bill accrue to individual members in their personal capacity, therefore they will qualify as mil vet even if they are no longer members of the former forces.

99


Military Veterans


Section 2

- What is the purpose of the interpretation clause in this Bill?

- Response: The purpose is to assist the reader in interpreting the Act properly so that the reader will know that the status of being Mil vet or being a dependant of Mil Vet does not automatically entitle you to the benefits provided for in the Act as each mil vet or dependent are still to be subject to the means test to determine eligibility to benefits and

the extent of such benefits.

Section 4

- This Section provides that the President is Patron-in-Chief of Military Veterans. The title of the section is Authority of the President, the concern here is that the section seems to make President patron in chief only and does not deal with any authority of the President as the heading suggest.

- Response: We agree with this assertion that the provisions do not address the President’s authority and recommend that the heading of this section be amended to read “Patron-in-Chief’.

Section 5

- This section lists the benefits the Mil Vets and dependants may be entitled to. The first concern is the accrual of benefits, whether benefits are meant for mil vet or their dependants.

- Response: The benefits are for both mil vet and dependants if they satisfy the means test. Both are beneficiaries, but may not qualify for all or every benefit listed in sec 5. Some benefits are applicable to all mil vets e.g honouring and memorialising while others will depend on needs of each mil vet.

1212


Military Veterans


Sec 5 Cont.

- Can mil vet receives military pension or another benefit benefits ito Bill?

- Response: The means test will determine the extent of the benefit, yes the mil veteran may receive a benefit over and above the military pension, and the mil vet may also qualify for other benefits provided for in sec 5 of the Bill over and above the existing military benefit?

1313


Military Veterans


Section 5 Cont.

- Other issue relating to benefit is age, the concern is that the Bill seems to be silent on the issue of age and benefiting.

- Response: Military veteran’s eligibility/qualification for the benefits is not based on age or disability but on means test results. Mil Vets don’t qualify because they are young or old but because they have passed the means test prescribed by Regulations, the same applies to their dependants. We therefore recommend that the status quo remains.

1414


Military Veterans


Section 8

- Sec 8 deals with DG’s function in respect of SANMVA, concern is on 8(3)(a) which provides that mil org is not obliged to join SANMVA

- Response: This provision entrenches the constitutional freedom of association entrenched in sec 18 of the Constitution. Mil organisations have the right to associate with the Ass of their choice. We recommend status quo be retained.

1515


Military Veterans


Section 8 Cont.

- The second issue in sec 8 relates to the recognition of forces, the suggestion is that the Bill must also recognise forces’ mother bodies.

- Response: DMV’s view is that Bill does not speak to political parties directly, but speak to their military forces. Individuals are regarded as mil vet due to their military participation in struggle/political conflict, therefore their status is more historical than their affiliation to political parties, we recommend status quo remain.

1616


Military Veterans


Section 9

- Section 9 deals with the functions of the Association. The concern is that these functions are similar to that of Council in sec 11,

- Response: The concern is noted; functions are not the same, therefore there is no duplications. However, we need to elaborate on the alleged difference!!. We are therefore of the view that the provisions should be retained as they are in both clauses of the Bill.

1717


Military Veterans


Section 10

- Section 10 establishes the Advisory Council on Military Veterans. The proposal from public is that there must be equal representation of the NSF in the Advisory Council

- Response: DMV’s view is that this is not necessary as SANMVA, as an umbrella body of mil vet org represents the mil vet org collectively in the council. Sec 13(1)(b) allocates at least three seats to an Association. It is envisaged that these seats would have been collectively agreed in SANMVA and therefore representative of the mil vets in general.

1818


Military Veterans


Section 13

- Section 13 seeks to provide for appointment of members of the Advisory Council. There seems to be restriction in section 13(2)(a) in that it restricts the membership of the Council to military veterans only.

- Response: DMV is in agreement with the concern and therefore recommend that section 13(2)(a) be amended to remove the restriction.

1919


Military Veterans


Section 20

- Section 20 establishes the Military Vets Appeal Board. The suggestion from Doctors is that there should be a medical appeal board to deal with medical complaints.

- Response: The suggestion is noted, however, we are of the view that the provisions should be retained as it is, since the Appeal Board may consists of multidisciplinary persons including medical profession personnel; therefore the Appeal Board will be able to attend to any matter before it. Where any matter before the Board requires an input of specialists it is for the Board to source that input and advice.

2020


Military Veterans


General

- The overwhelming view of the civil society is that Bill must address the needs of non-military activists and members of the society, i.e victims of human rights abuse, veterans of struggle, auxiliary services, etc. Although the historical context of the proposal is appreciated, the expansion of the scope of the Bill in the proposed manner will extend the reach of the Bill beyond the domain of a mil vets department. The PCD may be aware that govt had in the past set up means to address the broader issue of human rights violations e.g. reparations under the TRC Act etc.

- The rights enshrined in this Bill are “socio-economic” in nature therefore must be achieved progressively depending on the availability of resources. The Bill should therefore be carefully worded not to posit these rights as available for the taking on demand irrespective of the availability of resources. Socio-economic rights are provided for in ss 26-28 of the Constitution.

2121


Military Veterans


department of military veterans response to public hearings submissions military veterans bill 25...

Documents