Chairperson, hon members, the Special Pensions Amendment Bill before the House today extends the pensions and funeral benefits provided for under the Special Pensions Act of 1996 to a wider group of deserving persons and their survivors.
The House will recall that the Special Pensions Act, Act 69 of 1996, gave effect to section 189 of the Interim Constitution of 1993 in that it provides for the payment of pensions to persons who made sacrifices or served the public interest in establishing a nonracial, democratic constitutional order and, as a result, were unable to or prevented from providing for pensions for a significant period, and for the repayment of certain benefits to their survivors.
Amendments to the Act were passed again in 1998, 2003 and 2005. The amendments primarily increased benefits, improved accessibility of benefits and addressed technical and implementation difficulties.
Despite these amendments, however, inequities remain a cause for concern in the treatment of pensioners and survivors. The Special Pensions Amendment Bill is aimed at alleviating and, where possible, removing these inequities within available resources whilst remaining true to the spirit and intent of section 189 of the Interim Constitution.
The Bill contains three significant amendments to achieve this. Firstly, an amendment is proposed to extend the right to a pension to persons who were thirty years of age on 1 December 1996, but not yet thirty-five years of age. This will be paid retrospectively from 1 April 2001, which means that it will be paid with effect from the year before a recipient would have turned thirty-five.
The revised age criterion of thirty is informed by the fact that in qualifying for a pension, an applicant would have had to be at least nineteen in 1985. The age of nineteen in '85 appears to be reasonable, taking into account that in general working people typically begin providing for a pension at about the age of twenty-five and often later.
It should be noted that applications for this benefit must be made by 31 December 2010. It's clearly necessary to expedite this process because the longer the delays in dealing with these matters, the greater the risk of loss of information, contestation about entitlement and exposure of the fiscus to fraudulent applications.
Secondly, the Bill introduces a monthly pension and a funeral benefit for the surviving spouses and orphans of, firstly, persons who receive the survivor's lump sum benefit in terms of the Special Pensions Act because of the death of a person during the struggle; and secondly, persons who were thirty but under thirty-five on 1 December 1996 and who died prior to the date on which the amending Act takes effect. The qualifying spouse would often be entitled to receive these benefits on application, and if the application is approved, from the date on which the application was made.
Thirdly, an amendment to Schedule 3 of the Act that provides for the levels of pensions payable, is also proposed. The amendment clarifies the amount that will be paid to persons in the various age categories.
The Act originally drafted provisions for three levels of pensions up to the age of sixty, dependent on age as at 1 December 1996. The amendment will now allow persons aged between thirty and fifty in December '96 to migrate to the fifty to sixty-five category, once they attain the age of fifty, and for persons in the fifty to sixty-five category on 1 December '96 to migrate to the sixty-five and older category, once they have attained the age of sixty-five.
The anticipated local cost associated with the amendments is R3,7 billion in net present-value terms. The cost associated with the amendments refunded through annual appropriations over the next three years is expected to amount to roughly R500 million a year.
Finally, the Bill proposes several amendments to improve on the administration of the Act. National Treasury is made responsible for administering the Act, and a new appeals board is provided for. The Minister is further empowered to designate another department, government component or public entity to administer the Act in the place of National Treasury, should this be deemed appropriate.
In closing, let me reiterate that the purpose of the Special Pensions Act is to provide for the payment of a pension to persons who've made sacrifices or served the public interest in establishing a nonracial, democratic constitutional order and as a result were unable to or prevented from providing for a pension for a significant period and for the payment of certain benefits to their survivors.
It is trusted that this Bill enhances the purpose and honours the intended spirit of the Interim Constitution that led to the Special Pensions Act.
Again it sounds like a record now, but I'd like to convey my sincerest thanks and that of the Deputy Minister and the department to the Portfolio Committee on Finance, under the chairpersonship and steady hand of the hon Nhlanhla Nene. I would, on this occasion, also like to extend our very sincere appreciation to hon H Fazzie, who attended the hearings on this matter with so much diligence, with his cane in hand.
The committee constantly provides insightful views of the piece of legislation placed before it for consideration.
I hereby request that the House pass the Special Pensions Amendment Bill, 2008. Thank you. [Applause.]
Comrade Chair, Ministers, Deputy Ministers present, comrades, colleagues and fellow South Africans, we have come a long way with this Bill. Indeed, the road ahead looks good to the deserving activists of our revolution, whose sacrifices can never be equated with money of any kind. The freedom for which they fought so hard is a priceless gem.
We are talking of comrades, the bulk of whom are going to be beneficiaries, and those of our veterans whose surviving spouses will also benefit from these amendments. Our Constitution's preamble affirms this role by calling for the recognition of the injustices of our past and the honouring of those who suffered for justice and freedom in our land.
Furthermore, our principal Special Pensions Act of 1996 confirms that the special pension is paid to persons who made sacrifices or served the public interest and the cause of establishing a democratic constitutional order.
These are the Young Lions of President O R Tambo; some of whom survive while others are no more. I speak here of Andrew Zondo, Nunu Kheswa, Ivan Parage, Emma Sathekge, Bongani Khumalo, Thlabane Mogashoa, Livingstone and Nomfanelo Ntlokwana, Titi Mzimazi and Boyce Gcina, all of whom are children of our mother, Mama Gcina. The list is too long to mention all those who paid the supreme price for our freedom.
They all declared: "Freedom or death. Victory is certain." Lest we forget, Leader of the Opposition, we must not make the mistake of thinking that we shall forget our history. Yes, we have forgiven, but we have not forgotten the days when Judge Raymond Leon, the father of our own hon Tony Leon, sentenced some of these Young Lions to suffer and die, as a result of his decisions as a judge. We shall never forget the actions of the army and police captains.
Chairman, on a point of order: I am not at all sure that what the hon member is saying is parliamentary. He is calling into question the verdict of a judge and I do not believe that that is parliamentary. I'd urge you to look at the records and see whether that is right.
We will look at Hansard and come back to the House. Please continue.
We have forgiven, but not forgotten the days when Judge Leon, the father of hon Tony Leon, sentenced some of these Young Lions. They suffered and died as a result of his decisions.
Hon Johnson, can you please withdraw that until the ruling is given?
Until the ruling is given, Chair? We shall never forget the action.
Hon Johnson, I am addressing you and I am asking you to withdraw.
I withdraw until the ruling is given.
Chair, on the same point, can I ask what the exact point of order is, in terms of which Rule the hon member from the DA is rising.
Hon Masutha, we will look at the Hansard and come back to the House. Please continue, hon member.
We shall never forget the actions of the army and police captains and colonels that came from some of the members of the DA. They did exactly what the other people have done to the Young Lions of our country. Lest we forget, history shall judge us harshly. Soon President Mbeki will be signing this Bill into law and thus giving effect to an exchange of money from the national fiscus to potential beneficiaries, especially the younger generation. The net effect of this exercise must mean real change in the lives of your broader families and nothing else. Once again, our ANC-led government and Parliament declare, in this year of mass mobilisation to build a caring society, that indeed we care for our cadres who fought for and brought about our freedom.
Fellow South Africans, the demobilised at the TRC and the earlier beneficiaries of special pension experiences have left telling memories to these poor families. These must be lessons for us as we are about to apply that we save through government retail bonds, Sasol's Inzalo and Vodacom's pending BEE public offer, among other things. Whilst we are naturally expected to meet our basic, urgent needs, we live in tough times where the interest rates are high and the food prices are skyrocketing. Our message is very simple: Let us respect our money and our families who are expected to benefit from this special pension.
In conclusion, comrades, as the process shall be opening up applications from those who are between 30 and 35 years of age, we shall be expected to be watchdogs. This we shall do in order to avoid any more fraud, which could land us in prison, as has been the case in the recent past. Zero tolerance shall be applied. The ANC supports this Bill. [Applause.]
Mr Chairman, I must start off by saying that it's actually regrettable that the hon Johnson has really impacted on the legal framework of South Africa, which has always been very highly regarded by the rest of the world. It's shocking that he's attacking the Bench in that sense.
We've heard that the principal Act provided for pension benefits to those who, amongst other things, have made sacrifices in the process of establishing a nonracial, democratic constitutional order, but who were not in a position to provide for pension benefits for a significant period.
The Act provided that only persons 35 years and older on 1 December 1996 were entitled to such a pension. Inequities, however, remain a concern to survivors and dependants and the objective of this Bill, amongst other things, is to provide benefits to a wider group of beneficiaries.
During the course of the public hearings, however, it was evident that several veteran associations still do not believe that the amending Bill goes far enough. In particular, they raised concerns over the administration of the existing benefits and suggested that deserving recipients were still being excluded. They pointed out that it has proved harder than previously anticipated to reintegrate ex-combatants into productive roles within society, giving post-traumatic stress disorders and educational gaps as reasons.
The Bill seeks primarily to extend the pension and funeral benefits to those ex-combatants who were 30, but not yet 35 on 1 December 1996. Many commentators made strong submissions to extend the pension benefits even further, but keeping in mind that the original qualifying age was 40 and that any benefit under this Bill will be retrospective to 1 April 2001, the committee and National Treasury were of the opinion that sufficient provisions had been made, based on the fact that any applicant would have had to be at least 19 years old in 1985.
The benefits deriving from this Bill also provide for surviving spouses and orphans. The Bill also provides for improved administration arrangements, including powers to the Minister to make National Treasury or any other department or public entity responsible for administering the Act.
Alhoewel die DA nie ongevoelig is vir die omstandighede van die geaffekteerdes en die meriete van hulle eise nie, is ons tog bekommerd oor die volgende: gaan die groepe nou tevrede wees of gaan ons onder 'n nuwe ANC-regering verdere eise in hierdie verband kry? Die beraamde huidige waarde van benodigde bykomende fondse is reeds R3,7 miljard, wat noodwendig in die toekoms sal toeneem.
Die huidige waarde van die konsepwetgewing se implikasies word geraam op R6,86 miljard. Dit is onseker tot wanneer voorsiening gemaak moet word en wat die impak hiervan op die fiskus in die toekoms gaan wees. Daar is ander groepe wat ook nie voorsiening kon maak vir soortgelyke pensioen- en begrafnisvoordele nie. Hoe regverdig die Regering dit teenoor diesulkes, of is die bedoeling dat slegs diegene wat deel van die struggle was, bevoordeel word?
Suid-Afrika toon l meer die karaktertrekke van 'n welsynstaat en die implikasies van hierdie wetsontwerp kan teenstrydig wees met geloofwaardige internasionale advies oor wat nodig is om ons ekonomie uit sy huidige kommerwekkende stand te red. Die vraag moet gestel word oor die volhoubare bekostigbaarheid terwyl groei in die ekonomie terselfertyd benodig word.
Suid-Afrika moet 'n land vir al sy mense wees. Hy moet oopgestel wees vir optimale geleenthede vir alle gemeenskappe ongeag hul ras, geslag en politieke affiliasies. Ons vertrou dat die meriete van 'n saak regeringsondersteuning vanuit die fiskus sal lei en nie noodwendig huidige of vervlo politieke affiliasies nie; en ook dat die volhoubare en billike finansile las op die belastingbetalers in aanmerking geneem sal word. Ongeag hierdie kwalifikasies sal die DA die wetgewing steun. [Tyd verstreke.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Although the DA is not insensitive to the circumstances of the affected persons and the merits of their demands, we are nevertheless concerned about the following: are the groups now going to be satisfied or are we going to get more demands in this regard under a new ANC government? The estimated current value of the additional funds required is already R3,7 billion, which will necessarily increase in the future.
The value of the implications of the draft legislation is currently estimated at R6,86 billion. It is not clear until when provision must be made and what the impact of this will be on the fiscus in the future. There are other groups that also could not make provision for similar pension and funeral benefits. How does the government justify its position to these people, or is the intention that only those people who were part of the struggle should benefit?
South Africa is increasingly displaying the characteristics of a welfare state and the implications of this Bill could be contradictory to credible international advice on what needs to be done to rescue our economy from its current alarming position. The question that needs to be asked deals with sustainable affordability while growth in the economy is required at the same time.
South Africa should be a land of opportunity for all its people. It should be made accessible to all communities for optimal opportunities, irrespective of race, gender and political affiliation. We trust that the merit of a case will determine the support from government via the fiscus and not necessarily current or former political affiliations; and also that the sustainable and fair financial burden on the taxpayers will be taken into consideration. Despite these qualifications the DA will support the legislation. [Time expired.]]
Hon Chairperson, it's a pleasure to follow after the hon Marais. As he said, the principal Act of 1996 made provision for pensions to be paid to persons who had made sacrifices to establish democracy in South Africa, and who, as a result, were not in a position to provide for a pension and for the payment of lump sums to eligible dependants in the case of deceased persons. In the intervening years a large number of so-called implementation difficulties or challenges arose that led to an inequitable situation as far as the treatment of pensioners and survivors was concerned.
The Bill before the House today aims to address these difficulties and the inequities that arose. The IFP supports the overriding objective of the Bill, which is to extend pensions and benefits to a wider group of qualifying persons.
It is with sadness, though, that I have to say that in 1996 freedom fighters from the IFP, who were defenders of their own protection and freedom had been overlooked. We, however, realised that at that time this registration resulted from a bilateral deal between the ANC and the then National Party. That exclusion of the IFP was wrong and it will remain wrong. We will, however, not stand in the way of other deserving people benefiting from this pension fund. In conclusion, the IFP supports the Bill, but we want to emphasise that the new group of beneficiaries needs more than hand-outs in the form of special pensions. Rather, they need skills training and development programmes that will enhance their suitability for the job market. The IFP, with these comments, nevertheless will support this Bill.
Chairperson, this Bill essentially seeks to make it easier for those who fought in the struggle against apartheid to receive special pensions. The ID supports the principles of this Bill and strongly believes that all those who were actively involved in the struggle should receive some form of compensation for the enormous sacrifices that they made for this country and our new democracy.
Many people sacrificed what little education and employment opportunities they had so that all of us could enjoy freedom and democracy in a new South Africa liberated from the shackles of apartheid and racial oppression. It is only right that we now honour all those brave individuals in this tangible way, even if it does represent a certain cost to our government fiscus. The debt that this country owes them and their families is far greater than any amount of money, and the ID believes that this Bill is the very least we can do to honour their contribution.
The ID therefore rises to support this Bill as well as to honour all those who made sacrifices in fighting for the democracy we now all enjoy as a result of their actions. I thank you.
Chairperson, without a doubt we feel that the comrades who sacrificed and dedicated their lives to democracy and freedom in South Africa and their families need to benefit from a special pension. The house raids in the middle of the night, the detention, the riots, living in exile, all left our people in serious displacement from a normal, comfortable life of human dignity and respect.
I have, however, one concern. Besides these people there were those who also struggled and fought for our freedom. They were heroes in our communities, keeping our people together and mobilising against the apartheid regime. I believe that there are many forgotten heroes and many of them still don't qualify.
I believe we cannot measure the rights to this benefit by how much time you spent in detention, but rather let communities pay tribute by listing the people from their communities who kept them afloat in the darkest of times. The MF supports the Special Pensions Amendment Bill. I thank you.
Chair, hon Minister, hon members, the ANC lives, the ANC leads, and I can further add that the ANC cares. It does so because this Bill seeks to address the welfare of persons who made sacrifices or served the public interest to establish a nonracial and democratic constitutional order. As already mentioned by former speakers and colleagues, the target groups for these amendments are people who did not qualify to apply for special pensions due to age limits.
Age has been a major bone of contention because it discriminated against freedom fighters that swelled the ranks of the liberation armies in the mid 1970s and 1980s. As was stated by many presenters who came before the committee during public hearings, the liberation struggle knew no age. A number of ex-combatants responded to the call not to submit but to fight, when they were generally younger.
It was reported during these hearings that the youngest MK freedom fighters were found in the Young Lions detachment. The Azanian People's Liberation Army, or Apla, also claimed that some of its combatants were as young as nine years old when they joined the army in exile. It was mainly the young who heeded the call by President O R Tambo in January 1985 to render South Africa ungovernable and the apartheid system unworkable. Though very small in numbers the majority of the Young Lions detachment will be left out in the cold as far as this amendment is concerned, hence the committee resolution as tabled in the committee report.
The difficulty that will be faced by the special pensions' administration is the verification of the would-be beneficiaries. Veterans' organisations themselves acknowledge this challenge. There was a proposal by the MK Veterans' Association that to minimise the problem, perhaps the definition should be narrowed down to ex-combatants, because it was not everybody in exile who was in the trenches. It is therefore incumbent on us as well to ensure that those who do not qualify do not loot the system to the disadvantage of the widows and orphans who might be destitute if it were not for this relief.
In the previous Bill the widow of an ex-combatant had only 12 months after the death of their spouse to apply. In this amendment the period has been extend to 36 months. Furthermore, those widows who only got a lump sum payment after the death of their spouse can now get 50% of their spouses' pension, like any other pension fund. A qualifying spouse or orphan will be entitled to receive these benefits on application, and if the application is approved, from the date on which the application was made.
Furthermore, this Bill seeks to decriminalise ... Schedule 1 of the Criminal Procedures Act, as it was the committee's view that these offences were minor. Since a beneficiary or an ex-combatant might be discriminated against, even in a case of theft, the committee therefore said that these were minor offences and so Schedule 1 was done away with. In conclusion, let me say that many of the ex-combatants are in dire straits and are struggling to make ends meet. Some have already passed on and we had to request donations in order to bury them. This is uncomfortable for some of us. We hope that the funeral benefits made available to beneficiaries will go a long way to alleviate the embarrassment and difficulties faced by veterans' organisations and families of these heroes. I thank you. [Applause.]
Chairperson, I want to thank the hon members for their contribution. I am surprised, and I think that it must be because Parliament is so unrepresentative now, that nobody picked up on the fact that it is appropriate that we extend the age category to people who were 30 years old on 1 December 1996, because this is Youth Month, and many of the beneficiaries of the amended legislation would fall into the category of youth; and it is that contribution that I think is so important to single out in the debate.
Some of the statements by hon members merit further comment. The hon Bekker seems to argue that the IFP was excluded. Yes, they were excluded - consciously so - in the legislation, because nobody from the IFP was prevented from contributing to their own pension by virtue of banning, banishment, imprisonment or, in fact, as the case may be, death in detention.
This was very specific and conscious, and I think that should cover the hon Rajbally's comments as well. It is not a general thing that one would say, "Well, I was in the struggle so I must get a pension." The principal Act is clear about that objective. You must have been prevented by the actions of somebody else from contributing towards your own retirement. I think what we are effecting now is a continuation of that same issue, so it was not an agreement made in a smoke-filled room.
I think it is conscious of what contributed to delivering democracy in this country, and so it was, I think, that the principal Act was indeed crafted. The key challenge before us is the administration, because the big difference between the present and that point after the passage of the principal Act in 1996, was that at some stage the organisations to whom these people belonged still had in-house administration records, which were still fresh.
The challenge now is dealing with what the hon Johnson said is to prevent at all costs that some zamazamas or scammers will come in and try to take advantage of this. Our responsibility is to treasure the memory of those who contributed by ensuring that only they should benefit from this.
It is, therefore, not a responsibility that can be left to the Special Pensions Administration sitting in the National Treasury or in the pensions administration. It is a responsibility, in the first instance, of the organisations to which these individuals have belonged and still belong, to ensure that the administration is correct and that only the good pass through the eye of the needle.
I think that, similarly, we would look to Parliament and ask of it to maintain a keen interest to ensure as we proceed with the process of advertising - because very clear requests were made in the course of the hearings about ensuring that we communicate this in vernacular languages to ensure that we get the message out to people - that all of this is complied with. I note also in the report of the committee that some of my colleagues, like the Minister of Labour, are called upon to also develop the training programmes.
I agree with the point that mere access to a source of finance is inadequate. It is the skilling of these individuals across a range of disciplines that would be important, and I think these are issues that we will take forward along with the report here that the Minister of Finance should develop and table quarterly reports on implementation. This is something that I and my successors will, of course, have to comply with. The letter and spirit of that intention of the portfolio committee is obviously correct. Thank you to all the parties for supporting the Bill. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Bill read a second time.