National Assembly - 17 May 2002
FRIDAY, 17 MAY 2002 __
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
____
The House met at 09:04.
The Speaker took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayers or meditation.
NOTICES OF MOTION
Mr B NAIR: Madam Speaker, I shall move on behalf of the ANC:
That the House -
(1) notes that the Minister of Finance and the SARS Commissioner yesterday indicated that SARS will target the super-rich who do not declare the extent of their income;
(2) recognises that since the ANC Government came to power, our national fiscus has worked for the benefit of all South Africans, whether the poor or the privileged;
(3) calls on all South Africans to honour their tax obligations, secure in the knowledge that their taxes are used for the benefit of everyone, rather than to promote the privileges of the few; and
(4) warns all those who seek to evade their tax obligations that the Government will use the full force of the law to ensure that everyone fulfils his tax obligations.
[Applause.]
Ms R TALJAARD: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that I shall move:
That the House notes -
(1) Transparency International UK’s latest scathing report on ``Corruption in the Official Arms Trade’’; (2) its adverse findings that the official arms trade accounts for 50% of all corrupt international transactions, with a conservative estimate of bribes of 10% in a $40 billion per annum industry;
(3) that South Africa’s arms deal is cited as a recent case study of corruption in the arms trade;
(4) that the findings of the report vindicate all concerns in Scopa’s 14th report which were inadequately and superficially addressed by the JIT report; and
(5) commends the efforts of the whistle-blowers, the opposition in Scopa and the media which sought to uncover the truth in the public interest. [Applause.]
Mnu V B NDLOVU: Somlomo, ngicela ukufaka isaziso sokuthi ngosuku olulandelayo lokuhlala kweNdlu ngiyophakamiso:
Ukuthi le Ndlu -
(1) ikhalele umndeni wakwaShabalala, umholi weBlack Mambazo, ngokuwuveleleyo;
(2) ikubuke ngeso elibanzi ukubulawa ngenhloso kukaNkosikazi Shabalala ehambele inkonzo eyothandaza;
(3) inxuse futhi yenze isiqinisekiso sokuthi izigebengu ezenze lokhu zibanjwe, zivele enkantolo ukuze zigwetshwe kanzima empilweni yazo;
(4) iQembu leNkatha yeNkululeko lidlulisela ukukhala kwalo emndenini wakwaShabalala, lithi balale ngenxeba. (Translation of Zulu notice of motion as follows.)
[Mr V B NDLOVU: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:
That the House -
(1) conveys its condolences to the family of Mr Shabalala, the leader of Black Mambazo, for the tragedy that has befallen them;
(2) views in a very serious light the premeditated tragic killing of Mrs Shabalala while attending a prayer service;
(3) ensures that the perpetrators of this wicked act are apprehended and brought before a court of law and are given the heaviest sentence of their lives; and
(4) notes that the IFP in particular wishes the bereaved family strength and courage.
[Applause.] ]
Miss T E LISHIVHA: Madam Speaker, I shall move on behalf of the ANC:
That the House -
(1) notes that the Minister of Labour has announced that he is awarding grants worth R1,2 billion to 18 Setas and development projects via the National Skills Fund;
(2) recognises that for far too long millions of South African workers have been suffering from the effects of the apartheid education system which intentionally denied them skills and higher education, condemning them to unemployment and poverty;
(3) further notes that one of the largest beneficiaries is the Domestic Workers’ Skills Development Project, which has been awarded almost R121 million; and
(4) commends the Government and the Minister of Labour for this groundbreaking advance in empowering workers and developing their skills, in order to develop a competitive and vibrant economy with a skilled and motivated workforce. [Applause.]
Mr J J DOWRY: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that I shall move on behalf of the New NP:
That the House -
(1) notes with shock that -
(a) some farmers have recently been accused of horrific violence
towards their farm workers; and
(b) in the latest incident a farmer allegedly tied up his worker
with a rope and stretched him between two vehicles while
allegedly uttering racist remarks;
(2) finds it unacceptable that -
(a) anyone can treat another human being in such an inhumane way;
and
(b) a minority of farmers are damaging the perception of the
relationship between all farmers and farm workers; and
(3) calls for decisive action against anyone found guilty of inhumane behaviour and abuse. [Applause.]
Ms ANNELIZÉ VAN WYK: Madam Speaker, I will move on behalf of the UDM at the next sitting of this House:
That the House -
(1) notes the ongoing gang-related violence on the Cape Flats, which has led to numerous deaths in the past week alone;
(2) commends the Manenberg community, especially those involved at the schools, who are working hard to build a safe environment, and expresses its sympathy to this community that has had to go to great lengths in protecting themselves as the Government is not doing so effectively;
(3) calls on the Government to take their lead from the members of the Manenberg community who are actively engaged in securing their community; and
(4) urges the Minister of Safety and Security to actively ensure that this matter gets addressed immediately. [Applause.]
Mrs R R JOEMAT: Madam Speaker, I shall move on behalf of the ANC:
That the House -
(1) notes that -
(a) a gang shoot-out on Wednesday claimed the life of a young girl
in Lavender Hill, Cape Town; and
(b) the MEC for Community Safety, Mr Leonard Ramatlakane, visited
this area and other areas which are affected by gang violence
and has been working with community role-players to find short-
term solutions to the scourge of gangsterism;
(2) believes that in the medium term, the solution to the problems faced by these communities can only be addressed through urban renewal;
(3) calls on the communities to work with police to bring perpetrators of gang violence to book; and
(4) commends Government for its urban renewal strategy to rebuild these communities so damaged by the ravages of the past. [Applause.]
Mr S N SWART: Madam Speaker, I will move on behalf of the ACDP at the next sitting of the House:
That the House -
(1) notes -
(a) yesterday's election victory and the landslide swing to the
Christian Democrats in the Netherlands, where they achieved a
decisive victory over the ruling Labour Party coalition, winning
40 of Parliament's 150 seats; and
(b) that this signifies, inter alia, that many voters in the
Netherlands are fed up with the excessive secular humanist
agenda of the left and wish to see a return to family and
traditional values; and
(2) congratulates the Christian Democrats and wishes the new coalition government to be formed in the Netherlands well. [Applause.]
Mr P J NEFOLOVHODWE: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that at the next sitting of the House I shall move:
That this House -
(1) notes -
(a) the decision by the President of the Republic of South Africa to
pardon individuals whose activities were linked to liberatory
efforts and political activities;
(b) that the pardons are restricted to those who were convicted and
jailed for these activities;
(c) that Azapo has one of its leaders, former Secretary General
Comrade George Wauchope, still exiled and he is not allowed to
enter the country; and
(d) that he has been informed by the Attorney-General's Office that
if he enters the country he will be arrested;
(2) recognises the role Comrade George Wauchope played in the liberation struggle; and
(3) calls upon the Director of Public Prosecutions to intervene so that Comrade George Wauchope can enter his country of origin and contribute to its development.
Mrs B N SONO: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that I shall move:
That the House -
(1) notes with increasing concern the failure of the Council for Trade and Industry institutions to have any meaningful impact on the implementation of the Government’s microeconomic reform plan;
(2) calls for a review of -
(a) the effectiveness of the SMME's policies and strategies; and
(b) the national Small Business Development Act; and
(3) urges the Government to establish regulatory performance evaluation criteria to monitor and evaluate the value for money from transfer payments to institutions which support enterprise and industry development.
Mr A M MPONTSHANE: Madam Speaker, I give notice that I shall move on behalf of the IFP:
That the House -
(1) notes -
(a) with concern the continuous lack of delivery of stationery and
textbooks in the provinces, notably the Eastern Cape; and
(b) that such nondelivery is the result of tedious tendering
procedures; and (2) urges the Department of Education to look into these tendering
procedures with the aim of promoting the culture of teaching and
learning.
Mr M E GEORGE: Madam Speaker, I shall move on behalf of the ANC:
That the House -
(1) notes the response to a question in the House yesterday by the Minister of Safety and Security in which he informed the House of the allocation of police personnel and resources in areas disadvantaged by the discriminatory practices of the past regime;
(2) recognises that such areas are now resourced equally to those in affluent areas, with, for example, Khayelitsha having 242 personnel, which represents 112% of the recommended complement, and Thabong with 124%; and
(3) applauds the Department of Safety and Security, the SAPS and the ANC Government for their commitment to addressing the security needs of the communities that are most at risk from the scourge of lawlessness.
Mev ANNA VAN WYK: Mev die Speaker, hiermee gee ek kennis dat ek op die volgende sittingsdag sal voorstel:
Dat die Huis -
(1) daarvan kennis neem dat -
(a) die Nasionale Kunsteraad slegs uitvoerende kunsteprojekte van
nasionale status in 'n beperkte mate kan befonds uit die gelde
wat by die uitvoerende kunsterade weggeneem is; en
(b) die uitvoerende kunsterade teaterkomplekse nou slegs volgens die
``Playhouse''-konsep bestuur, wat 'n agteruitgang van fisieke
teaterinfrastruktuur en die vervreemding van skaars en
onontbeerlike menslike hulpbronne veroorsaak het asook die
opskorting van hierdie soort dienste aan mense in die
buitestedelike gebiede en die afgeleë platteland; en
(2) die Minister van Kuns, Kultuur, Wetenskap en Tegnologie versoek om so spoedig moontlik in elke provinsie ‘n volhoubare teatergeselskap met die nodige tegniese en fisieke infrastruktuur te vestig sodat voorgeskrewe werke in skole en reisende uitvoerings in biblioteke, gemeenskapsale, ouetehuise, welsynsinrigtings en hospitale landwyd op ‘n konsekwente en sistematiese wyse gelewer kan word. (Translation of Afrikaans notice of motion follows.)
[Mrs ANNA VAN WYK: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:
That the House -
(1) notes that -
(a) the National Arts Council can merely to a limited extent fund
performing arts projects of national status out of the moneys
taken away from the performing arts councils; and
(b) the performing arts councils now only manage theatre complexes
according to the ``Playhouse'' concept, which has caused a
deterioration in physical theatre infrastructure and the
alienation of scarce and essential human resources as well as
the suspension of this type of service to people in the peri-
urban areas and the deep countryside; and
(2) requests the Minister of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology for the swift establishment in each province of a sustainable theatre company with the necessary technical and physical infrastructure so that prescribed works can be staged in a consistent and systematic way in schools and touring performances can take place at libraries, community halls, homes for the elderly, welfare organisations and hospitals throughout the country.]
Mr D J SITHOLE: Madam Speaker, I shall move on behalf of the ANC:
That the House -
(1) notes that at the Nepad Consultative Workshop on the Agricultural Sector in Johannesburg, African leaders in the agricultural sector from 15 countries committed to subscribe to the global commitment of the World Food Summit in 1996 to halve the number of hungry people by 2015;
(2) further notes that Egypt and South Africa will spearhead a campaign for accelerating the agricultural strategy to eradicate poverty and improve food security on the continent;
(3) believes that Africa should use agriculture to afford its people access to adequate food, as getting rid of hunger is critical to the success of bringing Africa out of poverty and underdevelopment; and
(4) welcomes the speed with which Nepad programmes are being put in place and looks forward to the achievement of tangible results for the benefit of all the people of our continent. [Applause.]
Mnr C AUCAMP: Geagte Speaker, namens die AEB gee ek hiermee kennis van die volgende mosie:
Dat die Huis -
(1) sy afkeer uitspreek oor die optrede van onderwysers by ‘n Oos-Randse sekondêre skool wat gister geweier het om klas te gee, leerlinge opgesweep en hul skool in chaos gedompel het uit verset teen die evaluering deur superintendente van die Gautengse onderwysdepartement;
(2) erken dat hierdie optrede totaal in stryd is met onderwysetiek, afbrekend is vir dissipline en destruktief inwerk op die onderwys in Suid-Afrika;
(3) die Minister van Onderwys, prof Kader Asmal, versoek om toe te sien dat streng teen hierdie onderwysers opgetree word en dat die belhamels en aanhitsers summier van hul poste onthef word; en
(4) glo dat hierdie gebeure ‘n wekroep is vir provinsiale onderwysdepartemente om op te hou om te krap waar dit nie jeuk nie in skole soos Ermelo, Bekker, FH Odendaal, en HTS Louis Botha in Bloemfontein waar gehalte-onderwys, dissipline en professionaliteit aan die orde van die dag is, en dat hulle eerder moet fokus op skole waar die mees basiese beginsels van dissipline, professionaliteit en ‘n gunstige leerkultuur totaal afwesig is. (Translation of Afrikaans notice of motion follows.)
Mr C AUCAMP: Hon Speaker, I shall move on behalf of the AEB:
That the House -
(1) expresses its disapproval about the behaviour of teachers at an East Rand secondary school who yesterday refused to teach classes, incited pupils and plunged their school into chaos in resistance to evaluation by superintendents of the Gauteng department of education;
(2) admits that this behaviour is completely contrary to education ethics, is destructive to discipline and has a destructive effect on education in South Africa;
(3) requests the Minister of Education, Prof Kader Asmal, to see to it that strong action is taken against these teachers and that the ringleaders and inciters are summarily removed from their posts; and
(4) believes that these events are a clarion call for provincial departments of education to stop meddling unnecessarily in schools like Ermelo, Bekker, FH Odendaal and HTS Louis Botha in Bloemfontein, where quality education, discipline and professionalism are the order of the day, and that they should rather focus on schools where the most basic principles of discipline, professionalism and a favourable culture of learning are entirely absent.]
Mrs R M SOUTHGATE: Madam Speaker, I will move:
That the House -
(1) notes with concern the killing of a 56-year-old farmer on his farm at Mooitoekoms, near Viljoenskroon in the Northern Free State;
(2) further notes that farm killings around South Africa are allowed to continue unabated;
(3) also expresses concern about the fact that where no solution is found to stop the criminal activity in the killing of farmers, a message is conveyed that no political will exists to deal with the problem; and
(4) calls on the Ministry to enforce law and order to stabilise our farming community.
90TH BIRTHDAY OF MR WALTER SISULU
(Draft Resolution)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Speaker, I move without notice:
That the House -
(1) notes that Mr Walter Sisulu, a veteran and a stalwart of the struggle of the liberation of the people of South Africa, will turn 90 on Saturday, 18 May 2002;
(2) recognises the role he played in building national unity and national reconciliation and working towards a free, nonracial, nonsexist and democratic South Africa; and
(3) wishes tata Sisulu a joyous 90th birthday.
Agreed to.
CONFERENCE IN ANGOLA TOWARDS PEACEFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT
(Draft Resolution)
The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Speaker, I move without notice:
That the House -
(1) notes that -
(a) the ruling People's Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA)
plans to hold a broad-based conference in June on the nation's
postwar future; and
(b) the conference will discuss mechanisms to strengthen the peace
process with Unita and will be opened to opposition parties;
(2) believes that this conference is yet another milestone in the realisation of peace and development in the country;
(3) welcomes the initiative of the MPLA;
(4) calls on the parties to work towards a peaceful resolution of the conflict in the country; and
(5) wishes the delegates to this conference good luck in their deliberations.
Agreed to.
WORLD TELECOMMUNICATIONS DAY
(Draft Resolution)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Speaker, I move without notice: That the House -
(1) notes that -
(a) Friday, 17 May 2002 is World Telecommunications Day; and
(b) the International Telecommunications Union's 2002 theme ``ICT
for All: Empowering People to Cross the Digital Divide'' is
relevant to South Africa;
(2) acknowledges that our country has made great strides in delivering telephones and other information communication and technology (ICT) services, especially in rural areas, clinics and schools;
(3) celebrates this day as a day of major progress in empowering all our people to cross the digital divide; and
(4) urges all ICT stakeholders to use modern technology in accelerating universal service throughout the length and breadth of our country.
Agreed to.
RECOMMISSION OF NATIONAL CONVENTIONAL ARMS CONTROL BILL TO PORTFOLIO
COMMITTEE
(Draft Resolution)
The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Speaker, I move the motion as it appears on the Order Paper in the name of the Chief Whip.
That the House recommits the National Conventional Arms Control Bill [B 50B - 2000] to the Portfolio Committee on Defence for further consideration and report.
Agreed to.
IMMIGRATION BILL
(Second Reading debate)
The MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS: Madam Speaker, hon members of the National Assembly, in moments like these I become deeply aware that I am not serving in Cabinet for my edification or for my pleasure or political convenience, but because I am committed to walk the full length of the path of reconciliation, which is necessary to heal the wounds of a conflict which killed tens of thousands of people, and I shall therefore stand before members this morning as the Minister of Home Affairs, for this reason.
The passing of the Immigration Bill by our Parliament is symbolic of a turning point in our history of South Africa. The Aliens Control Act was apartheid’s last Act and reflected an insular and discretionary mindset. Its repeal seems the last major legislative reform amongst the many which this Parliament has undertaken since May 1994 to bring us from the old to the new, as migration control is the last of our functions to be reformed to adjust to the values and spirit of the new South Africa.
As we emerge from the insular perspective of colonialism and apartheid, we embrace the perspective of globalisation at the dawn of a new millennium. The Immigration Bill is the culmination of policy formulation which began in 1995, inclusive of a Green and a White Paper, both approved by Cabinet after public comments, public hearings and conferences. The Bill was drafted on the tenets of the White Paper approved by Cabinet on 31 March 1999 and began circulating among stakeholders in November 1999, being published for comments on 15 February 2000.
After an international conference held on it, the Bill was tabled in Cabinet where it was discussed in the most minute detail for nine months, and I remember our Deputy President saying that, since he arrived in Pretoria from KwaZulu-Natal as Deputy Minister, he had never seen in committee any Bill or any matter discussed for three hours.
Thereafter, there was a workshop that was held on it. Cabinet itself amended various sections, eliminating the notion of a statutory immigration service exercising migration control on the same basis as the SA Revenue Service. It also changed the Immigration Board into an advisory board with no executive powers, and caused about 80 additional amendments.
On 20 May 2000, I requested the tabling of the Bill in Nedlac, where it was considered from June 2000. After its approval by Cabinet, the Bill was tabled in Parliament in April 2001, published again for comments on 29 June 2001, and introduced in the committee soon thereafter. This has been a long and difficult process on a subject matter which, throughout the world, remains impervious to serene policy-making.
I must thank the portfolio committee for the assiduous work of its members. I must also thank you, Madam Speaker, for facilitating the processing of this Bill, and I also wish to congratulate the hon Mr Mpho Scott on his election to the chairmanship of the committee, extending to him a special appreciation for brilliantly wrapping up the deliberations of the committee at the final and crucial juncture of its deliberations. [Applause.]
I have followed the Bill through the committee and the progress made there. I never thought that the Bill would be passed as introduced, for I am not a newcomer in politics or Government. I was pleased that 23 pages of amendments were made and discussed on 8 May and reflected in the 9 May draft ``B’’ version of the Bill. On 9 May, I was informed that the ruling party had sprung a radical redrafting of the Bill, leading to political discussions to overcome the impasse. Only on 15 May at 8am did I receive the outcome of such discussions in a reformulated Bill which was voted on in the afternoon of the same day in a process which did not allow my department to take the committee through its written view on such reformulation. My own party voted against key elements of this reformulation. The DA voted against it as well.
However, I am standing here before the House, not as the leader of a political party, but as a Minister of State. [Applause.] For as long as I remain a Minister of State, I shall faithfully execute any legislation this Parliament may wish to adopt, regardless of whatever my own reservations and feelings may be. [Applause.] I am a democrat, and bow to the will of the elected representatives. It is my duty to present and recommend the approval of the Immigration Bill, but I feel duty bound to highlight its features with the honesty that I have always employed when speaking to my colleagues, whether in this Chamber or anywhere else.
The Bill before the House is an enormous improvement on the present uncertainty and levels of discretion under the Aliens Control Act. It contains innovative solutions which place South Africa ahead of many other countries which are struggling with issues of migration without the opportunity of thinking up a new system from scratch, carrying over the core of systems shaped at the end of the nineteenth or in the first part of the twentieth century. We endeavoured to conceive and launch a system responsive to the needs and challenges of the twenty-first century.
The Bill creates a general entry visitor’s permit which caters for tourists as well as short-term business, students, medical treatment and other activities, which are not work as defined. It also restricts the definition of work to require work permits only when an employment relationship is maintained within South Africa.
These provisions reflect an age in which people travel more freely for a combination of reasons including business, tourism, study and research. The Bill creates permit categories which are clear and defined, ensuring that everyone in South Africa will be accounted for as a citizen, resident or temporary permit holder, while creating objective criteria to acquire permanent residence and moving away from the immigrant selection boards.
The Bill brings immigration control into compliance with the highest standards of human rights protection, including administrative and judicial review, and the establishment of immigration courts which provide a unified area of subject matter jurisdiction, so that all cases flowing from the Bill may be heard in one set of courts, rather than be shuttled between the magistrates’ courts for warrants and the High Court for the review of administrative actions and the validity of regulations. This unified area of jurisdiction is essential to the good performance of the system with the burdens of the additional human rights guarantees.
The Bill strengthens the enforcement of immigration laws, for whatever we place in legislation becomes irrelevant when millions of people flaunt it and enter, reside in or remain in the country illegally. We must develop capacity to detect, redress and deter illegal immigration. Our front door to immigration is now opening more widely, but we must commit to closing the back door to immigration. The Bill establishes mechanisms to co- ordinate law enforcement amongst various organs of state, imposes responsibilities on certain institutions of civil society and sanctions employers and others who promote or facilitate illegal immigration.
For the first time in our history, and as one of the first instances in this world, the Bill creates the new function of deterring and redressing xenophobia. We were proud when the United Nations conference in Durban on the elimination of racism and discrimination for the first time placed the issue of xenophobia on the international human rights agenda, as this issue was already entrenched in our own policy formulation and draft legislation. We saw from what happened in France with Mr Le Pen recently and also in Holland with Mr Fortuyn that xenophobia has become a raging fire throughout the world. And we will learn more about xenophobia, which often operates in subtle forms, as do many other forms of discrimination.
The Bill recognises that migration control cuts across many line functions and that policy formulation will need to continue in the future, both to address the matters of detail to be set out in regulations and to adjust the system to the ever-changing needs of the future. For this reason, it provides for an Immigration Advisory Board with crucial roles in developing policies on the basis of interdepartmental co-ordination and with the involvement of representatives of civil society. As is done in other countries, the Bill also requires that regulations be adopted through a necessary process of public participation, and that they may be declared invalid not only if they violate the Act, but also if they disregard the advice of the immigration board or public comments in a manner which is arbitrary and capricious.
The Bill clears the currently constitutionally problematic and administratively difficult situation and vests border control in the Department of Home Affairs, while providing for mechanisms of interdepartmental co-ordination in respect of this function, and for a process in which, with the consent of all parties concerned, resources and capacity may be transferred to our department to fulfil this function.
Also in this respect, South Africa is moving towards a more modern regulation and structuring of border control which reflects present and future challenges. The Bill clarifies that the Department of Home Affairs will be responsible for the administration of ports of entry where more than 10 departments or agencies have to perform their respective roles, which has often created confusion and lack of co-ordination, replacing ineffective voluntary co-ordination with a precise statutory responsibility. In this and many other respects, the Bill represents a monumental step ahead and sets our country on a much stronger footing to cope with the issues of migration control which are bound to rise exponentially in the years to come.
International migration is the fastest growing phenomenon in the world and I believe that in the 21st century it is bound to pose the conceptual and policy challenges which, in the 20th century, the development of human rights did.
However, and a big however, in other respects the Bill before the House is profoundly different from our Government’s policies to this point and the terms of the debate on immigration control during the past seven years. These differences became evident to me for the first time only when the revised version of the Bill was informally presented to me 48 hours ago, for I, as the Minister, was not formally informed of any amendments made to the Bill, in respect of which my department was not involved or consulted.
Up until 48 hours ago, our Government maintained and declared to the world a policy based on tenets which have now been subverted. The core of an immigration policy is the determination of which skilled or unskilled foreigner workers are needed for our economic wellbeing. Since the White Paper, we held that Government is ill equipped to determine the skills our country needs, and we realised that in the modern labour markets assessing immigration applications on the basis of skills is extremely difficult and demands massive administrative capacity. We also realised the difficulty of classifying skills, as our country’s economic growth needs skills both from the high and the low level of the spectrum, and in the modern world one can no longer equate skills with qualifications.
Therefore, we designed a system which tested the need for foreigners by relying on market dynamics, leaving employers to decide which foreigners they need, while we, as Government, would test the intensity of employers’ stated needs through a licensing fee. If an employer pays the licensing fee which makes the foreigner more expensive than a national, then the foreigner would be needed, and we could raise the threshold of acceptable need by raising the licensing fee.
The Bill before the House has gone in a diametrically opposite direction and requires our Government to determine every year what skills we need and to establish categories to accommodate each conceivable foreigner whose skill may contribute to or be needed for our economic growth, and to set numeric limits for each such category. Rather than relying on and influencing market forces, this approach reflects the command economy philosophy which predicates that Government may be able to assess present needs and predict future challenges and aspirations.
In addition to the difficulty of creating categories and quotas, our Government would need to perform delicate assessments, reviews and evaluations in respect of each application to ensure that the applicant has indeed the skills he claims to have and fits the category, in a process which may resemble what an employer does when interviewing a person.
This process is simpler when skills are entirely reflected in qualifications, as would be the case of a dentistry degree-holder applying under a dentist category, for instance. But what about someone claiming years of academic experience in China applying under a category for journalists, or someone claiming years of engineering experience in Finland applying under a category for project managers? These are very difficult things for us to check, and even more difficult for us to evaluate.
The Bill provides that when quotas are exceeded, foreigners may obtain work permits through a complex process of labour certification. Our department will need to develop large additional administrative capacity for conducting this new function and will need much greater budgetary allocations. Hon members know that my department, as far as funding is concerned, has always been the stepchild of the Budget.
The complete shift of policy which has taken place in the past 48 hours has indeed created a completely new Bill and a new policy framework in more areas than work permits alone.
Another tenet of Government policy, as it stood until 48 hours ago, was that of simplifying permitting procedures so that the permit could be issued without any evaluative process. By eliminating the need for our department to perform evaluations, we can issue permits in an objective fashion and directly from our regional offices, rather than having to centralise in order to concentrate activities in our scarce pool of available resources.
In order to reach this objective, we relied on various forms of outsourcing, especially to accountants and reliable institutions, and we eliminated evaluative stages. However, a great number of evaluative stages have now been reinserted in respect of most permitting procedures, and provision is made enabling any applicant who does not wish to utilise an accountant, to request the department to perform the relevant assessment and evaluation.
The policy of shifting administrative capacity away from the issuance of permits, to move it into law enforcement and border control, will not be able to be pursued to the same extent. We will also not be able to expedite the issuance of permits as envisaged. The Bill no longer contains provision for the decentralisation of its permit issuance functions, which were core to the overall policy and administrative reform.
The most concerning aspect is that the provision required to restructure the department in an expedited manner to meet the new legislative requirements, has been completely deleted. This means that it will take us a long time to go through the ordinary procedure to restructure the department and reorganise positions, job descriptions and the establishment on an individual basis. We will not be able to deliver the new system of migration control as fast as we expected and without significant and possibly damaging down-time.
The Bill contains aspects in respect of which I cannot speak, such as corporate permits, as the original provision, which was one of the most innovative and worldwide acclaimed aspects of our previous policy, has now been amended beyond recognition. I do not know whether corporate permits fall under the quotas or outside them, and what function they actually serve. We will try our best to give them purpose and maintain the important function for which they were originally designed, even though they will no longer enable the department to save significant administrative capacity in respect of their issuance.
It is unusual for a Minister to do so, but it would be remiss of me not to place on record that there are technical problems with this Bill which, I hope, will be corrected before its enactment. Under the circumstances, I should have withdrawn this Bill, because it is my prerogative to do so. However, we are labouring under a Constitutional Court deadline, forcing us to replace the Aliens Control Act, which was declared unconstitutional in its handling of permanent life partnerships, work permits for spouses and certain requirements relating to applications for permits from outside the country.
I must ask, what led the political parliamentary processes to turn policies upside down, outside the parameters of public debates that took place over a long period and consultation that was so wide-ranging and so long in duration? All those who made submissions to my department, and who seemed to be averse to a generalised quota system, had no problem with decentralisation and, on the preponderance of submissions, were in favour of outsourcing certain functions in order to reduce the administrative capacity to dedicate to the issuance of permits.
The ruling party never formally expressed a contrary view in any publications known to me, or in its contributions in this process. In fact, when the Bill came here, it was not Mangosuthu Buthelezi’s Bill, it was the Cabinet’s Bill, very radically amended over a long period. The people of South Africa, after this long process, know what I intended doing for immigration in South Africa. No one does not know it by now. I shared the draft Bill with Ministers in charge of immigration in Canada, in Washington and in Holland, and also in Geneva in December. I do not question the right of this legislature to amend the Bill as it sees fit, as I have said earlier.
In fact, a lot of the amendments were effected through the portfolio committee, as should be the case. The problem came about when members of the ruling party came out with a different Bill from that which had already been amended by members of the Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs, where all parties were represented.
The department was not given the opportunity to respond to the Bill’s amendments and it was not given the opportunity to respond after each presentation, as should be the case, before the committee representations which, by the way, were given by select people. There are many people who wanted to make representations who were not given the opportunity. If I withdrew the Bill at this stage, as was my instinct to do, I felt that we could not meet the Constitutional Court’s deadline. So, I was in a cleft stick. This has placed me in a situation where I am presenting and piloting a Bill of this Parliament as my Bill. But, it is the Bill as amended by the majority party, warts and all. It is this legislature which will be answerable, should there be problems in the areas that I have pointed out.
There is no doubt in my mind that this process shows the weakness of our democracy, where whims seem to prevail over responsible policy formulation. This highlights lack of leadership in a fundamental aspect of governance, for the provisions of this Bill that relate to work permits have a massive impact on our macroeconomic equation. A few days ago, the United States trade representative identified our antiquated and obsolete immigration laws as one of the three major impairments to doing business in South Africa.
What Cabinet placed before this Parliament was what I felt to be the best way to respond to present needs and future challenges. I cannot help but read the response that Parliament gave to Cabinet proposals as a process gone astray, in which the desire to assert the political primacy of the ruling party overrode reason and careful consideration of the issues. Apparently, the positions shifted dramatically from Thursday last week to Wednesday this week, signifying that rewriting this Bill, even without clarity on issues, was more important than allowing the perception that something good and worthwhile may come from Minister Buthelezi who, after all, is only a leader of a minority party in Government. This shows weakness and insecurity and, in the final analysis, it also shows a lack of true leadership.
We were offered the opportunity of leapfrogging ahead but, in many respects, we now need to lag behind. The need will continue to arise for Parliament to intervene again, through legislation, on this subject matter.
I have done the best for my country as conscience demanded of me. I have bowed before the wishes of this legislature and the ruling party. [Applause.]
Mr M I SCOTT: Madam Speaker, hon members, Minister of Home Affairs and Deputy Minister, I would like, first, to thank the former chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs for the role that he played in the committee. It is a great pleasure to participate in the debate on this important Immigration Bill. I would like to thank all members of the Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs, the department and the state law advisers for their participation in processing this Bill. This product, the Immigration Bill, does not necessarily meet all our expectations as different parties and other stakeholders, but it is a product that, I believe, all of us can live with.
This Bill is a first step in the right direction to contribute to a planned system of immigration that is simple, achievable, manageable, and in South Africa’s interests in particular. The passing of this Bill is not an end in itself. Together with the Government, we will have to evaluate, from time to time, whether it meets our intended objectives.
The problem of racism and xenophobia will have to be fought at all levels. The education of our law-enforcement agencies and communities needs to be intensified.
The partnership with communities is of paramount importance in this regard. The fight against continued fraud and corruption in the ranks of officials will have to be intensified. It is important to correct the perception, created wittingly or unwittingly by some people, that this is an IFP Bill. That is incorrect. Any Bill that comes from the Cabinet is a Government Bill and it is our Government. [Applause.] As a committee we had to process this Bill just like any other Bill in Parliament and it is important to note comments by state law advisers that there was no way the committee could make wholesale amendments without rewriting the whole Bill. It is for that reason that the wholesale amendments were avoided.
During deliberations in the committee the consultation among parties was very useful and constructive towards finding solutions and agreements in areas of contention. It was quite a long but necessary process. Hence there was a general consensus on more than 50 clauses of the Bill and the committee only voted on three clauses where parties agreed to disagree. I believe our working as a team and a collective will continue beyond this Bill on immigration.
It is in our interest to see to it that the department works effectively and in an efficient manner. This is one of the departments that deal with and are in contact with people on a daily basis. We are committed to ensuring that we work together with the department in a constructive manner to ensure its success whilst at the same time playing our watchdog role as parliamentary committee.
Today we live in a global village where we have to engage and compete in terms of skills and technology with other markets. We should acknowledge that there is a shortage of skills at the higher-end level of the labour market in many occupational categories that is contributing to the slowing down of the pace of economic growth and development. South Africa needs human foreign investment. It is not correct to assume that every job occupied by a non-South African means one job less for a South African. We need managed migration that can contribute to the stimulation of our econonic growth and development and create jobs for South Africans. We believe that it is possible to achieve managed immigration in a manner that is consistent with the achievement of Government’s growth and development policies and with the requirements of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and international obligations.
It is important to note the trends in the formation of economic regional blocs with migration regimes that have preferential treatment and mobility of citizens of member states. The example is the EU, which represents the most advanced model of such arrangements. It is clear that in the longer term we will have to have such arrangements in SADC. We should continue deliberately contributing to creating vibrant and strong economies in our regional states if we are to achieve this long-term objective,
We should acknowledge the mobility of skills and technology internationally. This Bill seeks to attract skills needed by our economy. It also acknowledges the high level of competition for highly skilled international migrants. That is why we came up with ways of fast-tracking the issuing of work and corporate permits. This will be done through the assessment of South Africa’s current and projected labour market needs with the co-operation of the Department of Labour, the Department of Trade and Industry and other stakeholders; by developing, at least annually, immigration targets and quotas; through the revised system of immigration and selection that I think this Bill lays the foundation for; and through the enhanced access of highly skilled international migrants.
A lot of work still needs to be done in terms of drafting regulations for the implementation of this Bill and it is going to be challenging for the department to provide immigration services in the most cost-effective, efficient and service-friendly manner.
The department needs resources to build a strong human resource capacity and to move into automation in this area. Setting up systems that can communicate could go a long way towards fast-tracking the processing of applications and being in a position to check and cross-check information in a short space of time.
The department needs to ensure continuous training and that it attracts the necessary skills needed if we are to succeed in the smooth implementation of this Bill.
In conclusion, let us all work together in order to ensure that in the long term we have perfect policies and legislation that contribute to creating a better life for our people. [Applause.]
Mr G A J GROBLER: Madam Speaker, at last we are debating the Immigration Bill, the Bill which will be known as the Immigration Act of 2002. The Act will not only repeal the whole of the Aliens Control Act but also sections of the South African Citizenship Act and sections of the Refugees Act. This Bill is not a perfect Bill and I am sure amendments will be brought to the House in future.
Firstly, I briefly want to take hon members back to August last year, when the Bill landed on our desks. From the onset, the official Opposition asked in the portfolio committee for a timeframe within which this Immigration Bill should be deliberated and finalised, as there was a Constitutional Court ruling on the constitutionality of the Aliens Control Act of 1999, as amended, and the deadline was set for 2 June 2002.
Every time the DA asked for a timeframe it was gagged by the then chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs. A positive change in this position has taken place and we are glad about it.
Instead of us doing our work as a portfolio committee, we had to attend some sort of reading courses. Each member of the committee had to read clauses of the Bill, like children in a classroom, which we are not.
After the December recess, in February 2002, the request from the DA to the then chairperson of the portfolio committee to speed up the process again fell on deaf ears. After the official Opposition, the IFP and the UDM could not stand this any longer, the Rules Committee was approached and we again brought to the Rules Committee’s attention the seriousness of delaying this Bill. The committee and the Speaker came to our rescue and instructed the then chairperson to come forward with a programme and dates. Members from the NA and the NCOP, at great additional cost to the taxpayers - air tickets alone cost R66 000 - had to come back during the constituency period to start working on the Bill from 15 April. [Interjections.]
Hon members should listen to this. After a rather bumpy start, and after the opposition parties again had to complain about the time wasted on inputs by people who did not even bother to touch the issues around the Immigration Bill - the persons I am referring to are the director-general and the then Deputy Minister of Home Affairs …
… helaas, het die hoop weer beskaam. Dit was baie gou duidelik dat daar geen begeerte by die ANC-lede van die portefeuljekomitee was om enige ernstige pogings aan te wend om die afhandeling van hierdie wetsontwerp te bespoedig nie. Dit was duidelik dat daar op elke moontlike manier teen die Departement van Binnelandse Sake se voorgestelde wetgewing gewerk word. Die gewaarwording by die amptelike Opposisie was dat daar gepoog word om die lewe vir die Minister van Binnelandse Sake so onaangenaam moontlik te maak. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[… alas, hope maketh ashamed once more. Very soon it became clear that there was no wish among the ANC members of the portfolio committee to make any serious attempt at finalising this Bill. It was evident that the proposed legislation of the Department of Home Affairs was being opposed in every way possible. The impression gained by the official Opposition was that the life of the Minister of Home Affairs was being made as unpleasant as possible.]
For many years businesses and many people in South Africa pinned all their hopes on Government to formulate a proper Immigration Act, an Act that would not only regulate the movement of people, but also create investor confidence, to make it easier for skilled people to come to South Africa. Not only do we need skilled people, but also foreign capital that is so essential to create the jobs that we so desperately need in this country.
All these hopes by business and other stakeholders were bogged down for years in political altercations between the ANC and the IFP. All the while, people’s expectations have come no closer to the fulfilment of a pledge last year by President Mbeki that Government would move quickly to remedy the delay in the processing of the Immigration Bill.
The ANC in this whole process seems to have ridden roughshod over Minister Buthelezi and his department’s proposed views concerning a proper immigration Bill. [Interjections.] As we tried to progress on the deliberations of this Bill, there was no doubt that the ANC had only one goal in mind, that of redrafting the Immigration Bill at any cost and without any rhyme or reason. Its concern was that the Immigration Bill formulated by Mr Buthelezi’s department should not be passed. According to our observation, we also did not follow parliamentary procedures. [Interjections.]
A few weeks ago we had public hearings and as far as I am concerned, without proper notice. After two weeks of deliberation in the portfolio committee on Home Affairs on the original Bill from the Department of Home Affairs, out of the blue on Thursday, 9 May the ANC gave us a completely redrafted Bill. This Bill was different from the one given to us earlier and the one before us. Their main aim was to show that the ANC itself had drafted a Bill.
The redraft did not, for instance, call for quotas - an aspect I will deal with in more detail later - but had an absurd and totally impractical process of issuing work permits on a basis of labour certifications and innumerable other requirements. From Thursday, 9 May till Wednesday, 15 May, a new draft was put before us. It is obvious that because of some pressure put on the ANC during discussions with the IFP, they were confronted with the absurdities of some of their proposals and they then realised that it was untenable and they were very quick to drop some of their proposals. They reformulated a completely new set of proposals. To them it did not matter as long as they were not the proposals which Minister Buthelezi’s department had placed before us. [Interjections.]
The DA cannot support the work permit clause, clause 19, or the quota system. Clause 19 provides that the primary method and technique for the issuance of work permits would be that of quotas. However, it does not design or define the system of quotas and leaves it to the discretion of the present or the future Minister of Home Affairs. The DA had five hours to read and consider the new proposal, which was then voted on and passed by virtue of an ANC majority against the official Opposition and votes from the IFP.
The quota system is at the opposite end of the spectrum of what was provided for by the original Bill introduced by the department. Since the publication of the White Paper, the notion was that Government should and could not determine what skills we needed. What we witnessed in our committee the day before yesterday in respect of clause 19 was a fundamental clash of philosophies of governance.
The quota system represents the epitome of statism, command economy and centralisation. It reflects the presumptions and always erroneous notion that government may determine the need of society. On the contrary, the notion espoused in the original Bill was that Government cannot make such determinations. The Bill was relying on the free dynamics of market economy, creating incentives and disincentives, as one would do in a modern world. The original draft was the product of a perspective which embraces and understands the dynamics of the 21st century and the age of globalisation.
Most countries are moving away from the quota system and are doing so for good reasons. The administration, for a start, is becoming increasingly impossible in a labour market characterised by the irreparable breakdown of the connection between qualifications, skills and job descriptions. There are clauses such as the restructuring of the department which were deleted by the ANC from the original Bill, and the clause on offences that was amended and that the DA did not approve of.
We would have liked to have given reasons for all the objections to these changes but due to a lack of time it cannot be done. Because of the fact that this Bill is a step forward, the DA reluctantly supports the Immigration Bill. [Applause.]
Prince N E ZULU: Madam Speaker, hon Minister of Home Affairs … Ndabezitha [You of the above (a royal salute) …]
… other Ministers in the House and hon members, the Immigration Bill was introduced in Parliament by the hon the Minister of Home Affairs and president of the IFP, not as an IFP Bill, but as a Cabinet Bill, as already stated by the Minister and the chairperson of the portfolio committee. Needless to say, the IFP supported the Bill from the day of its introduction, with all the details the hon the Minister has placed before this House.
During consideration of the Bill by the Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs, the ANC proposed wide-ranging, potentially damaging amendments that would have altered the hon the Minister’s Bill beyond recognition. Therefore, in order to avert a looming crisis, the IFP and the ANC agreed, last week, to appoint a negotiating team to solve what was fast turning into a no-win situation for all parties concerned, until the Bill became a piece of legislation the country would be able to live with.
It is the IFP’s considered position that the appointment of a negotiating team succeeded in improving the final Bill to the degree that the ill- considered amendments proposed were not steamrollered through the portfolio committee by virtue of the ANC’s majority status in Parliament.
The IFP will support the passage of the Immigration Bill, with strong reservations with regard to the work permit system, the rejection of the clauses on the restructuring of the Department of Home Affairs and further rejection of the fines for offenders and perpetuators of xenophobic practices. The IFP can, therefore, reluctantly and with certain serious reservations, support the Bill as presented to the House today. However, we have to insist that the Bill that was originally tabled was a much better version and would have left South Africa in a much better position to deal with issues of immigration.
The negotiations between the IFP and the ANC over the past week were difficult, but were conducted in a good spirit by the gentlemen concerned. We appreciate the efforts of the Chief Whip of the ANC, hon Mr Nhleko, for being instrumental in arranging the formation of the negotiating team, together with the hon the Deputy Minister, Rev Zondi, for removing potential stumbling blocks in its operation. The IFP would also like to express its gratitude to the members of the two-person technical team, ANC Deputy Chief Whip Mr Andries Nel, and the chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs, Mr Mpho Scott.
We place on record our appreciation of the fact that the negotiations were conducted without any hidden agendas and in an honest and relaxed manner where the only objective was to achieve a workable solution. [Applause.] I would also like to express the IFP’s appreciation for the constructive role which Mr J H van der Merwe, the Chief Whip of the IFP, and Mr P F Smith played in the negotiations.
It is no secret that the Immigration Bill took an unprecedented amount of time from the Green Paper stage to its finally being introduced in Parliament - too much time by most accounts. The reasons for the inordinate delay are numerous, and it could arguably have resulted from many different quarters. In the end, though, the unusually long delay caused suspicions of hidden agendas, and uncertainty about how the Bill would be implemented in the absence of its original mechanisms. Eventually, the Bill is before this House today. It is truly an historic day, and for that reason, one should perhaps try to forget all the trials and tribulations that have been experienced in the past. The IFP would also like to express its sincere appreciation for the role played by officials from the Department of Home Affairs and for their dedication and application in guiding the Bill through many very difficult stages.
I know that it is customary to applaud the extraordinary efforts of departmental officials in this House, but in this case it is very sincere and very genuine. We thank the Deputy Director-General, Mr Lambinon, the Head of Legal Services, Mr Malatji, and the Minister’s adviser, Dr Ambrosini, for their sterling efforts and uncompromising commitment to the hon the Minister’s vision for South Africa’s new immigration legislation. Dr Ambrosini deserves a further special mention. Over the years he has been available day and night, and over weekends, to assist all and sundry with whatever queries or problems they might have had.
The IFP would also like to thank the recently appointed chairperson and members of the Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs for their dedication, patience and co-operation. A most difficult task had been placed before the committee, but members dealt with it with aplomb and in the spirit of true democracy.
Finally, I would be remiss in not extending the very great appreciation of the IFP for the role which you, Madam Speaker, played in introducing a new leadership in the portfolio committee for the finalisation of this Bill. [Applause.]
Mr D A MOKOENA: Madam Speaker, I do not know why you look so particularly smart this morning. [Laughter.]
The SPEAKER: I was trying to match your outfit. [Laughter.]
Mr D A MOKOENA: Thank you. Madam Speaker, hon Minister, the department, colleagues and guests, I rise here to speak in support of the Immigration Bill on behalf of the ANC.
It is indeed a privilege to participate in this debate on the Bill, which is the second major piece of legislation under Home Affairs that this Parliament is about to pass, the first one having been the Municipal Electoral Act of 2000 that ushered in the dispensation of the first nonracial democratic local government elections in the country.
This Immigration Bill has 61 clauses. I will focus on five clauses, that is, the ones dealing with law enforcement and monitoring. However, before I address these five clauses, it is important to pass a few remarks.
Firstly, the Immigration Bill did not just fall out of the sky. A lot of work had been done before. Our Minister, the hon Dr Mangosuthu Buthelezi, formulated it. I take this opportunity to salute him for taking the bold step to put together this novel Bill.
The MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS: Kgotso Ntate! [Peace!] [Applause.]
Mr D A MOKOENA: Secondly, South Africa has never had to deal with immigration, except the old apartheid outmoded Aliens Control Act, which predictably inspired many court challenges by people who wanted to seek redress and thus assert their constitutional rights. With the Immigration Bill, the Aliens Control Act will ipso facto fall away. Three, the Immigration Bill was preceded by vigorous public hearings conducted by the portfolio committee. This exercise afforded stakeholders and the public in general a foretaste of the Immigration Bill.
Four, Cabinet also applied its mind to the Bill and expunged a clause that provided for the inauguration of the highly controversial immigration service. This helped to relieve the burden on the Bill.
Five, I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate our newly appointed Deputy Minister, the hon Nosiviwe Mapisa Nqakula, and wish her well in her new role. [Applause.]
Six, by the same token, I would like to compliment my successor, the hon Mpho Scott, for his contribution towards the finalisation of this Bill and also for developments including the parliamentary processes that ensued.
Seven, I must also express a word of thanks to the Director-General, Mr Billy Masetlha, and his team for their sterling work in running the department efficiently, especially in rooting out corruption. Will hon members give them a big hand, please. [Laughter.] [Applause.]
Eight, I would like to state categorically that this Immigration Bill is neither the Bill of the IFP nor of the ANC, but the Bill of our Government that is designed to service the best interests of our country. [Interjections.]
Lastly, in terms of preliminary remarks, it must be placed on record that after the developments and processes alluded to above, this Bill was tabled before the portfolio committee on 25 August 2001. Since then, the portfolio committee has arduously worked out ways in which the Bill could be adjusted and freed of certain features that would invariably qualify it as a prime candidate for a series of constitutional challenges.
I am now starting with Clause 37, one of the five clauses I am dealing with, on the immigration courts. Clause 40 of the initial Bill provided that in order to speed up the process of handling immigration matters, Home Affairs must establish immigration courts ``with exclusive original jurisdiction’’. The proposed courts would have their own physical infrastructure, magistrates and assistants who would be selected from within and outside the Public Service, or qualified officials. Such a clause, if not amended, would compel Government to create a new judicial system that would run parallel to the current court system.
During the public hearings, we received numerous warnings from professional legal societies and academic lawyers that it would be maladroit, to put it mildly, for the portfolio committee to pass it on to Parliament to legislate as it was. However, this is not all gloom and doom. The Minister of Home Affairs and the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development held talks, coupled with further negotiations.
These efforts culminated in the revised clause, marked 37. This clause is progressive in that it provides for the fact that, ``Every magistrates’ court is an Immigration Court for the purposes of this Act and shall have jurisdiction on any matter arising from the application of this Act’’. Furthermore, the Rules Board of Courts of Law, established in terms of the relevant Act, shall as soon as possible craft rules for the adjudication of immigration cases and related matters.
Clause 32 deals with illegal foreigners. This clause deals with one of the law enforcement aspects in respect of illegal foreigners. The crux of this clause is that any illegal foreigner shall depart except when authorised by the department to stay in the country while awaiting the outcome of his or her application.
Clause 33, headlined ``Inspectorate’’, provides for an enforcement measure in the form of an inspectorate.
The previous version was an investigative unit which would have awesome powers to enter and search any premises without a warrant, examine anything and apprehend any illegal foreigners. These are clearly draconian measures that are reminiscent of the old ``skop-skiet-en-donder’’ [blood-and- thunder] attitude.
This clause has been redrafted with the substitution of the inspectorate, which shall be established through regulations and shall comprise immigration officers as may be determined by the Minister. The DG shall recommend to the Minister whom to appoint as head of the inspectorate. When carrying out his or her duties, an immigration officer shall be obliged to identify himself or herself by means of adequate identification. [Interjections.]
Clause 34, which deals with the deportation and detention of illegal foreigners, has not been changed. It is meant to give teeth to the immigration officers to arrest, without need for a warrant, an illegal foreigner or cause him or her to be arrested and deported to the country of their origin or to detain them at a place under the control of the department, determined by the director-general, while the illegal foreigner is awaiting the outcome of an appeal. However, the illegal foreigner may not be kept in detention for longer than 30 calendar days without a warrant of a court.
On good and reasonable grounds, this period of detention may be extended for a further period not exceeding 90 calendar days and the detainee shall be held under conditions that ensure minimum standards of dignity and human rights.
The portfolio committee has not amended clause 35, which deals with ships. It provides for the normal procedures and obligations of a ship entering the Republic by landing or shoring at any port of entry, as well as routine checks being carried out by immigration officers.
The original title of clause 36, which deals with monitoring entries into and exits from the Republic, was ``Border Control’’. It sought that the Department of Home Affairs should control the borders of South Africa and may receive a delegation from other relevant departments such as Sars, Safety and Security, etc. I can see that my time is almost running out. [Interjections.] Anyway, I wish to say that we love the hon the Minister - we all love him. [Time expired.] [Laughter.] [Applause.]
Mnr I J PRETORIUS: Mev die Speaker, dit is vir my ‘n aangename voorreg om namens die Nuwe NP aan die bespreking oor hierdie wetsontwerp oor immigrasie deel te neem. Voordat ek by die teks van my toespraak kom, wil ek net graag sê dat die agb lid mnr Grobler hier te kenne gegee het dat die meerderheidsparty na willekeur met voorstelle gekom het om die wetsontwerp te verander.
Ek onthou, op ‘n goeie dag het hy ten opsigte van immigrasiehowe met ‘n voorstel van die DP gekom. So, ek weet nie waaroor hy kla nie. [Tussenwerpsels.] Ek wil hom net graag herinner dat hy dieselfde gedoen het. Dit is binne die reëls van die Parlement om dit te doen. [Tussenwerpsels.]
Dit is egter jammer dat die wetsontwerp nie vroeër deur die portefeuljekomitee bespreek is nie. Die departement moet ongelukkig ook skuld dra vir die gesloer met die wetsontwerp. Ek is van mening dat ons, indien dit vroeër aan ons voorgelê is, ‘n beter produk aan die Parlement sou kon voorgelê het.
‘n Spesiale woord van dank aan die nuwe voorsitter, mnr Scott, wat die afgelope week of twee die leiding oorgeneem het. Hy het binne enkele dae die komitee op ‘n nuwe pad geplaas. Ons sien daarna uit om in die toekoms met hom saam te werk.
Die belangrikste beginsel wat die wetsontwerp vervat, is die volgende: om die koms van vreemdelinge na die RSA te reguleer, hul verblyf in ons land te reël, en hul vertrek uit die land te reguleer.
Tesame daarmee, moet die Wetsontwerp op Immigrasie verbruikersvriendelik wees. Die regulasies betreffende die binnekoms van vreemdelinge met spesiale vaardighede moet dus vereenvoudig word. Rompslomp moet uitgeskakel word.
Die wetsontwerp moet ook aan die grondwetlike vereistes, wat die Handves van Regte insluit, voldoen. Dan is daar nog die uitspraak van die Grondwetlike Hof, naamlik dat die Parlement, voor 2 Junie vanjaar, nuwe wetgewing oor immigrasie moet aanneem. Dit is dus die swaard van Damocles wat oor ons koppe hang.
Suid-Afrika het, aan die ander kant, ekonomiese ontwikkeling nodig en werkgeleenthede moet geskep word om die miljoene werkloses weer hoop te gee. Ter ondersteuning van my saak haal ek graag aan uit Business SA se voorlegging aan ons portefeuljekomitee:
In the summary of the United Nations economic report on Africa 2000, paragraph 39 reads: Any improvement in African economic performance will depend on the extent to which the continent becomes integrated into the world economy.
Dan gaan hierdie verslag voort, en sê:
This entails a flow of commerce and skills, remembering that when we import a skilled foreigner, he or she comes with the capital, knowledge and resources that his or her country of origin has invested on him or her, and we get this free.
Ek glo dat indien ons daarin kan slaag om hoogs geskoolde mense na ons land te lok, werkloosheid uitgeskakel of verlig kan word. Werkloosheid kan egter nie oornag uitgeskakel word nie, maar ons moet wel alles in ons vermoë doen om ekonomiese ontwikkeling te stimuleer. Soos die verslag meld, bring ‘n geskoolde vreemdeling sy kennis gratis na Suid-Afrika.
Ons het entrepreneurs nodig. Vreemdelinge kan ook, soos nou die geval is, hulp verleen om opleiding aan ongeskoolde Suid-Afrikaners te verskaf. Een van die redes waarom ek na ekonomiese ontwikkeling en die werwing van immigrante verwys, is die feit dat daar wêreldwyd gepoog word om geskoolde persone te werf.
As ‘n voorbeeld, die Europese Unie probeer om jaarliks 1,6miljoen immigrante te werf. Daar is ander lande ook. Ek wil ook verwys na die feit dat Suid-Afrika ver geleë is van Europa, die Ooste en Amerika. Dit bring mee dat omstandighede in ons land baie ideaal gemaak moet word vir ‘n vreemdeling. Ons moet dus poog om alle struikelblokke uit die weg te ruim.
Ek hoop van harte dat die nuwe maatreëls, veral dié in klousules 15 en 19, vir die sakesektor aanvaarbaar sal wees, en dat dit geskoolde immigrante na die RSA sal lok. Die uitreiking van besigheids- en werkpermitte gaan beslis ‘n sleutelrol speel om te voldoen aan die vereistes van die sakesektor, wat ook deur die Nuwe NP onderskryf word. Die spoed en die effektiewe wyse waarop werkpermitte aan veral geskoolde immigrante uitgereik gaan word - dit word uiteengesit in klousule 19(5) - gaan bepaal of ons die doelwitte kan bereik ten opsigte van werkgeleenthede.
Dit is dan ook die rede waarom die Nuwe NP met die ANC saamwerk ter wille van die skep van ‘n beter toekoms. Die interaksie met die ANC ten opsigte van dié wetsontwerp het na my mening goeie vrugte afgewerp. Diegene wat met my verskil, kan gerus die oorspronklike wetsontwerp gaan bestudeer. Die heffings het weggeval, maar daar is onder andere die kwotabepaling in klousule 19(1) wat nog krap.
Ek hoop dat dié bepaling in die toekoms geskrap sal word, want die Nuwe NP steun dié maatreël voorwaardelik. Die toepassing van hierdie wetsontwerp gaan egter die deurslag gee, en die Minister en sy departement sal hierin, uit die aard van die saak, die sleutelrol speel. Ek hoop die agb Minister gaan ook die regulasies wat ingevolge die wetsontwerp uitgevaardig moet word in ‘n gees van verbruikersvriendelikheid skrywe.
Ek het dit voorheen gesê en ek wil dit herhaal: die Nuwe NP wil graag ‘n positiewe bydrae lewer. Ek wil ook graag sê kundiges met wie ek oor die voorgestelde wetgewing gepraat het, het ernstige bedenkings gehad daaroor of hierdie wetsontwerp aan die verwagtings gaan voldoen.
Verder sal die departement ook baie aandag aan ‘n ander aspek moet gee, naamlik die opleiding van amptenare om die wetsontwerp doeltreffend toe te pas. Uiteindelik moet ons Suid-Afrika eerste stel. Die kiesers het ons na die Parlement gestuur sodat hulle die wenners kan wees en nie ons nie. Ek steun die wetsontwerp namens die Nuwe NP. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)
[Mr I J PRETORIUS: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasant privilege for me to participate in the discussion on this Bill on immigration on behalf of the New NP. Before I get to the text of my speech, I would just like to say that the hon member Mr Grobler stated here that the majority party arbitrarily made proposals to change the Bill.
I remember, one good day he came with a proposal from the DP with regard to immigration courts. So, I do not know what he is complaining about. [Interjections.] I would just like to remind him that he did the same thing. It is within the rules of Parliament to do so. [Interjections.]
However, it is a pity that the Bill was not discussed by the portfolio committee sooner. The department must unfortunately also bear the blame for the delay with the Bill. I am of the opinion that, if it had been submitted to us earlier, we could have submitted a better product to Parliament.
A special word of thanks to the new chairperson, Mr Scott, who has taken over the leadership during the past week or two. Within days he placed the committee on a new path. We look forward to working with him in future. The most important principle contained in the Bill is the following: to regulate the arrival of foreigners in the RSA, to manage their accommodation in our country, and to regulate their departure from the country.
Together with this, the Immigration Act must be user-friendly. The regulations regarding the entry of foreigners with special skills must therefore be simplified. Red tape must be eliminated.
The Bill must also meet the constitutional requirements, which include the Bill of Rights. Then there is also the ruling by the Constitutional Court, namely that before 2 June this year Parliament must adopt new legislation on immigration. That is therefore the Sword of Damocles which hangs over our heads.
On the other hand, South Africa needs economic development and job opportunities must be created to give the millions of unemployed hope once again. In support of my case I would like to quote from Business SA’s submission to our portfolio committee:
In the summary of the United Nations economic report on Africa 2000, paragraph 39 reads: Any improvement in African economic performance will depend on the extent to which the continent becomes integrated into the world economy.
This report then goes on to say:
This entails a flow of commerce and skills, remembering that when we import a skilled foreigner, he or she comes with the capital, knowledge and resources that his or her country of origin has invested on him or her, and we get this free.
I believe that if we can succeed in attracting highly skilled people to our country unemployment can be eradicated or alleviated. However, unemployment cannot be eradicated overnight but we must still do everything in our power to stimulate economic development. As the report mentions, a skilled foreigner brings his knowledge to South Africa free of charge.
We need entrepreneurs. Foreigners can also, as is now the case, help to provide training to unskilled South Africans. One of the reasons I am referring to economic development and the recruitment of immigrants is the fact that worldwide an attempt is being made to recruit skilled persons.
For example, the European Union is trying to recruit 1,6 million immigrants annually. There are also other countries. I would also like to refer to the fact that South Africa is situated far away from Europe, the East and America. This means that circumstances in our country must be made ideal for a foreigner. We must therefore try to remove all obstacles.
I sincerely hope that the new measures, particularly those in clauses 15 and 19, are going to be acceptable to the business sector, and that they will attract skilled immigrants to the RSA. The issuing of business and work permits is certainly going to play a key role to meet the requirements of the business sector, which are also endorsed by the New NP. The speed and the effective manner in which work permits are going to be issued to skilled immigrants in particular - this is set out in clause 19(5) - are going to determine whether we can achieve the objectives with regard to job opportunities. This is then also the reason why the New NP is co-operating with the ANC for the sake of the creation of a better future. The interaction with the ANC with regard to this Bill has, in my opinion, borne much fruit. Those who disagree with me are welcome to study the original Bill. The levies have fallen away, but there is, inter alia, the quota stipulation in clause 19(1) which is still a thorny issue.
I hope that this provision will be removed in future, because the New NP supports this measure provisionally. However, the implementation of this Bill is going to tip the scale, and the Minister and his department are, naturally, going to play the key role in this regard. I hope that the hon the Minister is also going to write the regulations which must be issued in terms of the Bill in a spirit of user-friendliness.
I have said it before and I want to repeat it: The New NP would like to make a positive contribution. I would also like to say that experts with whom I discussed the proposed legislation had serious doubts as to whether this Bill is going to meet expectations.
Furthermore, the department will also have to give a great deal of attention to another aspect, namely the training of officials to implement the Bill effectively. At the end of the day we must put South Africa first. The voters sent us to Parliament so that they could be the winners, and not us. I support the Bill on behalf of the New NP. [Applause.]]
Ms ANNELIZÉ VAN WYK: Madam Speaker, hon Minister, the Bill before the House will not be remembered for its content. Chances are much better that the Bill will be remembered for all the wrong reasons. Eight years in the making, the Immigration Bill was surrounded by controversy. The journey of this Bill is a good example of how not to deal with legislation.
The deliberate delays by the ANC in starting with the deliberations on the Bill in the portfolio committee resulted in the committee having to rush to meet the Constitutional Court deadlines. It meant that as late as last night a final Bill was not ready for scrutiny by committee members. Instead, an unrevised version of the Bill was distributed.
This further contributed to adopting less than ideal options because there was not sufficient time to deliberate on alternatives. If deliberations on the Bill had started when the Bill was introduced, there would have been time to ask the department to redraft certain sections of the Bill.
There can be no claim that policy issues regarding this Bill were ironed out. And it would be difficult for anyone to give a short and comprehensive answer on what the immigration policy of South Africa is, this despite it being eight years in the making.
The department is not without blame either. The approach was one of not wanting to give an inch and of regarding any suggested changes as being ludicrous. That did not assist in creating an atmosphere of co-operation.
Cabinet’s approval of the Bill while it clearly did not agree, whether this was communicated or not, was also a further frustration that the committee had to deal with. With as many as 11 Government agencies affected by this Bill, everyone accepted that it would be difficult to satisfy all. However, after eight years, it is certainly not unreasonable to expect that even Cabinet should have been more united in its approach. To the contrary, the committee was left to sort out those differences that Cabinet was unable or unwilling to address at that level. This is an untenable situation.
Let me get into some details of the Bill. The UDM is concerned about clause 33 of the Bill, which deals with the inspectorate. We support the need for such an inspectorate in order to enforce the Bill. However, we remain uncomfortable with the absence of the need for a warrant when executing certain seizure activities.
This clause also allows for the use of necessary force in executing inspections. The UDM would like to express its concern and reservations over this. We know how difficult it is for the SAPS to deal with the need for necessary force, and we would like to know how a department that is not receiving training on this is going to deal with it.
Allowing detention of illegal foreigners for a period of from 30 to 90 days without a warrant is also an issue of great concern to the UDM. While we understand that the process requires time, we believe strongly that this provision can constitutionally be challenged. The UDM believes that deportation should be done as quickly as possible.
Regarding the issue of work permits and the quota system, we would like to urge that the system rather be used as an enabling tool and not as a restrictive measure. The quota system might not be the ideal tool, but there were no - and we must emphasise this - acceptable alternatives presented either. We would urge the Minister and his two colleagues to use this rather as a means test than a restrictive measure.
The quotas should be determined with the assistance of business. Once we have determined the quotas, it is also important that we then go out and market that need to the communities out there, and actively try to bring people to South Africa in order to fulfil those needs.
The UDM asks that its objection to clause 40, dealing with accommodation, be noted. We are in support of this Bill, but we believe that this Bill will be back with Parliament for changes earlier rather than later.
We would also like to take the opportunity to thank the new chairperson for the way in which he took the committee forward in dealing with what was clearly a very controversial Bill. [Applause.]
Ms M M MAUNYE: Madam Speaker, Ministers, Deputy Ministers, hon members, comrades, the challenge that faces our country in the current globalised world is to transform a racially motivated immigration system into a nonracial and rational response to the objective needs of the country.
The new immigration regime that we seek to establish must be in a position to achieve at least the following four objectives: enhance the country’s integration into and competitiveness within the global economy; further the process of regional integration and development within the Southern African Development Community; generate economic growth and job opportunities for people of the region; and provide the ability to improve the living standards of our people in the country and the region. The Bill that is before us goes a long way in ensuring that the four objectives stated above are realised.
There are basically three areas that I want to focus on in the Bill that is before us today. The first one is the issue of permits. This is critical, to know who is in the country and who is out of the country. The second issue is the question of obligations and duties. We are in the process of building a country that will foster public-private participation between Government, civil society and business. The third issue is the question of immigration practitioners. The Department of Home Affairs should know who are the people are that are in this business. This is a very lucrative business that can attract all sorts of individuals.
There are number of permits that the Bill suggests. I want to focus mainly on four types of permits. The first one is the asylum permit that deals with the issue of refugees. The second one is the relative permit that seeks to facilitate and enable people of blood relation to visit each other with ease. The third one is the study permit that allows people from other countries to study at our institutions of higher learning. The fourth one is the retired person’s permit. This permit seeks to facilitate and encourage retired persons that will add value to our economy, and inject skills that are required and share those skills with our people.
Let me address the asylum permit. The birth of democracy brought us new challenges, some of which were expected and some of which were never expected. As a result we were not able to handle them in a proper way. Our reintegration into the international community brought new responsibilities and obligations. We signed conventions and protocols that set the rules and regulations on how to handle refugees.
As a country, we have to observe these rules. Refugees did not leave their respective countries by choice but were forced by circumstances that were beyond their control, in most cases. They are often people who are destitute and poor. Their countries are ravaged by war or political persecutions. This kind of permit is granted to people such as these, not to any other person.
South African society in general has a tendency to confuse illegal immigrants and refugees. There is a clear distinction between the two types of people. In terms of our international obligations, refugees can be granted some sort of travel document once their refugee status has been ascertained.
As members of this Parliament, we need to make an effort to educate the public about the differences and obligations that we have in terms of the protocols and conventions that we have signed with the international community. Despite the situation, the refugee community has something to offer the country. Some of the refugees have skills that the country needs.
Regarding relative permits, the European powers, when they partitioned Africa at the Berlin Conference, did not take care of people and their jurisdiction. This resulted in a situation where people of the same family and tribe find themselves living in two or three different countries, something that they had not even thought about. All of a sudden, they have to ask for a permit to visit their relatives who happen to live in these countries. This situation has inhibited the movement of people of the same family. The kind of permit that is envisaged is one that will facilitate the movement of people without any of the hindrance and difficulty that is now being experienced.
On the issue of study permits, I would like to say that, about four years ago, this august House gave the Government a mandate to sign a SADC protocol on education that seeks to encourage the movement of academics and students within the region. This movement of students within the region needs to be regulated. This clause seeks to address that. However, it does not only focus on students from the region, but also on foreign students who intend to study in the country.
We live in a global village where one of the outcomes of globalisation is the free flow of ideas among people of different countries and cultures in order to enrich ourselves. In the same vein, the institutions of learning have an obligation to continually inform the Department of Home Affairs about the status of a student concerned and whether he or she is still with the institution. This is critical to ensure that we keep track of everyone in the country who is not a South African citizen.
As regards retired people’s permits, many people will wonder why we allow retired persons to come to our country instead of people who will contribute to the economic growth of the country. Firstly, I need to clarify the point that a retired person does not necessarily mean a person who is over the age of 60, poor, and intends to benefit from our pension scheme. It is far from this. In most countries, particularly developed countries, people retire at an early age because they can afford to do so, unlike in countries such as ours. A person over the age of 60 is not necessarily near his or her grave. Those people, in most cases, will have skills and the necessary capital that they can inject into the economy in the form of investment. Secondly, these people normally have a regular income in their countries that sustains them for life. The clause also insists that such persons must provide proof from the country of his or her origin that he or she has the benefits, for example, such as minimum payment for the rest of his or her life.
I now want to focus on the area of obligation and duties. We must not view this section as draconian by placing obligations and duties on individuals and companies that have foreigners in their ranks. The people who run those institutions must understand that in the light of public-private partnerships which seek to encourage close co-operation between people and their government to realise our objective of a better life for all. In terms of this clause, companies are obliged to employ people who are legally in the country. Should they not observe the law, the department will take legal action against them. They will also have to inform the department about the status of their employees.
The issue of accommodation is one area in which illegal activities take place. The urban decay that we see in cities like Johannesburg today is partly the result of the fact that there has not been a systematic record of people accommodated in certain institutions. Most of those institutions find themselves being overrun by international syndicates that use those buildings as springboards to conduct criminal activities. We need to do something about this situation. We cannot allow it to continue as it is. This clause seeks to address this problem.
The last issue that I want to talk about is the question of immigration practitioners. With this clause, the department seeks to ensure that there is control over the people …
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I regret that your time has expired, hon member.
Ms M M MAUNYE: We support the Bill. [Applause.]
Mr S N SWART: Madam Speaker, hon Minister, the ACDP shares the Minister’s concerns and frustrations, particularly regarding the quota system adopted in the Bill. The ACDP’s principal opposition to the Bill is, however, founded on the extension of the definition of the word ``spouse’’ to include a party to a permanent heterosexual or homosexual relationship. We believe that this is finessing into legislation a secular humanist agenda which is directly in contrast with the Judaeo-Christian family values that we, as Christian democrats, hold dear.
The ACDP appreciates, however, that the extension of this definition is a result of the decision in the National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality case, and that the Bill would be unconstitutional if those words were not added. The mere fact that the Constitutional Court has made such a ruling does not, however, result in that ruling being morally acceptable. It all depends on one’s particular world view, ours being a biblical one. In this regard, we particularly question the need to grant heterosexual unmarried partners the same rights as married partners, as the former can quite legitimately get married in terms of our existing law.
Implementation will also present immense difficulties, as the department will only be able to rely upon the ipse dixit of the parties themselves. How will one combat partners fraudulently stating, even on affidavit, that they are in such permanent relationships in order to obtain permanent residence permits? Mr Errol Naidoo, in a recent letter published in the media, convincingly argues that the erosion of family values has led to a moral degeneration in South Africa. We share his view that the correct strategy to reverse the current cultural trend of moral degeneration in South Africa must primarily be to support the superiority of monogamous heterosexual marriage and the family as a social ideal and to pass the necessary laws to protect those institutions.
In conclusion, we wish to state that the extended definition of ``spouse’’ as contained in this Bill does not serve this purpose, and consequently the ACDP cannot support this Bill, notwithstanding the very many positive elements contained therein.
Mr I S MFUNDISI: Madam Speaker, hon members, the intent of the Immigration Bill before us is to empower the department to issue permits allowing foreigners to enter, sojourn and conduct certain activities within South Africa as expeditiously as possible. On the other hand, it seeks to prevent xenophobia and uphold human rights. The Bill also seeks to make it easier to recruit much-needed skills to the country.
It is unfortunate that a piece of legislation with such noble intentions was the subject of protracted and vitriolic debate. The recruitment of much- needed skills to the country is being misconstrued in some quarters as denying work opportunities to local people. We are all aware that the Director-General of the Department of Trade and Industry made it abundantly clear that people are not being employed because they are unemployable owing to lack of skills. We therefore need skills to make the economy function properly.
An innovative piece of legislation requires that those who will implement it be retrained. As such, provision has to be made for transitional arangements and even restructuring of the department. The Equality Act of 2000 and the South African Weather Service Act of 2001 are but two examples of pieces of legislation that have sections dealing with these issues, and this Parliament passed them without raising a finger on those sections.
We commend the Minister of Home Affairs and the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development for having found common ground on the establishment of immigration courts, as proposed in the Bill. One wonders why there was such hype about this matter in the first place, as other state departments such as Labour, the SA Revenue Service and Transport have specialised courts to expedite resolutions in respect of cases involving them.
We in the UCDP would appeal to members to be consistent in passing laws. Some Bills should not be stifled and delayed by scrutiny that borders on paranoia, while others are passed with ease, only to come back to this House two or three months later to be amended.
In the best interests of South Africa, we in the UCDP will support the Bill, even in its present form. After all …
… fa koko e seo, go jewa luribisi. [… half a loaf is better than no bread at all.] [Applause.]
Dr S E M PHEKO: Madam Speaker, hon Minister of Home Affairs, this Immigration Bill is intended to provide for the regulation of admission of persons, their residence in, and their departure from our country and, of course, matters connected therewith.
Because of the high rate of crime in our country, some of which is committed by immigrants, it is important that our immigration law is tightened to prevent foreigners who come here with the intention of committing crime.
Our immigration laws must also ensure that human rights in this country are not taken advantage of by criminals. I am referring to laws which make it easy for immigrants to contract marriages of convenience.
Although this Bill does not meet international standards, it is nevertheless an improvement on the old Aliens Control Act.
For effective implementation of our immigration laws, Parliament must take care that it does not make it difficult for the current Minister to function effectively, because Ministers change.
Clause 19 deals with work permits. It looks as if it will cause endless delays, and will need a review later.
It is regrettable, of course, that this Bill is surrounded by a cloud of controversy in that the Minister of Home Affairs seems to have been frustrated.
National unity and democracy demand that good ideas are listened to and used for the benefit of our country, regardless of who has proposed them, especially if he or she is a Minister. Anything less than this is nothing but pseudo-democracy and a sign of fascism.
The PAC will vote for this Bill with reservations, especially with regard to clauses 19 and 33.
Miss S RAJBALLY: Madam Speaker, hon Minister, South Africa has earned itself a reputation as a safe haven. We have done this, certainly, not because of our horrific past, but because of who we are today. We are a nation of the people for the people. Our main priority is the people, as with a child that needs care and love. What person would not be drawn to us? We also have a fast-growing economy, sights and beauties. And being the rainbow nation, which person around the world does not share our heritage?
However much we enjoy the revenue tourism brings in, immigrants can hardly be catered for. We have escalating levels of unemployment among the citizenry, and our constitutional commitment is to them first.
The influx of foreigners immigrating to South Africa is causing panic, and xenophobia is an expected reaction.
On our televisions we have witnessed the illegal dealings of foreigners in our country. We need to put a stop to this.
It would be easy to say that we should stop immigration, but we have to bear in mind that we should not stereotype and assume that all immigrants to our country are criminals. That would be treacherous and inhumane.
Hopefully the department will be able to meet with the departments of safety and inculcate more rigid measures to sift through the bag. Health risks are also noted. This statement seems discriminatory; however, our first priority is our citizens. The MF notes that letting in immigrants does not cater for the investment of foreign currency and many other positive aspects. We are confident that the department will institute the Bill efficiently and effectively.
The MF supports the Immigration Bill. [Applause.]
Mr C AUCAMP: Madam Speaker, the AEB is distressed by the way in which this important Bill was handled and vitally changed at the last minute, as described by hon Minister Buthelezi to this House today.
The hon the Minister should be assured of the sympathy of the AEB. [Interjections.] I am talking to the Minister, hon member! [Laughter.] We have great understanding for him in his particular position as a member of Government and of the opposition. As we say in Afrikaans, ``Dit is net ‘n kat wat gelyktydig kan vry en baklei.’’ [Only a cat can kiss and fight at the same time.] [Laughter.] Die oorhoofse bedoeling van hierdie wetsontwerp moet gesteun word. Navorsing het getoon dat hoewel daar groot werkloosheid in Suid-Afrika is, daar weer in sekere gespesialiseerde kategorieë groot tekorte is. Daarom moet dit vir voornemende immigrante met hierdie vaardighede makliker, en nie moeiliker nie, gemaak word om dit hier te kan aanwend.
Daar kan besware wees dat vreemdelinge ons gaan oorstroom en ons werk gaan vat, maar hierdie gevaar bestaan by onwettige immigrasies, nie by mense wat die land deur die voordeur binnekom nie.
Die AEB ondersteun ook die agb Minister in sy besware teen die drie ter- elfder-ure wysigings. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
The overall intention of this Bill must be supported. Research has shown that although there is unemployment in South Africa, there are also great shortages in certain specialised categories. That is why it should be made easier, and not more difficult, for prospective immigrants with the necessary skills to employ them here.
There may be objections that foreigners might flood us and take our jobs, but this peril exists with illegal immigrations, not with people entering the country through the front door.
The AEB also supports the hon the Minister in his objections against the three eleventh-hour amendments.]
There is one common denominator in all three of these ANC amendments: that of bigger instead of smaller government. Surely the market, those who are working with these shortages, should know best which skills, and how many people, we need. It is not for Government to determine this by way of quotas.
Furthermore, the AEB is opposed to the centralisation of Government functions, as reflected in the new draft, and would opt for decentralisation and outsourcing of functions where possible. Also, on the third late amendment, we would prefer that Government did not play the role of the client’s chartered accountant.
Then, of course, the AEB supports the ACDP in their objection to the new definition of ``spouse’’. Certainly, these couples could not be turned away, but it is not necessary effectively to rewrite the definition of marriage in every Bill.
Hierdie wetsontwerp sal weer verander moet word, maar daarsonder kan ons ook nie. Daar is krake in die wetsontwerp, en in die manier hoe die hek oopgemaak word, maar hy moet nou oopgemaak word. Daarom steun die AEB met voorbehoud die wetsontwerp. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[This Bill will have to be changed again, but we cannot go without it either. There are cracks in the Bill, and in the manner in which the gate is opened, but it has to be opened now. That is why the AEB supports the Bill with reservations. [Applause.]]
Mr M U KALAKO: Madam Speaker, hon members, I am sure it would have served him well if the hon Mr Aucamp could have attended the portfolio committee meetings. I am sure we would have benefited from his presence.
The legislation we are repealing had its roots in the apartheid era, and had all the trappings of racist ideology. Its basic principles stemmed from 1913, shortly after the unification of South Africa. Then it was meant to keep out undesirable fortune-hunting citizens from Europe, Canada and America. Although, then, the apartheid element was not built into this legislation, it was embodied in the Black Urban Areas Act, the Black Labour Act and elements of the Influx Control Act.
Through this legislation we know that many of our freedom fighters were declared ``prohibited persons’’ in the Republic of South Africa. They were condemned to the homelands. Therefore, the process of making new immigration legislation must take into account the extent to which the immigration policy was used by the apartheid government as a mechanism to enforce widespread abuses, including denying black people the rights to citizenship and freedom of movement, and subjecting migrant workers in particular to widespread labour abuses.
What does the new immigration legislation seek to do? It seeks to reflect a shift towards an approach that is clearly based on respect for human rights, as set out in our Constitution and international law. It seeks to create a new and modern piece of legislation that is in keeping with our constitutional democracy. It also seeks to put in place measures to combat racism and xenophobia, and to facilitate the attraction of investment into the country. Above all it seeks to provide a service to South African citizens and legal residents by making sure that, in our migration legislation, there are no loopholes for transnational organised crime and illegal migration. The Bill deals with the effects of illegal migrants on unemployment and the combating of corruption in the Department of Home Affairs.
To deal with the above-mentioned challenges that face the department, the legislation creates provisions under the enforcement and monitoring clauses. This Bill, as tabled before Parliament, gives definite guidelines and policy so as to minimise the discretionary decisions of the officials. In this regard, the officials of the department will have to undergo training which will assist them in the implementation of the Bill. It also makes simple and less complex the processes of handling immigrants and refugees. By giving certainty to the process, it limits and eliminates discretion by officials.
The Bill has taken into account constitutional and legislative mandates of other departments on those issues and permits that relate to other departments such as Labour, Trade and Industry, the Defence Force and others.
In order to cater for implementation and transition, mechanisms have been provided for under the regulation-making clauses and transitional provisions. These two clauses will enable the department to implement the provisions of the Bill. The Bill has, by all means, tried to avoid ambiguity and inconsistency. It has, instead, endeavoured to be specific in its explanations so as not to be everything to everyone.
In conclusion, I would like to say that we know that this Bill is not perfect. But, it is something that we can live with. For this reason, the legislation cannot remain static. It will change from time to time to accommodate new demands, developments and trends. It will keep evolving in order to remain relevant in the changing times so that it makes provision for the new challenges. This legislation is implementable and enforceable. All we need to do is make sure that we provide the department with an adequate budget to implement it. Lastly, I want to commend the department for its participation throughout the deliberations on the Bill and for its consistent attendance of the committee meetings. I want, in particular, to commend the role played by Dr Ambrosini in actually engaging the department throughout the deliberations on the Bill. We commend that. I also want to commend the Minister and remind him that when he opened the discussions, he was the first person to appear before us, and he actually said to us: ``The Bill is before you to tear it into pieces as you deem fit as a committee.’’ [Applause.]
The MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS: Madam Speaker, I wish to thank all hon members who have participated in this debate today for their valuable contributions, but I wish to give a very special word of thanks to the chairman of the committee, Mr Scott, who, in spite of his youth, has spoken many words of wisdom, normally associated with people of my age. [Laughter.] [Applause.]
I am glad that he stressed that the perspective in which the debate on migration control should be cast was that of globalisation, because we need to ensure that this commitment to the perspective of globalisation in fact becomes a living reality in the further stages of policy formulation on this matter. In respect of the hon member’s comment on preferential treatment on a regional basis, future policy development on this matter will be challenging and I think we need to take into account the new international framework established by the General Agreement on Trade in Services, which limits some of our options in respect of migration control.
I wish to highlight the hon member’s remarks on our department’s needing additional resources, which will be the key to the success of the implementation of this Bill. I wish also to echo his sentiments when he says that we need to work together. I can assure him that I look forward to a fruitful interaction with him. I wish to take our combined efforts and joint commitment to make the Immigration Bill a reality. The Immigration Bill will require a complex process of implementation, as we can see, including regulations, which will not be possible without the full and dedicated support of the Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs.
We need to ensure that all stakeholders contribute to this process of implementation and work closely with us in the drafting of regulations. For this purpose we need to set aside differences and join hands across both sides of the aisle. For this reason I am sure that our good colleague, the hon Mr Grobler, will set aside the grudges at the many delays and obstacles placed in the path of the passage of the Immigration Bill, which he rightly recollected for us, of course, and will let bygones be bygones.
Mr Grobler spoke a very harsh truth - no wonder there were interjections - and said many things that, unfortunately, are true, even if not very palatable. However, that is the past - a past which we shall not forget, but which we now must move beyond. I hope that the member’s contribution will be taken into account as we move into the implementation of the Immigration Act. I thank the hon member Mr Grobler for his insightful remarks and hope that he will continue to contribute his strength of intellect to future debates on immigration control.
Neither of us knows what is involved in setting up a quota system, but perhaps by working together we will be able to figure it out and fill the extensive blanks in the mandate which my department is now receiving from this Parliament. We need everybody’s support to come up with a credible and acceptable quota system. I also wish to thank His Royal Highness Prince Nhlanhla Zulu for his remarks, which also carry wisdom. I think we must heed conciliatory words, which highlight the need to look at the glass as half full rather than half empty.
I thank Prince Zulu and other members of the two teams which negotiated the resolution of the political impasse which was created by the May 9 redraft of the Bill by the majority party. The prince has highlighted how the negotiations avoided a crisis and the possibility that what we have considered today would have been a very absurd Bill. His words highlight the commitment of my party to avoid conflicts and to seek further progress on the path of reconciliation through negotiations.
I also wish to thank the former chairperson of the committee, the hon Mr Mokoena, who correctly remarked that South Africa had never had to apply its mind to an open policy debate on migration, which is true. I never met this open mind, even in the home affairs portfolio committee when he was chairing it.
Today we have just begun this debate, and if we are to develop quotas, there would be harsh policy confrontations and sharp differences of opinion on what is needed and how ajar our immigration door should be kept.
Unfortunately, the hon member misread the original clause 40 which he quoted, relating to immigration courts, and the remarks he made in that respect are muddled, with due respect to him, and both legally and factually incorrect. I suggest that he may wish to look into the issue more analytically to enhance his understanding of the matter.
The reformulation of the provision on the immigration court was the product of discussions between the Department of Justice, my department, my colleague the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development and myself.
Moreover, the remarks that the hon member Mr Mokoena made relating to the original formulation of the investigative unit are plainly wrong, and it is incorrect to state that any power of the investigative unit has been changed, when, in fact, the only change affects the name of the unit and none of its substance. In other words, it is just a cosmetic change. Moreover, the notion that these were Home Affairs courts that I was trying to create is absurd.
However, his comments highlight that unless we have administrative capacity for the enforcement of immigration law, our debating this Bill will be an exercise in futility, if its provisions are widely ignored.
Similarly, Mr Mokoena’s comments in respect of border control do not reflect the Bill as introduced or amended. He seemed to be talking about the yesteryear Bill.
I do not know how to answer the hon Mr Pretorius’s blaming my department for the delay in placing the Bill before the committee. Obviously, he and I do not share the same reality. My recollection is that I brought the draft Bill to the committee on or about 26 October 1999, published it on 15 February 2000, invited the committee to a conference on the Bill in July 2000, posted it on the Internet, each and every new version of the Bill being discussed, tabled it in Parliament in April 2001, formally introduced it in the Committee in August 2001, and instructed three of my top officials to be available to the committee on a full-time basis. I note his opinion that this Bill has been improved through the efforts of the majority party, which I think speaks volumes in many respects. I can assure him that training in my department has already commenced, which I took upon myself to launch before my director-general did nothing about it.
I thank the hon Ms Van Wyk for her contribution in this debate, and for the
many sharp contributions I understand she made during the work of the
committee. However, I must take strong exception to her stating that my
department rejected all suggested amendments as ludicrous, as all my
department’s positions have been placed before the committee in writing,
and in documentation which I personally reviewed, the word ludicrous''
was utilised only on two occasions in a hundred pages. And for a very good
cause, the wordludicrous’’ was used.
Her comments about the quota system are optimistic and do not seem to appreciate the complexity of this matter. But, I hope that she will give her contribution to overcome them as we move forward.
I thank the hon Ms Maunye for highlighting the complexity of the multifaceted aspects of permits and their issuance. I can assure her that our legislation is up to international standards in respect of refugee affairs, and I share her concerns that great work needs to be done in educating our people on the difference between refugees and illegal foreigners. I would like to tell her that in December I attended the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Convention on Refugees in Geneva, and received compliments from many ministers of home affairs from other parts of the world for what I said there.
I further wish to thank the hon Mr Swart, and I appreciate that he appreciates that the provisions relating to homosexual partnerships are constitutionally mandated. Similarly, those relating to heterosexual relationships are constitutionally mandated as well, even though the matter did not directly come before the Constitutional Court.
In respect of the practical difficulty of dealing with this matter, he may be aware that the system has already been in force for two years, without any major hiccups.
I also wish to thank the hon Mfundisi for the many insightful contributions he made during the committee’s work and for his words to us today. I understand his understanding of macroeconomic realities and the connection between importing foreign human capital and our economic growth.
A word of thanks goes to the hon Rajbally, the hon Dominee Aucamp and the hon Kalako for their contributions. I only appeal to the hon Kalako that the English expression of ``tearing the Bill to pieces’’ should not be taken literally. We are speaking figuratively. [Laughter.]
Finally, I wish to thank the hundreds of people and the institutions which over the years have made innumerable contributions to this process and participated in this debate on migration control. It has been an enormous collegial effort which has involved the whole of our country. It will remain an example of how legislation should be brought to Parliament, with the benefit of strong debate in the press and the participation of stakeholders and role-players. The passage of this Bill has been a true exercise in democracy, in which each institution of Government and building block of our society has played an unprecedented and significant role, unabridged by any concern or limit, as we all know.
Buthelezi-bashing is always allowed. Buthelezi is a hard-bitten politician; therefore people spoke their minds openly on this Bill. Even if they had nothing to say, I tolerated them, for that is what democracy is about. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Bill read a second time (African Christian Democratic Party dissenting).
APPROPRIATION BILL
Debate on Vote No 28 - Labour:
The MINISTER OF LABOUR: Madam Speaker, hon members, whenever we behold the source of light and its movement from the eastern escarpment of our beautiful land, we know that we have been spared yet another day to rise to the challenge to serve our people. Whenever the incisive rays of the sun make a breakthrough as they permeate the clouds of the skies, we are also reminded of the breakthrough that we are making in moving our country away from its painful and shameful past to its glorious and prosperous future. As the light of the sun brightens our path, en route to a better life for all, we know that we shall neither stumble nor fall, as we are able to clearly see the route on which we travel - as a people, as a country, and as a nation. Indeed, steadily but surely our country is making a breakthrough in removing the historical barriers responsible for constraining our economic growth.
Our beloved country has made, and continues to make, a breakthrough in introducing measures aimed at promoting job creation, even though we know there is no quick-fix solution to the challenges of poverty and unemployment that continue to plague our country. These breakthroughs we are making in gradually pushing back the frontiers of poverty and of other development in our country will not escape the attention of anyone who has suffered the injustices and atrocities of our unenviable and invidious past.
Only those whose power of judgment is irreparably impaired would fail to observe the strides we have made, the efforts we have taken and the breakthrough that fellow South Africans have collectively achieved under extremely adverse conditions in creating an enabling environment for economic growth, increased labour market efficiency, fostering high levels of productivity, promoting stable and sound labour relations, enhancing the development of skills, eliminating discrimination and inequalities in the labour market, improving working conditions, especially for vulnerable workers, and improving our social safety net. In this regard I say, without equivocation, that our country has made, and continues to make, a breakthrough.
However, key amongst our concerns is the problem of unemployment which, according to the latest labour force survey of Statistics SA, has increased by 2,9% to a total of 4,5 million. It is worth noting that recently analysed data shows that over the period 1995 to 1999 total employment increased by 1,1 million jobs. But in the same period some 3,1 million individuals entered the labour market. These figures show that over the last decade our marginal economic growth has not been matched by adequate employment creation.
This new challenge that our economy faces is being addressed in the economic cluster of Government by various interventions. Trends in the labour market also highlight significant inequalities that prevail in terms of race and gender. For instance, 85,6% of the unemployed are Africans, the majority of whom are women, and 71,9% of the unemployed are aged between 15 and 34 years.
Of course, those who are ideologically opposed to the constitutionally sanctioned rights of workers to decent labour standards will continue to blame all the ills of our economy on the labour legislation. This is in spite of the fact that last year this House, as well as the NCOP, unanimously passed amendments to the Labour Relations Act and the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, following a protracted period of negotiations among social partners, all of whom agreed that the new changes would go a long way in addressing investors’ concerns without creating an environment in which the rights of workers are trampled upon with impunity. Most stakeholders are agreed that, as a deal, the new laws have managed to strike a balance between labour market efficiency and decent labour standards.
One of the key challenges our labour market faces is that the global forces that influence it have reduced the demand for low-skilled workers, of whom our country has an abundance, and increased the demand for skilled workers, of whom we have a short supply. A dire consequence of these changing patterns of labour demands is that there is a significant group of people, mostly black, mostly women and mostly youth, who are fast becoming unemployable and will remain so unless some drastic interventions are made. They face long-term unemployment. This is the challenge that our human resource development strategy and the skills development strategy seek to address.
The national skills development strategy that I launched last year seeks to develop a culture of life-long learning, foster skills development in the formal economy for productivity and economic growth, stimulate and support skills development in small business, promote skills development for employability and sustainable livelihoods through social development initiatives, as well as assist young new entrants into employment.
While I am the very first to admit that this programme is ambitious, our first year’s results demonstrate that if we pull together as a nation we can achieve the targets we set for ourselves. For instance, our learnership target for March 2002 was 3 000 learners. By 27 March we had already exceeded the target by 6% and the numbers keep growing. At the last count we had more than doubled the number to a staggering figure of 7 480 people enrolled in learnerships. This illustrious and magnificent breakthrough gives us confidence that the 80 000 mark we have set for the year 2005 will indeed be met.
Overall, the 25 sectoral education and training authorities which were set up nearly two years ago, are functioning well, as evidenced by the fact that already 87% of the funds under their custodianship has either been paid out or allocated to firms and projects. As can be expected of institutions in their infancy, and governed by social partners, some Setas have experienced teething problems. The department is entering into a memorandum of understanding with each Seta setting out sector-specific targets that should be achieved during the year. We have also provided dedicated capacity to assist Setas to address their institutional challenges and achieve their objectives.
Three days ago, all members may know, I launched 18 strategic projects to be funded out of the National Skills Fund. About R1,1 billion over a three- and-a-half year period has been allocated to these projects, which seek to fund various skills development initiatives, linked to existing or planned jobs or income-generating opportunities aligned to Government’s national employment and growth goals.
This is yet another breakthrough we have made with regard to developing our country’s human resources and enhancing the capacity of our enterprises to compete favourably in the world market. [Applause.] We have also made a laudable and splendid breakthrough in protecting the rights of vulnerable workers. The department has published, for public comment, proposed sectoral determinations for the agricultural and domestic sectors, respectively. These will be gazetted once I have received and given due consideration to the final recommendations of the Employment Conditions Commission.
The ECC is also in the process of considering a sectoral determination for the retail sector. A sectoral determination for the security industry was published during the year, amending minimum wages and conditions of employment in that sector. This breakthrough was made possible due the flexibility inherent in our legislation, in terms of which each sector of our economy can adopt a dispensation best suited to its unique circumstances. Given the unfair discrimination that people with disabilities are exposed to when seeking employment, and even when in employment, the department has published for comment a code of good conduct for disability.
This is yet another breakthrough aimed at ensuring that people with disabilities are accorded the rights promised in our supreme law, the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. These rights are also enshrined in the Employment Equity Act administered by my department. On 23 August 2001 the Commission on Employment Equity also launched its first report, containing data on the extent to which employers were implementing the employment equity in the workplace. Ironically, this report proves in no uncertain terms how the apartheid-styled social engineering has succeeded in fulfilling the dreams of its architects, namely, to prevent black people in general and black women in particular from entering certain occupational categories.
It is the intention of the Employment Equity Act to turn the tide, and to turn into a nightmare the dreams of those who sought to ensure that African people are relegated to being hewers of wood and drawers of water. [Applause.] The Employment Equity Act will turn this dream into a nightmare. In terms of our Constitution, we as South Africans have committed ourselves to preventing unfair discrimination in any form, against anyone, on any irrational grounds. We must all now live out the implications of our commitment at the workplace by ensuring that we remove all barriers that continue to prevent blacks, women and people with disabilities from pursuing the occupational categories of their choice.
The phenomenal decrease in workplace accidents and fatalities in the past two years is another noteworthy breakthrough. In the year 2001, 5 950 workplace accidents were recorded. In the year 2002, this figure was reduced by about 46%. Similarly, the year-on-year workplace fatality rate reduced within a 12-month period by about 40%. While we believe that one workplace accident or fatality is one too many, who would be so unreasonable as to deny that this drastic reduction in workplace accidents and fatalities is a breakthrough in the struggle for healthy and safe working environments? Nevertheless, we pledge ourselves to continue the fight against workplaces that approximate war zones, where injury or death is an inherent occupational hazard.
The breakthrough in the reduction of workplace accidents can be attributed in part to the partnership that the department has entered into with organised business and labour, aimed at promoting healthy and safe workplaces. On 8 April 2002 organised business, Government and the three main labour federations, Cosatu, Nactu and Fedusa, signed an accord, committing themselves to contributing their respective resources to preventing workplace illness, accidents and fatalities.
This is yet another breakthrough in ensuring that workers do not go to work to die. During the year under review, 5 469 inspections were carried out at workplaces. While the majority of workplaces inspected showed high levels of compliance, we were dismayed to find that there were still certain employers who continued to place profits ahead of human life.
However, the increased visibility of our inspectors has continued to ensure that recalcitrant employers find no place to hide. With the capacity of our inspectorate having been increased to a total of 1 335 posts and with the commitment of unions to ensuring that all workplaces have safety committees, a continued remarkable improvement in the occupational health and safety environment is anticipated.
During the previous financial year, my department’s inspectors also secured the first ever prosecution and conviction for child labour. The process began when my department spearheaded the adoption of the ILO Child Labour Convention. Implementation of the convention necessitated the development of a child labour action programme. The conviction was part of that programme, and my department will continue to take steps to eliminate the exploitation of children at work.
However, our success rate will increase dramatically if courageous whistle- blowers continue to ensure that all offenders are reported. This conviction and sentence will undoubtedly send an unequivocal signal that employers who exploit the most vulnerable of our country’s most precious citizens, its children, by exposing them to employment practices that harm their development and deprive them of their education, shall not escape the full might of the state.
Our success in this field of work has received international recognition. South Africa was asked to host one of only six international launches of the recently published ILO global report entitled: ``A future without child labour’’.
Another critical strategic objective of the department is to contribute towards the provision of a social safety net for workers who are temporarily unemployed - those who get injured at work or contract occupational diseases. In order to effectively discharge our obligation with regard to the provision of the Unemployment Insurance Fund, we have had to completely overhaul the entire policy framework. This has resulted in the repealing of the old Act and the passing of new legislation which extends coverage to certain categories of workers hitherto excluded.
The new legislation, underpinned by new administrative efficiency, also aims to improve the liquidity and solvency of the fund, thereby making it self-sufficient. This is yet another breakthrough by the department aimed at strengthening our social safety net to benefit those who need it the most.
In response to the dissatisfaction expressed by claimants regarding delays in the processing of claims by the compensation commission, we have introduced new procedures backed up with a new information technology system that aims to drastically reduce the waiting period for future claims. This, to me, is yet another practical expression of our commitment to Government’s service charter captured in the dictum Batho Pele.
In fact, the commitment to efficient and effective service delivery permeates the entire Department of Labour. In this department, good performance is rewarded while bad performance is sanctioned through punitive sanctions, preceded by attempts to improve the performance of aberrant officials. Corruption and financial impropriety invariably result in dismissal; of course, this only occurs after due processes have been followed.
As regards the development of the people who work in the Department of Labour, we believe in leadership by example. Over and above the senior management training programme, we expose our managers to Wits University. We have now secured an agreement with Technikon South Africa to train existing and aspirant inspectors. We have also created an opportunity for those who want to acquire a tertiary qualification in their area of work to do so through the e-Degree framework linked to the University of the Free State and Chicago.
The department has also committed itself to being one of the three Government departments that are acting as pilot sites for the investors-in- people standard, alongside 37 private organisations. This is yet another breakthrough aimed at ensuring that the department contributes towards the development of its most valuable resource - its people.
The department leads by example in the advancement of persons defined in the Employment Equity Act as designated groups. In this regard it is heartening to note that the demographic profile of the department, including its leadership, is a microcosm of the demographic profile of the country. That is yet another breakthrough by the department, aimed at giving practical expression to the spirit and letter of the Employment Equity Act that seeks to deal a final blow to workplace discrimination.
Despite the breakthrough we have made in creating the dispensation we envisaged, together with those who paid the ultimate price for our liberation, those whose mortal remains continue to decompose under the belly of the earth, it is not our intention to rest on our laurels and succumb to the complacency that often accompanies success and achievement.
Therefore, when the ball of fire dips its head below the hills, the mountains and the oceans, as it disappears below the horizon and abandons us to signal that the day’s work is done; and when the light of day grows dim and succumbs to the fatigue that sets in after a day’s work, we shall not stop doing our work until our optical muscles can no longer sustain our desire to defy the course of nature.
With deep reluctance, we shall accept the temporary conquest brought on our limbs and muscles as our bodies prostrate fall, only because we know that that is the only way our energy can be replenished in order for us to carry on with our struggle. And so, when our heads lie on a pillow pleading for some rest, the grey matter within it does not fully rest; it continues to think and dream of a society we all cherish and work so hard to create, a society that Douglas Gibson does not want to cherish ÿ.ÿ.ÿ. [Laughter] … a society devoid of the indignity of unemployment and of the burden of poverty and disease.
So, when the seasons of the year change, as they must, and the natural source of heat succumbs to obstacles that prevent it from rising and shining, to give the light, warmth and life to all who need it, we shall not likewise succumb to obstacles that seek to prevent us from translating the dreams and hopes of our people into reality. Nothing will deter us from ensuring that our country realises its full potential.
Adversity will only strengthen our resolve. Ill-conceived criticism sounds to our ears no more than a noisy cymbal, not worthy of derailing us from our noble goal. The steepness of the incline of the surface on which we march shall not discourage us from continuing, even if the hon member continues to shout close to my left ear, nor will the length of the distance, because we know where we are headed. In fact, the breakthrough we have made so far serves as a reminder that the goal we have set for ourselves is indeed achievable.
But we shall only celebrate our breakthrough when everyone who needs a job either gets one or creates one. It is only when workplaces are a haven for a sustainable peace and stability that we shall celebrate. We shall only celebrate when workers are provided with the training they need to develop their potential. When no employer sacrifices the lives of workers on the altar of profit, then we shall celebrate.
We shall only celebrate when the productivity of our workforce enhances our country’s world competitiveness, when no worker is discriminated against on the basis of one or other irrational ground, and when no worker is dismissed without just cause and a fair procedure. [Applause.]
Kwakuvela ukukhanya siyazi ukuba imini ifikile, kukhanya oko kusinika ithemba namandla okuyiqalis’imini ngomdla nokujongana nomngeni wokwenza ukuba ubomi babantu beli lizwe bubengcono. Ithi ke incwadi yeBhayibhile, zimbandezelo na, ziintshutshiso na ezinokusahlula eluthandweni lukaThixo. [Uwele-wele.] Iyaphinda ke iphendule incwadi emlomo ubomvu ithi, nakanye. Nathi ke sithi akukho miqobo, akukho miwewe, akukho zintaba nazinduli ziya kusithintela ekuphumezeni ezona njongo zikaRhulumente ukhokelwa ngumbutho wesizwe. [Kuyaqhwatywa.] Bade bathi abanye xa bewubiza, lithambo lenyoka elihlab’elimzondayo, udizadala kade bemkhwahlaza, uthambodala kade bemqongqotha. [Uwele-wele.] [Kuyaqhwatywa.] (Translation of Xhosa paragraph follows.)
[When there is light we know that daytime has come, and that light gives us
hope, power and encouragement to start a new day with eagerness to face the
challenge of making this country’s people’s lives better. The Bible says,
Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation ... or
persecution ...? [Interjections.] The Bible goes further to say, None’’.
We all assert that there shall be no hurdles, mountains, hills or any kind
of barrier that would ever stop us from achieving the goals of the ANC-led
Government. Some refer to it as the bone of a snake that pricks the one it
hates. [Applause.]]
Until then, no ounce of energy will be spared and no sacrifice will be too great with the support of my esteemed Director-General, who is wearing a blue hard hat, and his competent team that is sitting around him; with the commitment of the Labour portfolio committee and the style they have adopted this year of visiting a whole range of areas, even some of the departmental offices, and the co-operation of social partners all of whom I am indebted to for the breakthrough we have so far made.
I have no doubt in my mind that together we shall run this race, that we shall complete the full distance and that we shall reach for our dreams. [Applause.]
Mr N J CLELLAND-STOKES: Chairperson, there is no doubt that as a department, Labour has accomplishments worthy of congratulations and endorsement.
The Compensation Commissioner seems to be on track and has dealt decisively with its administrative backlogs. The Setas, although by no means working at optimum efficiency, seem to have turned the corner, and it is particularly gratifying to observe the recent allocation of a billion rand from the National Skills Fund to 18 strategic projects, including domestic workers, microfinance lenders and agricultural workers. Also, the proactive and blitz inspections of workplaces have gone a long way towards the prevention and policing of unfair labour practices, including, particularly, child labour.
Where the Minister and his department deliver in the interests of Africa, the Democratic Alliance will give him the credit and our support, but we are even-handed. As the official opposition, we are entrusted with the duty to hold the executive to account and we treat that responsibility with the importance it deserves.
Faced with soaring labour costs, employers - they are the people tasked with creating jobs in this country - continue to cut their workforces.
Over 2 million jobs have vanished since 1994, and 7 million South Africans today are unemployed. Almost half the number of these people are younger than thirty, and almost 90% of them do not possess any skills or training for jobs. The hard fact is that unskilled workers have become so costly that everyone who is in the job creation business would do anything, including instituting expensive mechanisation, to avoid hiring more people.
Last year, as the Minister said, we passed a series of amendments to the Labour Relations Act and the Basic Conditions of Employment Act. The DA supports these amendments because they were a step in the right direction. But I said then, and I will say it again, that they do not go far enough. Our labour law regime needs a radical and revolutionary overhaul, not cosmetic and peripheral tampering.
More than two years ago the skills development levy was introduced, but today far too many small and medium-size businesses are not claiming from the fund. The DA calls on businesses across the country to claim and train, I repeat, claim and train. To simply write off the skills development levy as another tax is morally inexcusable and economically suicidal. The Umsobomvu Fund was created in 1998, yielding a total of R855 million, and after five years, the amount now sits at a whopping R1 billion.
On many occasions the hon the Minister has accused the opposition of criticising for the sake of criticism alone. This is not the policy of the DA. Today I would like to make a concrete proposal that will change the lives of half a million South Africans every single year. We propose a voucher system to give poor school-leavers access to training or further education, and to provide them with guidance and start-up costs for small businesses. In terms of this proposal an opportunity voucher to the value of R3 000 should be given to 300 000 matriculants and a further 200 000 young, unemployed people each year for five years.
The Umsobomvu Fund can fund this system. Recipients would be able to trade the opportunity voucher for training and education at accredited institutions, or for the purposes of starting a micro enterprise, or in exchange for wages from an accredited employer. Recipients will therefore be able to decide for themselves how to use the vouchers, thus maximising the effectiveness of the system and simplifying its administration.
The DA is committed to the challenge of job creation. When the hon the Minister facilitates and encourages the creation of jobs, we will be behind him. But when he accomplishes the opposite, we will fight him tooth and nail, because that is our patriotic duty.
The Department and Ministry of Labour have many important roles and responsibilities, some of which they do perform. All of these, though, pale into insignificance when pitted against the need to provide an economic environment conducive to investment and job creation.
It is not only individual pieces of legislation which are themselves grossly unreasonable or excessively horrific, but, taken together with the relatively high cost of labour, low productivity and the underskilled South African workforce, they are proving to be a crushing and insurmountable barrier to job creators and wealth-makers. That is the Minister’s nettle - I challenge him to grasp it. [Applause.]
Ms E THABETHE: Chairperson, eight years ago the democratic Government, through the Department of Labour, inherited a fragmented and highly distorted labour market. However, I am in agreement with Comrade Mdladlana that, yes, indeed, there has been a breakthrough. The ANC-led Government has been successful in delivering on our promise of a new labour dispensation that not only entrenches the precious workers’ rights, denied workers for so long, but also lays the foundation for sustainable and sound economic growth.
As I indicated during our Budget Vote debate last year, when the ANC preaches about a better life for all, this also includes better working conditions for the workers of this country and job creation measures that cover a conducive atmosphere for the unemployed masses, which this Budget seeks to implement further. Indeed, industrial relations have never been so good.
Yes, it is a breakthrough. Today we are debating a Budget Vote that will further change the lives of many people in different ways or styles.
Concern has been expressed in South Africa that employment estimates do not capture employment creation adequately, since employment series exclude a number of job creation sectors, and further that official statistics give excellent coverage of economic Setas that are expected to shed jobs, but unfortunately give inadequate coverage of those sectors that are expected not to be creators of unemployment.
I would be very happy if Comrade Minister could share some light on this crucial matter, because some commentators blame Government for what they comfortably interpret to accommodate them. My belief is that this ANC-led Government has successfully transformed the labour market of this country and made it possible to create a conducive climate for job opportunities.
To my colleague, the hon Nick, I want to say that some people do not have skills today precisely because of the previous government’s role with regard to the Bantu education system; it is not because of the ANC-led Government. They also have to take responsibility for that.
With regard to institutional support, it is interesting and encouraging that institutions such as the National Productivity Institute have developed creative and progressive turnaround structures to save jobs, if notified in time. I hope this Budget Vote in particular will give a greater allocation to this institution, because they really try their level best to assist and contribute positively to our economy.
Coming to the Council for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration, this institution is geared to work better and, indeed, best, as reflected in the preliminary annual report for 2001-02 distributed yesterday. The report states that the CCMA improved its settlement rate for conciliation to 73% of cases heard. Between April and September 2001 the daily average number of referrals was 47. A total of 67% of cases were conciliated within the statutory timeframes. There were, on average, 1 212 arbitrations per day. Yes, indeed, this is a historical breakthrough for this institution to have performed this way. When it was established, many commentators thought that it was a waste of time and money. But today, when some of them are reminded, their reply is ``no comment’’.
The National Economic Development and Labour Council was launched in 1995 as a central vehicle for dialogue on social and economic policy between the then newly elected Government and major organised constituencies in the country. As stated in the 1995-96 report, Nedlac was designed to take account of the new role for social dialogue in fundamentally transforming the country.
In a historic statement of co-operation, Nedlac’s founding declaration committed Government, business and labour to jointly pursue the goals of growth, equity and participation. All in all, the work done by Nedlac from that time until today has been tremendous. Dispute resolution has improved a great deal and is continuing to do so. Is it not a breakthrough that Government, business, labour and community representatives can sit and negotiate in good faith to improve the lives of our people? Yes, indeed, it is a breakthrough and should not be tampered with for many years to come.
With regard to the Compensation Commission, from 22 to 24 April this year, the portfolio committee did oversight work and undertook a trip to Pretoria to visit the NPI, the UIF and the Compensation Commission. I must say that the NPI and the Compensation Commission were the best, but, as members know, we have passed legislation to change the way the UIF operates. It was ready for us to make observations that would make us believe that there had been a drastic change. However, I am sure we will be able to visit them next time, but only if our committee allocation is improved, because the committees operate on a very slim budget.
We were quite impressed by the level of efficiency displayed by the Compensation Commission. We were really happy when we saw the manner in which they worked.
We hope that the commissioner who is present here today, Mrs Magojo, and her team will work even harder than we have already witnessed. I am sure that clients are very happy to be assisted with a smile, something which in a way promotes the Batho Pele concept and which is a positive thing to do generally. Therefore we hope that they will work even better so that when we go there next time they will have improved even more.
The music that they rendered for the portfolio committee was very good. I did not know that we had singers in the portfolio committee, but we do, and they joined them and did very well. We hope that next time they will do even better than they did the last time.
In my concluding remarks I would like to tell the hon the Minister that the Department of Labour is still the best in terms of service delivery. But there are still challenges facing every stakeholder. Child labour is still a major problem in our country, but I hope that with this year’s budget we will be able to make a difference towards totally eradicating this problem.
Moreover, there are still emlpoyers who do not implement the labour laws we have adopted. Therefore the question of enforcement is of critical importance.
Perhaps the number of inspectors will be increased, and we will also try and make sure that they get the necessary co-operation. When we do oversight work we will also work together with them in terms of trying to check the health and safety conditions of workers.
The other point I would like to raise is the question of the imbizos. The Minister has a programme of calling imbizos in different places in the country. On 5 April the department invited those of us who were available during the constituency period to go and join it at Springs, which happens to be my constituency. Indeed it was a very good invitation, and we were happy to be part of that particular inspection at one company in Springs and to participate in the imbizo that was called as well.
I must say that as much as people think that people are so bitter in terms of the Department of Labour’s role, some people appreciate the good measures which have been put in place by this department. And, yes, most of the people who participated raised concerns regarding unemployment and a lot of other issues, but most of them were very eager that these imbizos be held more frequently, say twice per annum per area, because they really enjoyed being part of that discussion.
That means that the Government is really coming down to the people. It is now the people’s Government because never before would a Minister simply leave the office and go to the people and talk to them about general issues. Therefore they wished that these imbizos could continue on a larger scale, so that they could get the opportunity of having that interaction with the department’s officials as the DG, the Minister and other members were part of the delegation. It was quite a good experience for us to at least be able to understand what people’s problems were.
Regarding the question of skills development, my colleagues will contribute more on the issues because they have much more information in terms of that. I agree with the hon Clelland-Stokes that where the Government is doing okay, they should give it their support. But in terms of an even- handed approach, I am not sure whether they are in a position to do that, because they represent a certain sector within the communities. Therefore I am not sure to what percentage point they will be even-handed. Will it be 50% or 90%? I do not know. They are the ones who know that, and they also know their own level of patriotism. We will see about that as time goes by.
The question of unemployment is a problem for every stakeholder - it is not solely the Government’s problem. But with the labour laws that we have passed over the years we have made the atmosphere or the situation much better and therefore easier to invest in.
Labour relations have drastically improved. The number of industrial or wildcat strikes that we used to have years ago has decreased, because now we have procedures that we have to follow before embarking on such action. I am glad that unions and management - some of them - do follow the procedures, and therefore the strikes that we do get are controlled in a better way.
That is part and parcel of their rights, and it is not a mistake that people can go on strike anyway. But if there is a strike, people just scream and think that this is a wrong thing to do. There is nothing wrong with that particular issue. It is part of one’s constitutional rights.
Lastly, I would like to thank the members of the committee - as the acting chair now - because they co-operated quite well with me. Even the opposition parties were really co-operative. We work together as a team and we hope that spirit will go on until the chairperson is back. I also wish him a speedy recovery from his illness.
But then, coming to the issue of some of the members who will be delivering their Budget Vote speech here, I am very surprised, because most of them are like spiritual members. I know and I understand that they have other committees to go to and that maybe some parties have only one member, but I have never seen all of them participating in some aspect of the committees’ work, either budgetary work or whatever else.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon member, your time has expired.
Ms E THABETHE: I hope that we will hear their spiritual input here and it will be in a positive way. I also wish to thank the department. [Applause.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! I see the hon N C Middleton of the IFP.
Mr N S MIDDLETON: Chairperson, hon Minister, colleagues, Let me start by telling you, Mr Chairperson, that I am not N C, but N S, for No Nonsense. [Laughter.]
I am today reminded of what the great slave leader wrote, and I quote:
Although slavery was abolished, the wrongs of my people were not ended. Though they were no longer slaves, they were not yet quite free. No man can be free and no man can be truly free, whose liberty is dependent upon the thought, upon the feeling and upon the actions of others and who has himself no means in his own hands for guarding, protecting, defending and maintaining that freedom.
One of the greatest challenges facing our Government today is that of job creation. It is facing every one of us. Let us face the facts. Unemployment daily affects the lives of millions of our South Africans, especially those living in rural areas. Joblessness and poverty still remain a threatening factor in the lives of South African workers. The Department of Labour is therefore in duty bound to do more than it is currently doing for the reduction of unemployment, poverty and inequality in our country. Yet the department must be commended for its contribution in addressing these challenges by the formulation of labour market policies and providing an environment for creating jobs.
The level of unemployment in this country is increasing on a yearly basis. This is in spite of the wonderful policies and the Acts which we pass in this Parliament. According to the latest statistics, South Africa’s official unemployment rate has increased by 3,1% over the past six months. We have approximately 9,4 million people within the economically active population who are unemployed, and the figures are increasing daily. People who are mainly affected are those in the rural areas. Statistics again further show that the mining and the agricultural sectors are the most affected by job losses.
The sad part of the story is that although the department has formulated wonderful policies, in practice very little has been done to combat the real problems of job losses. This has resulted in many people who are looking for jobs giving up the will to look for employment, thus dividing our country, not according to race but according to those who are employed and those who are unemployed, those who have and those who have not.
The IFP also commends the department for its efforts to provide an adequate social safety net to mitigate the impact of hardships on millions of economically vulnerable South Africans by improving the operation of the Unemployment Insurance Fund and the collection of its revenue. It is also encouraging to note that according to the new legislation on UIF, a large number of employees who were previously excluded from the fund have now been included. However, the question of the inclusion of public servants remains unresolved.
It is also encouraging to see that the service delivery programme, which aims to implement and enforce various labour laws and to provide a one-stop service through business units in the departments, particularly in provincial offices, has been allocated the sum of R303,9 million for the years 2001 to 2003. It is hoped that through these programmes, the challenges facing this department of implementation of its policies will be adequately addressed.
Our country has been a member of the International Labour Organisation since 1994, and it is now also a member of its governing body. Since our acceptance to the ILO, we have been faced with the task of ratifying our core labour standards, one of which is the elimination of child labour.
However, it is disturbing to note that about 44% of South African children under the age of 17 years are working to earn a living. While some do so voluntarily, for others it is the only way to put food on the table for them and their families.
The amount of child labour that is being used in the agricultural sectors is indeed disturbing. What is more disturbing is that 50% of these children do not even attend school. Although this department is monitoring this situation, such incidents of child labour continue every day. To the best of my knowledge, only one case, that of the Van Wyk child in Ceres, has been brought to book. I wonder if this would have been done had this child not lost her leg. How many of these cases are there still in our country?
Much as we appreciate the department’s endeavours to address the various challenges facing our people, we still maintain that a lot needs to be done in this regard.
In supporting the Budget Vote, we all have a challenge today. More than ever before, to help get rid of poverty and suffering in our nation, we must all join in the struggle for the future prosperity of our beloved country, lest we all perish as fools. The IFP thus supports this Budget Vote. [Applause.]
Mr S A MSHUDULU: Chairperson, hon Minister Mdladlana, hon members, ladies and gentlemen, allow me to address you on this budget debate.
On behalf of the ANC, I support this budget. I support it because it is a budget directed at improving the lives of the people of this country. It is a budget allocated to address the imbalances of the past, created by colonial and apartheid rule.
It is very encouraging to hear that a department in these testing times could prudently spend towards improved service delivery with a variance of less than 5% of its budget. It is also unusual, after being faced by the transformation challenges, that a department could manage a roll-over of less than 1%.
This reflects directly on the capacity and political will of the Minister of Labour and his team. This proficiency reflects on the political party that is leading this Government, and it is none other than the ANC.
When the ANC was voted into power in 1994, it made a pledge to the working class of this country that it would change the policies that undermined fundamental rights. It would also transform institutions that were used to exploit and dehumanise the workers of this country. It stuck to the fundamental principles contained in its founding document, the Freedom Charter, and these principles were later enshrined in the Constitution as well as the RDP.
I say this because we need to know the subject, which is service delivery, that I am going to speak on. The terrain is the distorted labour market, as mentioned earlier, and the players are the workers of this country, as well as the motivated staff of the Department of Labour and the mandated members of this Parliament.
It was first necessary for the Department of Labour to give priority to service delivery that would improve the lives of the workers of this country, and to transform the workplace, which would make this country globally competitive. It is for this reason that the Department of Labour adopted the Service Delivery Charter that is in line with Batho Pele principles. These principles instil a culture of people-centred service delivery. It also addresses the question of transparency and the people’s right to be informed on what the Government is doing to better their lives.
This Service Delivery Charter entrenches professionalism and courtesy in public service employees. It also conforms to international best practices and courtesy. It is only when the staff is capacitated and the department has capacity that our dreams can be realised. It will be realised if we move the frontiers of poverty and degradation.
The Department of Labour, through its transformation process, has retrained its staff and prepared them for ``one-stop-shop’’ service delivery. It has decentralised its services to provincial offices and labour centres. Labour centres have been converted into centres of excellence. Excellence can only be realised when service delivery is addressing the needs of beneficiaries.
I must emphasise the fact that the policy formulation process is complete. The year 2002 has been declared the year of service delivery by the Department of Labour and the year of monitoring by the Portfolio Committee on Labour. To achieve this, the Department of Labour, through its Ministry, has restructured the department into five business units that have their own directorates.
These business units are as follows: Management support services provide management of the provincial offices and labour centres through planning, organising, giving leadership and control. Beneficiary services provide services to unemployed workers and those workers injured on duty, in a manner that conforms to relevant legislation. We give them credit for their efficient administration, processing and finalising of applications for payment. Employment services facilitate, through our labour centres, access to employment and income-generating opportunities for the underemployed and unemployed workers. We therefore call on all unemployed workers of this country to go to the nearest labour centres. Those who have not registered should register and be exposed to all the good things that these centres have to offer. They also render guidance and training to the unemployed youth, the disabled, women and the rural poor.
Inspection and enforcement services play a key role with regard to the enforcement of the laws that we pass as this Parliament. To build their capacity, the department has exposed the staff to an 18-month training course in labour law and improved their conditions of employment. For instance, a problem existed in regard to transport and communication, which has been addressed.
The labour market information and statistics directorate monitors developments in the labour market through analysing the impact of legislation and the performance of job creation programmes. For instance, we had a situation in which we worked with the Western Cape labour centre and the provincial office. The department has started a process of implementing the above-mentioned programmes, together with organised labour and organised employers. Labour inspectors are currently undergoing training at Technikon South Africa on certain standards. The procedure of inspections has also changed, so that an inspection is not be finalised unless the results have been conveyed to workers. This will make workers aware of their rights and how to enforce these.
It is therefore important that we note how service delivery enhances the aims and objectives of our Government through, amongst others, the collection of UIF contributions from smaller employers; the placement of workers; identifying opportunities for the self-employed; the administering of leadership programmes - this will be elaborated on later by my colleagues; enforcement of occupational health and safety standards, as mentioned earlier; and enforcing and advocating new sectoral determinations, also with reference to farmworkers, domestic workers and the retail sector.
Allow me to commend the Portfolio Committee on Labour on the role that it has played in the execution of its constituency work. This was achieved through provincial visits aimed at monitoring compliance and support of the Department of Labour. Some problems that were identified by the portfolio committee and the Department of Labour during these provincial visits include the following: a high level of resistance by employers to enforce labour laws, especially on some farms and in ununionised industries; a low level of partnership at labour centres where Nedlac stakeholders are not playing their part enough; a low level of partnership in some localities between the Department of Labour, other relevant departments and local business; a high level of underutilisation of the social clause provisions to avert retrenchments, more especially at phase one which comes before retrenchments - it does not help to take the corpse to the doctor after death; and a low level of access to information by unemployed workers relating to the services provided by the Department of Labour.
We therefore commend the Minister of Labour and his team, as mentioned earlier. I am impressed by his management style of the carrot and the stick. He has managed, through performance achievement awards, to motivate his staff. But, on the other hand, as we in the ANC would know, he does not condone corruption. He maintains discipline which leads to the dismissal of corrupt officials. [Time expired.] [Applause.] Mr J DURAND: Mr Minister, hon members, the New NP supports this Budget Vote. We would like to congratulate the Minister of Labour on how he is dealing with the very difficult challenges facing him at this moment. Part of the aim of the Department of Labour is to play a significant role in reducing unemployment, poverty and inequality through policies and programmes. I want to deal, in my contribution on this Budget Vote, with the job crisis in our country. Unemployment is one of South Africa’s biggest problems and the reality that more than 45% of this country’s citizens are faced with.
The 2001 statistics show that the biggest world divide is not between white and black, which stands at 4 to one, but between the employed and the unemployed. The reason for these high numbers is not the lie that is told that this country has lazy workers. In truth the cost of labour is dropping while productivity is rising. South Africa’s labour productivity has risen this past decade by 4,4%. Our workers are among the most adaptable in the world, while things in Eastern Europe and Asia do not look so good. The old lie that South Africa is expensive and unproductive is smothering the country’s growth and keeping investors away.
Employment creation is the biggest challenge facing this Government and the key instrument for fighting poverty. Giving a person a fish, or R110 per month for food, will not do it. If we want to fight poverty and ensure economic growth we need to educate and train more skilled workers, because while joblessness is on the rise, the most noticeable change in the labour market conditions is an increasing demand for skilled workers. Wages for unskilled workers have not increased. Our aspirations must not stop at basic education. It is a crucial investment for a successful economy. Skills development is one of the Department of Labour’s key objective for the period from 2002 to 2004.
A national skills development strategy was adopted in February 2001, which aims to meet the following key objectives in the near future: to develop a culture of quality lifelong learning; to foster skills development in the formal economy for productivity and employment growth; to stimulate and support skills development in small business; to promote skills development for employability and a sustainable livelihood; to assist new entrants to the labour market. The Department of Labour will focus on these objectives, working in close partnership with Seta, the sector education and training authorities, and provincial stakeholders.
If the unemployed are to remain unemployable, then South Africa is heading for serious economic problems. Every formally employed individual pays over 1% of his salary to the skills development fund for the express purpose of training and developing the unemployable. Why do we not use this money to develop skills training to the unemployed? Granted that the private sector is becoming more capital-intensive, what is Government doing about this blatant oversupply of labour? In a developing country such as South Africa, Governments can surely investigate the possibility of using labour- intensive methods before embarking on any state-driven projects.
The productive use of these funds may well see the unemployable become employable, and, depending on the method of production, they may even be able to find employment.
In Wednesday’s Business Day we received the good news that 18 Setas have collectively been awarded a R1,2 billion in grants, with the domestic service training authority receiving R120 million. The grants come from the National Skills Fund and will be used to train about 350 000 people over the next three years in development projects identified and approved by the Labour department.
While this generation of workers will be the first to benefit, it will also provide training to many others thereafter. The National Skills Fund is administered by the Labour department and funded from the skills levy collected in accordance with the Skills Development Levies Act of 1999. Given the current level of unemployment and the continuing loss of jobs, this infusion of money could make a huge contribution to developing the skills employers are looking for and thus creating more jobs.
Suid-Afrika moet polities en ekonomies verantwoordbaar word, en sodoende ‘n klimaat skep waardeur buitelandse kapitaal hierheen gelok kan word. Indien ons dit kan bewerkstellig, sal nywerheidslande ons groter toegang tot hul markte gee, ons skuldlas verklein, of selfs uitwis, en ‘n groter vloei van hulp waarborg. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[South Africa must become politically and economically accountable, and thereby create a climate in which foreign capital can be lured here. If we can manage this, industrial countries will allow greater access to their markets, they will reduce our debts, or even eliminate the debt, and guarantee a greater flow of assistance.]
This is also one of the key objectives of Nepad and will not only build our infrastructure but will also help with the development of the health and education system that South Africa and our continent need so badly.
Because of the high unemployment rate, the crime rate is increasing daily. When people are unemployed they have the option of starving or stealing. Crime and corruption are crippling our society and only contribute to the bad impression that investors have of our country.
There are several ways to fight poverty. The paradox of our time is that more people have lifted themselves out of poverty in the last 50 years than in the previous 500 years. But, because the world population has grown so significantly, there are more poor people than ever before.
‘n Paar maatreëls wat ‘n groot impak kan maak op ons ekonomie en armoede in die algemeen is onder meer aanpassingsmaatreëls vir werkers soos met die vermindering van belasting; die aanmoediging van ‘n werkkultuur; aansporingsmaatreëls vir ondernemings om van arbeid eerder as kapitaal gebruik te maak; aansporingsmaatreëls vir ondernemings om plaaslik te belê; groter klem op die informele en formele kleinsakesektor; die versnelling van die herstrukturering van staatsbates; doeltreffende dienslewering deur al die vlakke van regering en die private sektor; strenger polisiëring om misdaadvlakke af te bring en korrupsie uit te roei; die institusionalisering van grondeienaarskap, ook onder die beheer van tradisionele leiers, sodat lae-inkomstegroepe ‘n mark in die koop en verkoop van laekostebehuising kan skep, en die inwerkingstelling van ‘n beleid wat deur die wêreld as suksesvol beskou word. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[A few measures that could have a great impact on our economy and poverty in general are, inter alia, measures of adaptability for workers such as the reduction of tax; the encouragement of a working culture; measures of encouragement for businesses to rather use labour instead of capital; measures of encouragement for businesses to invest locally; greater focus on the informal and formal small business sector; the acceleration of the restructuring of state assets; effective service delivery by all levels of government and the private sector; stricter policing to reduce crime levels and to eradicate corruption; the institutionalisation of landownership, also under the control of traditional leaders, in order for low income groups to create a market in the buying and selling of low-cost housing, and the implementation of a policy that will be viewed as successful throughout the world.]
Parliament has also passed a few very important Bills during the past few months. The Insolvency Amendment Bill, which was submitted by the Department of Justice, aims, amongst other things, to afford employees the right to statutory severance pay in the event that a company should go insolvent. The draft legislation is closely related to the Basic Conditions of Employment Amendment Bill and the Labour Relations Amendment Bill, which were both approved earlier this year. These Bills will improve the efficiency of the labour market. The imperatives behind the amendments are: creating employment, improving labour market efficiency, promoting and developing small business, improving the protection of vulnerable workers and addressing investors’ negative perceptions.
I would also like to wish the chairperson of our committee well and a speedy recovery, and congratulate our acting chair on the wonderful way in which she has led this committee.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! We all join in wishing the chair a speedy recovery. Hon M J G Mzondeki will speak from his chair.
Mr M J G MZONDEKI: Chairperson, hon Minister and colleagues, two weeks ago I went to a hospital in Wynberg to get my assisting devices. While I was there I had a discussion with one of the doctors who treats spinal injuries. He shared with me some of his frustrations with compensation claims. He said some of them take up to five years.
He said that his biggest concern was that he sometimes had to discharge patients, mostly paraplegics and tetraplegics, without assisting devices, and most of these people used wheelchairs. He said that because his patients were discharged without such devices, in no time they landed back in hospital, mostly with pressure sores.
He says most of his patients are from Guguletu and Khayelitsha townships. They are patients who cannot afford to buy themselves wheelchairs and other assisting devices until they have received their compensation claims. He sometimes has to loan them, but very limited resources do not allow him to assist all patients. He wanted to know what I could do as a member of Parliament.
I must tell the hon the Minister that had I not coincidentally been to the Compensations Commission office in Pretoria the previous week, I would have only added to his frustrations.
After the portfolio committee had visited the Compensation Fund offices in Pretoria, we had a better understanding of why compensation claims take so long and why sometimes there are not even responses to telephonic enquiries. For decades these claims had been done manually - a very tedious and painstaking process. We were very glad to observe that the process is now being changed to an electronic system. This will improve the work of that office and reduce the waiting period.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon members in the aisles, please take your seats.
Mr M J G MZONDEKI: Claims will now be processed electronically, even from the provincial offices. Queries will be attended to at the press of a button on the computer. The impact of this improvement is huge, especially to those families who rely on the pensions of such workers. This is a breakthrough. The doctor at Wynberg cannot wait to hear when the system will be fully operational, and this is money well spent.
Among other things that the Department of Labour is committed to, is bettering the skills and education of all in order to harness the full potential of the human capital of our country. It is also committed to eliminating inequalities in the workplace. The Employment Equity Act is a framework for the elimination of such discrimination in the workplace. It provides for the transformation of the workplace to ensure that it is accessible to all.
In August 2001 the Minister launched the Employment Equity Report and the Employment Equity Registry. The report reflects that while some companies are doing their best to comply with the requirements of the Act, others still have a lot to do. Many are still far below the targets for blacks, women and people with disabilities. The Department of Labour is committed to assisting employers to comply. We are aware that the Act on its own will not assist to redress the situation at the workplace; hence the Employment Equity Act and the Labour Relations Act provide that codes of good practice be put in place to give effect to the Act.
As the Minister was saying this morning, last year he published the draft code of practice on disability. This code seeks to give a definition of disability and guidelines to manage disabilities in the workplace. Some of us will note that the figures indicate that 99% of disabled jobseekers are out of work or unemployed. Some of the aspects that are dealt with in the code are reasonable accommodation, elimination of discrimination, employment benefits and the definition of disability.
It is important to understand why such aspects have to be dealt with. At one of the portfolio committees on which I serve, a Government department official was making a presentation and we wanted to know how many disabled people were employed in that department. Hesitantly she said that she thought there was one person. We wanted to know what was the nature of the disability and she said that he was a short person. I am sure that this code will assist us to define disability much better.
We believe that this code will go a long way to assist jobseekers with disabilities to access jobs and also to assist employers to reach the target. People with disabilities do not enjoy living on disability grants. They want to contribute to the economy of this country by earning salaries. I read somewhere that 99% of jobseekers are people who have disabilities and who are not employed. If we can reliably use this figure, a lot still needs to be done.
We also welcome the fact that disabled people were directly involved in drafting this code. This will go a long way in giving a sense of ownership and will assist to restore the dignity of people with disabilities. We are also delighted that some of the Setas are beginning to involve people with disabilities to participate in the process. However, we believe that much still needs to be done.
The report that I talked about also reflects that women currently hold 13% of all top management positions in South Africa and 20% of all senior management positions, those being positions immediately below top management positions. African women hold only 1,2% of all top management positions. This cannot be correct. Black employees represent 13% of all employees in top management positions in South Africa. This indicates that employers do not only have to report but also need to implement the Act.
In their concluding remarks on the report the commission has this to say:
However, while it is true that many have responded positively to the general challenge of complying with the law, the reports and other sources of empirical data suggest that there are, at this stage, varying degrees of understanding of the extent of the legal obligations arising under the Act and commitment to implementing the spirit and not just the letter of the law. This is particularly evident in the section of the employment reports dealing with qualitative issues and interventions on employment equity. They further say in their remarks:
The organisations which seem to make visible progress in attracting, developing, advancing and retaining suitably qualified persons, black people, women and people with disabilities, the designated groups in terms of the Act, were those who saw affirmative action in favour of those groups as one of their key strategies for pursuing corporate goals such as achieving and maintaining productivity, excellence and global competitiveness. These are employers who saw employment equity more as a business imperative rather than simply an issue of complying with the law. In many of these companies accelerated human resource development is a critical part of their affirmative action measures.
Modulasetulo, bekeng tse tharo tse fetileng komiti ya rona e ile ya etela mane Tshwane. Teng re ile ra ikopanya le ba ha National Productivity Institutes, hore ba re hlalosetse ka tshebetso ya bona. Mokgatlo ona o tshehetswa ka ditjhelete ke lefapha, ke ka hona re ileng ra ba etela. Mokgatlo ona o na le seabo se seholo ho thibela tahleho ya mesebetsi. Re tla tseba hore phase one ya social plan, ke ya bona, moo e leng hore re thibela mesebetsi pele e lahleha. Ho e meng ya mesebetsi ya bona ke qoholla seabo sa bona, kgothaletsong ya ho aha borakgwebo ba sa itekanelang [disabled interpreneurs]. Ba etsa hona ka kopanelo le mafapha a mang. Re kgothaletsa tshebetso ya bona, Letona. (Translation of Sotho paragraph follows.)
[Chairperson, our committee visited Tshwane three weeks ago, where we had a meeting with the National Productivity Institute. We asked them to explain to us the manner in which their organisation is operating. This organisation is patronised financially by the department, and that is the main reason why we paid them a visit. This organisation is playing a pivotal role in preventing job losses. We should know that phase 1 of the social plan belongs to them, a process whereby we try to prevent job losses before they occur. Among their tasks I can single out their involvement in encouraging the development of disabled entrepreneurs. This they do in co- operation with other departments. Hon Minister, we really appreciate and encourage them in their task.]
Let me conclude by saying that people with disabilities welcome the Letsema and Vukuzenzele call by our President. We believe that this will give people with disabilities an opportunity to display their skills and potential. It will also help restore their dignity as, for a change, they will do things for others and not the other way round, as mostly is the case or as it is sometimes perceived to be.
We believe that this is an opportunity for business to heed the call by lending a hand, building ramps and lifts at schools and other public buildings. Disabled people will gladly volunteer to draw an audit of all inaccessible public buildings.
The ANC supports the Budget Vote. [Applause.]
Mr M N RAMODIKE: Mohlomphegi Modulasetulo, mokgatlo wa UDM o thekga polelo ya mohlomphegi Tona. [Chairperson, the UDM agrees with what the Minister has said.]
The 15-point programme of the Ministry of Labour aims, inter alia, to give attention to certain areas for possible legislative amendments, to improve the effective functioning of the labour market and to reduce what may be perceived to be obstacles to employment creation. We all regret, of course, that there has been an increase of 3,9% in the already high rate of unemployment. We also agree that this is the biggest challenge facing Government.
It is gratifying to note that the relationship between Government and labour has now improved tremendously, through dialogue and the Minister’s pragmatic approach in dealing with labour problems, as highlighted by the signing of an accord by Government, Cosatu and Nactu.
It is therefore no exaggeration to say that evidence suggests that the interventions introduced through the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, 1997, and the Employment Equity Act, 1998, and subsequent amendments have contributed positively to the promotion of stable labour relations and economic growth in our country.
While we appreciate the reduction of the rate of accidents at the workplace, I want to ask the Minister whether the Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1993, in conjunction with the Driven Machinery Regulations, and the General Machinery Regulations of 1988, and the Environmental Regulations of 1987, made by the former apartheid regime, are still compatible with the current transformation of various statutory bodies, and the promotion and improvement of stable labour relations and safety requirements at the workplace.
The accident that occurred yesterday at the Saldanha steel plant, in which three workers were killed and another two injured, and the incident which occurred in Gauteng two years ago, during which a horrific factory fire killed many workers, are but a few examples that highlight that the Labour department’s occupational safety inspectorate remains understaffed.
While the Minister is doing sterling work in the promotion of labour relations and the improvement of basic conditions of employment, it is alarming to note that farmworkers, particularly in Limpopo and Mpumalanga, are still living under appalling working conditions. Visits of the Portfolio Committee on Labour to various farms in different provinces have indeed been an eye-opener, and a rewarding experience for members. While one would not recommend the Mugabe way of doing things and dealing with white famers, one would strongly urge that more inspectors should be employed to tackle the problems faced by farmworkers.
It is alarming to note that many South African farmworkers, especially in the Soutspansberg area in the Limpopo Province, are retrenched and replaced with Zimbabweans, who are easily exploited as cheap labourers.
I believe that stricter measures should be applied in enforcing the Employment Equity Act effectively, in the light of persistent racial and gender inequalities, child labour and the living conditions of farmworkers. I know that the Minister’s department has done much to address the child labour problem, in line with International Labour Organisation practices.
It is, however, unfortunate and regrettable that farmers in certain parts of this country continue with the old practices of child labour. They could not care less about the education of the child and his future. We urge here again that more inspectors should be employed to address this problem effectively. It is of course true that the Minister cannot perform magic to change the mindset and attitudes of those who still stick like glue to our unfortunate past of racial discrimination.
Draft legislation was adopted by this Parliament to improve the operation of the Unemployment Insurance Fund and the collection of its revenue. The draft legislation addressed the following shortcomings: The limited nature of UIF coverage and its lack of sustainability; the weak enforcement and compliance measures; the right benefit structure and the discrimination against certain categories of employees; and the lack of a sufficient data base of contributors. [Time expired.]
Mr P J GROENEWALD: Mnr die Voorsitter, toe die agb Minister in sy moedertaal gepraat het, in sy verwelkoming het hy die volgende gesê - as die vertaaldienste korrek is: [Mr Chairperson, when the hon the Minister spoke in his mother tongue, in his welcome he said the following - if the translation service is correct:]
No rocks, no mountains will stand in our way to obtain the aims of Government. Now I would like to know from the hon the Minister: What is the aim of the Government as far as affirmative action is concerned? I am asking this because I want to say to the hon the Minister that in the second report on a representative survey of popular reactions to race relations among all South Africans - conducted by Prof Lawrence Schlemmer, the Vice President of the SA Institute for Race Relations, just weeks before the World Conference Against Racism in Durban - entitled Between a rainbow and a hard place: Threats and opportunities in racial reconciliation in South Africa, Prof Schlemmer said the following:
The dominant concern among whites is with what is perceived as the reverse racism of affirmative action and black empowerment. The consensus among whites that these policies are racist is as complete as the consensus among Africans opposing apartheid in the past.
Die blanke jongmense van vandag was nie deel van apartheid nie.
‘n AGB LID: Wat is blanke mense?
Mnr P J GROENEWALD: Hulle het nie gedeel in die voordele van apartheid nie, maar die agb Minister verwag hulle moet die prys betaal vir apartheid. [Tussenwerpsels.] Die agb lid vra wie is die wittes. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[The white young people of today were not part of apartheid.
An HON MEMBER: What are white people?
Mr P J GROENEWALD: They did not share in the privileges of apartheid, but the hon the Minister expects them to pay the price for apartheid. [Interjections.] The hon member is asking who whites are.]
Hon members must ask their hon Minister because he is referring to white and black, if they do not know what white means.
Die VF sê vandag vir die agb Minister hy is onbillik en onredelik om te verwag dat dit die jong blankes moet wees wat die prys moet betaal. Ek wil die agb Minister vra of ‘n blanke kind wat in 1994 gebore is, deel is van apartheid. [Tussenwerpsels.] Agb lede sê ja. Ek wil eintlik saamstem: daardie kind is deel van die ``new apartheid’’ van die ANC-regering! [Tussenwerpsels.] Daardie kind sal die prys moet betaal vir regstellende optrede, en dan staan die ANC-ministers hier op en sê hoogdrawend hulle kan nie verstaan dat die mense landuit gaan om elders werk te gaan soek nie. [Tussenwerpsels.]
Ons moes vanoggend hier kom luister na wat die Regering in hulle immigrasiewetgewing doen om mense te lok. Wat doen die Regering om ook ons eie mense in Suid-Afrika te hou, of beskou die Regering hulle nie as Suid- Afrikaners nie? [Tussenwerpsels.]
Die VF het reeds in 1997 en 1998 ‘n voorstel op die tafel geplaas wat gesê het daar moet ‘n afsnydatum kom sover dit regstellende optrede betref. [Tussenwerpsels.] Ek wil die agb Minister vandag vra of hy bereid is om met ‘n afsnydatum te kom vir regstellende optrede, om te sê: ``Tot hiertoe en dan maak ons die speelveld gelyk.’’ [Tussenwerpsels.]
As ‘n mens vandag gaan kyk na die universiteite en hulle samestellings, sal hulle sien dat die meerderheid studente aan die meeste universiteite ook swart studente is. [Tussenwerpsels.] As ons dan glo in meriete en ons glo in en ons wil erkenning gee aan die swart studente aan ons universiteite dan is hulle mos op ‘n gelyke vlak. [Tussenwerpsels.] Regstellende optrede is bedoel vir minderheidsgroepe deur die hele wêreld. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Today the FF is telling the hon the Minister he is unreasonable and unfair to expect that it should be the young whites who must pay the price. I want to ask the hon the Minister whether a white child born in 1994 is part of apartheid. [Interjections.] Hon members are saying yes. I actually want to agree: That child is part of the new apartheid of the ANC Government! [Interjections.] That child will have to pay the price for affirmative action, and then the ANC Ministers stand up here and pompously say that they cannot understand why people are leaving the country to look for work elsewhere. [Interjections.]
This morning we had to listen to what the Government is doing in their immigration legislation to attract people. What is the Government doing to also keep our own people in South Africa, or does the Government not view them as South Africans? [Interjections.]
In 1997 and 1998 already the FF placed a proposal on the table which stated that there should be a cut-off date as far as affirmative action is concerned. [Interjections.] Today I want to ask the hon the Minister whether he is prepared to set a cut-off date for affirmative action, to say: ``This far and then we level the playing field’’. [Interjections.]
If one looks at the universities and their composition today, one sees that the majority of students at most universities are also black students. [Interjections.] If we then believe in merit and we believe in and want to recognise the black students at our universities, then surely they are at an equal level. [Interjections.] Across the world affirmative action is intended for minority groups.]
But it is only in South Africa where affirmative action must apply to the majority. [Interjections.]
Die agb Minister het dit verkeerdom. [Tussenwerpsels.]
Ek wil ook vandag met die agb Minister praat oor die werkloosheid in hierdie land. Ek het die agb Minister ‘n vraag gevra, en sy amptelike syfers lui dat die land, gemeet aan die streng definisie van werkloosheid, ‘n werkloosheidsyfer van 26,4% het. Volgens die wye definisie is dit 37%. Dit is egter die syfers vir Februarie 2001. Ons is al weer ‘n jaar verder.
Die agb Minister het netnou in sy toespraak daarna verwys en gesê werkloosheid groei tussen 2% en 3% per jaar. Dit beteken dat Suid-Afrika, gemeet aan die wye definisie, eintlik ‘n werkloosheidsyfer het van ongeveer 40%.
Is dit bevorderlik vir Suid-Afrika as ons in die media moet verneem dat Sasol nou werkgeleenthede in Mosambiek gaan skep deur die ontwikkeling van gasbronne, maar dat 1 000 werkers as gevolg hiervan hulle werk gaan verloor? Stem die agb Minister daarmee saam? Hoe hanteer hy hierdie saak?
Die VF sê vandag vir die Minister, hy kan praat net wat hy wil, maar as hy werkskepping in hierdie land wil bevorder, sal hy daadwerklike aandag aan twee aspekte moet gee. Eerstens is daar die misdaadsyfer. Die wet-en-orde- situasie in Suid-Afrika sal moet verbeter. Tweedens sal die agb Minister moet gaan kyk na arbeidswetgewing. Arbeidswetgewing is nie aantreklik vir buitelandse beleggers nie. [Tussenwerpsels.] As die agb Minister ontwikkeling en werk wil skep, dan moet hy gunstige omstandighede skep en nie net gaan kyk na makro-ekonomiese aanwysers nie. Nee, hy moet ook gaan kyk na wet en orde, en na die arbeidswetgewing. [Tyd verstreke.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[The hon the Minister has it the wrong way around. [Interjections.]
Today I also want to talk to the hon the Minister about the unemployment in this country. I asked the hon the Minister a question, and his official figures are that, according to the strict definition of unemployment, the country has an unemployment rate of 26,4%. According to the broader definition it is 37%. However, these are the figures for February 2001. We are already a year on.
The hon the Minister referred to this in his speech just now and said that unemployment is growing at between 2% and 3% per year. This means that, assessed according to the broader definition, South Africa actually has an unemployment rate of approximately 40%.
Is it advantageous for South Africa if we have to learn in the media that Sasol is going to create job opportunities in
Mozambique by developing gas sources, but that 1 000 workers are going to lose their jobs as a consequence of this? Does the hon the Minister agree? How is he handling this matter?
Today the FF is saying to the Minister, he can talk as much as he wants to, but if he wants to promote job creation in this country he will have to give active attention to two aspects. Firstly, there is the crime rate. The law and order situation in South Africa will have to improve. Secondly, the hon the Minister will have to look at labour legislation. Labour legislation is not attractive to foreign investors. [Interjections.] If the hon the Minister wants to create development and work, he will have to create favourable conditions and not only look at macroeconomic indicators. No, he must also look at law and order, and at the labour legislation. [Time expired.]]
Mrs H F MALEBANA: Mohlomphegi Modulasetulo, ke rata gore mohlomphegi Tona ya tša Basomi a lemoge gore seo mohlomphegi Groenewald a fetšago go se bolela ga se selo le gore se se ka sa mo šuthiša mo maekemišetšong a gagwe a go tšweletša, le go bona gore bašomi ka kua ntle ba kgona go itirela, gagolo bašomi ba bathobaso. Seo mohlomphegi Groenewald a se bolelago, o se bolela ka go tseba gore yena o emetše phathi ya maburu ya banna fela. [Chairperson, I would like the hon Minister of Labour to note that what the hon Mr Groenewald has just said is insignificant and that he should not allow it to detract him from his mission of development, and of ensuring that the workers out there are skilled adequately, especially black workers. The hon Mr Groenewald is saying what he is saying because he knows that he is representing a party of white Afrikaner males only.]
That is why even in this Parliament they do not have any person from one of the other races. [Interjections.]
The 2002 Budget year marked the mid-term of the strategic plan of the department, as adopted in 1999. It is to this strategic period under review that I will confine my input today, with special reference to employment and skills development services.
The strategic objectives of our skills revolution comes as a comprehensive response to the low levels of skills in our economy that is increasingly confronted by the test of international competition. It is within this context that I join the Minister when he celebrates the breakthrough made this far. However, the road ahead, hon Minister, remains a bumpy one.
The breakthrough is clear from the level of excitement shown by the social partners, because a revolution that fails to excite the masses is not a revolution at all. On 18 April 2002 the Deputy President, Comrade Jacob Zuma, and like-minded South Africans gathered at the Waterkloof Airbase to launch the Moral Renewal Movement. They made a clarion call to, amongst other things, develop and enhance skills, as the lack of them lead to poverty, inequality, the breakdown of family structures and moral degeneration.
The ANC-led Government is achieving its objectives of empowering and transferring skills to the workers. Workplace discussions are no longer about exploitation only, but they include issues of human resource development and production, the future course that the company will take and how to shape the South African economy. The breakthrough lies in ensuring that the noble ideal of human resource development is a success and that its objectives are realised and prioritised.
For South Africa to succeed in addressing the imbalances of the past and to be able to compete globally, we need the transformation of the labour market, economic environment and institutional changes for the implementation of Government legislation and policies. That is what the Department of Labour is targeting to achieve through the Skills Development Act of 1998, and the Skills Development Levies Act of 1999.
Tlhokego ya mešomo ke tlhobaboroko ye kgolo go Mmušo wo eteletšwego pele ke ANC. Bašomi bao na se nago tsebo, bokgoni le tšweletšo tše kaone mešomong ga ba na tšweletšo ya godimo, e lego seo se hlolago gore go be le phokolo ya moruo le go se kgone go hlola dikgoba tša mešomo. Ke ka lefapha la bašomi le tlilego ka Human Resource Development Strategy and Skills Development Strategy. (Translation of Sepedi paragraph follows.)
[Unemployment is a serious challenge to the ANC-led Government. Workers who lack appropriate knowledge, skills and productivity in the workplace are not highly productive, which is what causes the decline in the economy and the reduction in job opportunities. That is why the Department of Labour came up with the Human Resource Development Strategy as well as the Skills Development Strategy.]
The Human Resource Development Strategy is to ensure the eradication of the burden of poverty and underdevelopment in our society. We need to invest in our people by providing them with the educational foundation for social participation and empowerment with the relevant marketable skills. We will be ensuring a better and quality life for all if we were to succeed in this.
Bengmešomo, le Makgotla a Bašomi ba swanetše go tsentšha seatla mo hlabologong ya bašomedi ba bona ka go hlaola mešomo yeo e lego bohlokwa kudu mo lefaseng la ga borena. [Employers and trade unions must contribute to the development of their workers by targeting industries that are of crucial importance to our land.]
This will ensure that all workers are able to participate properly in the economy of South Africa. Lack of schooling has led to an unproductive workforce. Many employers support their workforce in this regard through Adult Basic Education.
Ke ka moo re ratago go lebogiša dimaene ka ge di etile thlohleletšo pele. Ba na le bašomi bao ba ka ba go 25 000 bao ba ithutago ba le mošomong. Ka ge le se na motlogapele. (Translation of Sepedi paragraph follows.]
[That is why I would like to congratulate the mines for taking the lead in this kind of training. They have approximately 25 000 workers who are furthering their studies. Since you have no precedents, I call upon others.]
I call upon other sectors to follow suit in ensuring that all their employees are equipped with the relevant skills to ensure that they are able to support their workplaces and their families. The education Seta has started a programme where workers in early childhood development, etc, are also developed, and this is being done in an effort to show that education and training start at an early stage.
Lack of experience has contributed to matriculants not being able to get employment and so adding to the high number of unemployed. The finalisation of leadership regulations led to a great response by Setas in forwarding applications for learners who indicated the need for skills and training in South Africa.
Together with the Department of Education, the Department of Labour has prioritised ensuring that shool-leavers are equipped with the necessary skills to enable them to be employable. This is achieved through the identification of skills that are scarce.
Ntle le tlhahlo ya maleba, bašomi ba goga boima kudu ge beng mešomo ba fetola mekgwa ya bona ya go šoma gore na kgone go tšea-tšeana le mafase a ka ntle. [Without proper training, workers find it difficult to cope when the employers restructure the workplace in order to be able to compete internationally.]
Employers can always respond to challenges posed by globalisation, competition and technological advances in order to grow and survive, leaving workers struggling to adjust and adapt on their own, and that is where skills are needed the most.
Learnership benefit employers, not only in monetary terms by providing their employees with an education, but also by extending it to the unemployed. The employers will also reach workplace skills targets and get workplace skills experience that will lead to quality production.
They also contribute to the creation of self-employment. This also leads to the achievement of increased skills levels and refocusing of employees who are able to realise their full potential.
Go ithuta ka mošomong go be go nyatšega go bile go galalega kgale. Moswana o be are “thuthela bogolo e a roba”. Fela lehono, nna ke ganana le seo. Ga e robe ka ge lehono, le gona ka mo Ntlong ye, re na le maloko a mantšhi ao a boetšego a ithuta ba ntše ba le mošomong. Seo se direga gore ba kgone go kgona go hlatholla le go fetleka melaokakanywa, go kgonthišiša gore e be ya go tšwela setšhaba mohola, le gona go re batho ba magaeng ba kgone go e kwešiša. Seo se ra go re motho yoo a ithutago a le mošomong le yena o hwetša magwalo a maleba a a mogelwa bjalo ka ge mangwalo a gagwe a tla be a amogelwa ke National Qualifications Framework.
Ke rata go lebogiša Lefapha la Bašomi ka ge le kgonne go fihlela target ya yona le go e feta ya 3 000 learners by March 2000. Go leka go hlohleletša batho bao ba sa šomego, ke beya le go tlotla Lefapha la Mešomo gore le bone gore kua tlase, diprofenseng, tshedimošetšo mabapi le ka moo batho bao ba hlokago mešomo ba kago hwetša thuto, tlhatlho le ka moo ba kago holega ka gona, e kele go fihlišwa le dinageng-magae, e lego moo tlala, bodiidi le malwetši di iphilego maatla. (Translation of Sepedi paragraphs follows.)
[In the past, studying when one was already a worker used to be looked down upon. It used to be said that learning new skills as an adult can break you. Today, however, I disagree with that sentiment. It does not break one, because today, even in this very House, we have a number of Members who are studying again. They are doing this so that they may be able to decipher and analyse Bills, to ensure that they will benefit the nation and that people in rural areas will be able understand them. This means that a person who is studying as an employee will also obtain qualifications that are recognised by the National Qualifications Framework.
I would like to congratulate the Department of Labour for reaching and surpassing their target of 3 000 learners by March 2000. In order to encourage the people who are unemployed, I would also like to appeal to the Department of Labour to find ways and means of seeing to it that that down there, at the provincial level, the people who are unemployed are afforded education and training opportunities and how they can also benefit, and to try and to extend this to the rural areas, where hunger, poverty and diseases are rife.]
I would also like to congratulate the Minister and the Department of Labour for the recent announcement that R1,1 billion has been made available for skills development. This can be achieved through interaction and consultation with the labour movement and community organisations. The unemployed can be trained to start their own small businesses and be helped to access finances. This would lead to their participation in the economic growth of the country and ensuring a better life for all. Concerning the Imbizo, I call upon the hon Minister to speed up his programme and to take it to the rural provinces where people are … [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Miss S RAJBALLY: Chairperson, hon Minister, there is no doubt that the department is faced with a number of difficulties when it comes to labour. The high number of unemployed is certainly one of them.
We have seen major achievements in the creation of jobs, with efforts by both Government and the public succeeding in reducing poverty, which is to the advantage of our economy and contributes effectively to our primary aims of overcoming poverty and striving towards social development.
Our labour force is a tool for boosting our economy. Many sectors are being set back by health-related problems. However, our main setback is the HIV/Aids epidemic. Our textile and mining industries, our boardrooms and educational institutions are scary. The MF feels that the Aids epidemic must be taken seriously in our labour field. South Africa has so much potential to reach the top, but we as a people must not tolerate these setbacks if we want to advance. The MF hopes that the department will pay particular attention to this and perhaps, together with the Department of Health, come up with a programme to reduce the rate of infection among the workforce.
A major concern for the MF is child labour. With the escalating cost of living, many children are forced into labour to help fend for their families and themselves. We do not want this. Children have to be in school. They have to be given the power of knowledge. They have to empower themselves with education. It is their right. They should focus on schooling and leave other things to grownups. They should be given the opportunity to play in parks and enjoy Christmas, and not be forced into skipping their childhood and worrying about adult matters.
The MF is sure that the programmes and policies introduced by the department will effectively contribute to reducing unemployment, poverty and inequality. The budget allocated is quite acceptable, and therefore the MF supports the Budget Vote. [Applause.]
Mnr C AUCAMP: Mnr die Voorsitter, eintlik hang daar ‘n groot donker wolk oor vandag se debat, naamlik Suid-Afrika se steeds stygende werkloosheidsyfer; een van die mees kritieke sake in ons land vandag. As ons die vraag van werkloosheid in Suid-Afrika kan oplos, hanteer ons terselfdertyd ook ‘n magdom ander sake, byvoorbeeld armoede, misdaad en maatskaplike verval en onstabiliteit.
Suid-Afrika se werkloosheidstatistiek werp inderdaad ‘n skadu oor die werksaamhede van hierdie departement. Watter formule ons nou ook al gebruik, werkloosheid in Suid-Afrika neem steeds toe en die statistiek dui daarop dat ‘n derde van Suid-Afrikaners prakties werkloos is.
Natuurlik kan die Departement van Arbeid nie alleen pa staan vir hierdie ontstellende syfer nie. In die eerste plek is die Regering nie die primêre werkskepper nie, maar regeringsbeleid moet ‘n klimaat skep wat gunstig is vir belegging, ondernemerskap en ekonomiese groei. Die Departement van Arbeid is nie ‘n werkskepper nie, maar - en dit is baie belangrik - die arbeidswetgewing en die toepassing daarvan deur hierdie departement is van deurslaggewende belang. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Mr C AUCAMP: Mr Chairperson, there is actually a dark cloud hanging over today’s debate, namely South Africa’s ever increasing unemployment rate; one of the most critical issues in our country today. If we could solve the unemployment issue in South Africa, we would at the same time be dealing with a lot of other issues, such as poverty, crime and social decay and instability.
South Africa’s unemployment statistics do indeed cast a shadow over the activities of this department. Whatever formula we may use, unemployment is still on the rise and statistics point out that a third of South Africans are practically unemployed.
Of course, the Department of Labour alone cannot be answerable for this appalling incidence. In the first place, Government is not the primary job creator, but Government policy must create a climate conducive to investment, entrepreneurship and economic growth. The Department of Labour is not a job creator, but - and this is very important - labour legislation and its enforcement by this department are of crucial importance.]
Hon members will remember that President Mbeki stated in his state of the nation address in February 2000 that our labour laws had unforeseen consequences, and these should be addressed.
Today I must state that mere cosmetic changes have been made and nothing substantial has been addressed. The labour laws in South Africa are still not conducive to job creation.
Certain laws that were intended to protect the worker are indeed counterproductive. Employers still prefer capital-intensive rather than labour-intensive enterprises and way of management. Existing employees are still retrenched and replaced by so-called contractors in order to escape the administrative red tape and financial thresholds prescribed in the labour laws. We need a more flexible labour market as a driving force behind our labour laws. It should be approached in a holistic and structured manner, with the following goals: To encourage employers to employ, not to retrench; to reduce adversarialism in the working place in favour of co-operation and joint decision-making; to protect job security as far as possible; to protect the rights of minority unions; and to respect the constitutional right of every employee to freedom of association.
Verder is onregstellende optrede'' steeds een van die grootste bronne van
vervreemding onder veral blanke mans, en ook 'n groot oorsaak van die
sogenaamdebrain drain’’ wat ons deesdae beleef. Nou praat ek nie van
Percy Montgomery nie; hy is fair and square'' ge-drop’’!
In dié verband moet die volgende aspekte van die ``Employment Equity Act’’ aandag kry. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[Furthermore, ``unaffirmative action’’ still remains one of the biggest sources of alienation, particularly among white males, as well as a major cause of the so-called brain drain that we are experiencing nowadays. Here I am not referring to Percy Montgomery; he was dropped fair and square.
In this regard the following aspects of the Employment Equity Act should receive attention.]
Only affirmative action programmes in terms of Chapter 3 of the Act may be considered. The current wording of ``measures consistent with the purpose of this Act’’ is too wide and open to abuse by employers.
Chapter 3 should prohibit any type of affirmative action that establishes an absolute barrier to the employment or advancement of persons from the nondesignated groups. It should place an obligation on an employer to ensure that affirmative action is implemented in a manner that is least likely to unreasonably limit the rights of employees.
It should explicitly prohibit the dismissal of employees as a measure to obtain a representative workforce. First entrants to the labour market should be excluded from these measures. The composition of the Commission for Employment Equity should be revised to include representatives from the nondesignated groups.
Ons moet ook die wetgewing oor arbeidsbetrekkinge groter erkenning laat gee
aan die verteenwoordigers van kleiner vakbonde. Die sogenaamde
centralised bargaining'' moet in balans gebring word met wat genoem word
enterprise bargaining’’.
Om saam te vat, ideologies gedrewe ingrepe en regeringsmanipulering van die
arbeidsmark is besig om te boemerang teen hulle wat veronderstel is om deur
die wette beskerm te word. Minder ingrepe en groter vryheid vir die private
sektor waar markkragte binne perke ‘n natuurlike rol speel, is die sleutel.
Die VOORSITTER VAN KOMITEES: Orde! Mnr Aucamp, u tyd is verstreke.
Mnr C AUCAMP: Miskien moet ons ‘n blaadjie neem uit die boek van Europa waar sosialistiese regerings die afgelope jaar in Denemarke, Portugal, Frankryk en nou ook Nederland gesneuwel het. Praktyke wat geweeg en te lig bevind is, kan nie die toets van die tyd deurstaan nie.
Die VOORSITTER VAN KOMITEES: Order! U tyd is verstreke, Mnr Aucamp. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[We should also allow the legislation on labour relations to give greater recognition to the representatives of smaller unions. So-called centralised bargaining should be brought into balance with what is referred to as enterprise bargaining. To sum up, ideologically motivated interventions and Government manipulation of the labour market are starting to boomerang onto those who are supposed to be protected by the laws. Less intervention and greater freedom for the private sector, where market forces within bounds play a natural role, is the key.
Mr C AUCAMP: Maybe we should take a leaf out of Europe’s book, where socialist governments in Denmark, Portugal, France and now also in the Netherlands have perished. Practices that have been weighed and found wanting cannot withstand the test of time.
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Your time has expired, Mr Aucamp.]
Mr S M RASMENI: Chairperson, Minister and hon members of Parliament, allow me to declare my support for and endorsement of Budget Vote 28 of the Department of Labour. May I also congratulate the hon the Minister of Labour, Mr Membathisi Mdladlana, and his department under the leadership of Adv Rams Ramashiya, the director-general, for the commitment and continued successes registered in meeting the objectives of our Government through the focused work in transformation and regulation of the landscape of the labour market in our country.
The 15-point programme of action represents the department’s five-year plan from 1999 to 2004. It seeks to build on the firm foundation of the achievements of the first programme of action of this Ministry from 1994 and the department’s strategic plan.
This strategic plan is essentially a plan for accelerated delivery. It is a plan that will effect the commitments and the labour market programmes and priorities outlined in the Minister of Labour’s 15-point programme.
The launching of the Human Resource Development Programme and the National Skills Development Programme represents an answer to a clarion call by the President, Thabo Mbeki, when he said:
We have to pay particular attention to the issue of human resource development. We have got to make sure that our people are better educated, are better trained in ways that would help them to get employment so that we can continue to address the matter of reducing the levels of unemployment in our country.
Indeed, the legacy of apartheid discrimination and exploitation has not yet been overcome. In pushing back the frontiers of poverty, the ANC has been and still is determined to smash the colour bar which through apartheid laws, customs and practices, effectively prevented the black majority from exercising any democratic rights, acquiring education, skills, enjoying equal rights and opportunities and sharing equally the benefits of the economic development of our country.
The commitment by the department to ensuring that our laws are compatible with Government’s goals of maximising employment creation and that they further the mission and vision of the ANC-led Government is a glaring example of a people-driven and a people-centred Government. This process led to the passing, by this Parliament, of amendments to three pieces of legislation - the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, the Labour Relations Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act - which, for the first time in the history of this country, seek to extend the coverage to domestic workers, farmworkers and all other vulnerable workers who were treated like slaves by the apartheid regime.
The most important matter about legislation and an institutional framework is not only the passing of laws which remain written in the Statute Book and the establishment of boards and commissions which spend their time talking in boardrooms and doing little, if not nothing. The most important matter is the implementation of these laws so as to impact positively on the poorest of the poor in order to push back the frontiers of poverty and ensure a better life for all our people.
However, the implementation of these laws is not the responsibility of the department alone. We call on the captains of industry, the businesses, the trade unions and ordinary workers to join in to build our country together in the spirit of Vukuzenzele. We need to shift beyond dialogue and engage in collective action.
At this point, I should hasten to raise a very thorny issue - the plight of vulnerable sectors of our society, the farmworkers, domestic workers, security workers and others. The untold sufferings that the people in these sectors endure remind me of the history from which we emerged before 1994. No freedom of association, freedom of movement or human dignity and no basic human rights whatsoever. The abuse of our people, violent assaults and killings on the farms remain an obstacle to real freedom and democracy.
In Ventersdorp, Comrade Sam Louw, MP, Comrade Oupa Kgauwe, MP, and I convened a meeting of stakeholders to address some of these issues. We called on the farmers, farmworkers’ representatives, trade unions, the SAPS, district councillors represented by Comrade Maria Ramphele and Comrade Johny Rametsi and officials from the Department of Labour and from safety and liaison in the province. Prof Shadrack Gutto from the University of Witwatersrand was tasked to facilitate the meeting.
Some of the issues that we addressed in that meeting were: firstly, the handling of labour disputes; secondly, the evictions from the farms, including the interpretation of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act; and thirdly, safety and security on the farms. Some of the sensitive issues relating to specific cases of killings were referred to the directorate for public prosecutions. These cases and other similar incidents of crime are not just confined to the North West, but take place everywhere in all provinces and these things have been happening for decades. It is not something that started yesterday.
The responsibility of protecting vulnerable workers, to ensure that they have sound basic human rights and are afforded their dignity, does not rest with the Department of Labour alone, but with the Government as a whole in partnership with business, labour and civil society.
In closing, let me raise the issue of the mushrooming of trade unions. We are aware of and respect the Labour Relations Act of 1995 as amended, and we know that it promotes the rights to fair labour practices, to form and join trade unions and employer organisations, to organise and bargain collectively and to strike and lock out. In doing so, it reflects the vision of employees’ and employers’ rights contained in the Constitution.
However, we must raise a concern that those who abuse these rights do so because their interest is the material gain derived from representing workers during dispute hearings.
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon member, your time has expired.
Mr S M RASMENI: The matter cannot be left to chancers and opportunists. Instead of supporting our constitutional democracy in uniting our people and building the nation, it tends to sow divisions based on racism and ethnicity.
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! hon member, your time has expired.
Mr S M RASMENI: it is a recipe for conflict. [Applause.]
Mr S PILLAY: Mr Chairperson, unemployment is a major problem in our country, and any institution or service provider that is engaged in dealing with this problem should be given maximum support. Regrettably, that is not the case.
There are 25 registered sector education and training authorities. For the financial year ending 31 March 2001, in terms of the Auditor-General’s report on labour, the audit reports for 23 sector education and training authorities were not finalised. That influences the effectiveness of the Seta concerned. Only two Setas had their audit reports finalised. Perhaps the Minister could give us some reasons as to why that is the case. The hon the Minister also needs to tell us what the current situation is.
To further compound the problem for the unemployed and the unskilled, about R3,2 billion has been collected as levies for skills development and only 35% has been claimed. Again, this is cause for concern.
Almost all the Setas do not have the capacity to accredit training providers, and a case in point is the clothing, textile, footwear and leather sector education and training authority. It is unable to accredit community training providers, as no standard exists against which they could be benchmarked, even though the Preliminary Annual Report on Labour, on page 10, states that community groups and education and training providers constitute a stakeholder. The hon the Minister needs to tell us how many have been accredited by this particular Seta.
This Seta is currently busy with a road show. How effective this will be in reaching the unskilled and the unemployed, we do not know. We await the results with the greatest interest.
Certain Setas experience the following: Leadership problems, financial problems, lack of capacity to accredit service providers, and a backlog of applications from service providers for accreditation.
Is the hon the Minister’s department doing enough to inform service providers and the unskilled of the benefits and the process of participation and accreditation to enable skills training to take place? It does not appear to be so. We would like to know just how much money has been allocated for the generation of unit standards, how much has been used and what standards have been generated in the different Setas.
An impressive figure of 3 203 learners completed a one-year training programme. We would like to know where they are now and whether any of them are employed or have started their own micro or other businesses, or whether they have been denied access to finance.
The Construction Education and Training Authority is very impressive. For the 2001-2002 financial year money available for grants was about R36 million, and the total paid out and committed was R35 million. Only R1 million is outstanding.
It would be excellent if all the sector Setas were able to function in this manner. It would bring hope and a sense of purpose to many unemployed and unskilled people. It would revive their hope and belief, and confirm that they are people with hopes and aspirations, and not just statistics.
If the Setas continue to malfunction, one sees nothing but further unemployment in all sectors. With the ever-rising costs of fuel and other basic essentials, unemployment will be a trigger for a national crisis.
In conclusion, James said: ``Faith without works is dead.’’ The unemployed and unskilled people are simply looking for a way to earn a living, service providers are looking for a way to assist, and I ask the hon the Minister kindly to accelerate this process.
Mr G G OLIPHANT: Chairperson, hon Minister, hon members, comrades, colleagues, friends, ladies and gentlemen, our country has undergone an historic period of political, social and economic transformation since
- At the centre of this transformation is the achievement of the ANC Government in the labour market.
We have very good laws in place, well-functioning social dialogue institutions and a well-functioning Department of Labour with selfless, committed staff who are passionate about their work. We want to thank them for that. The challenges we face are the effective implementation and monitoring of our legislation and its impact on society as a whole.
The portfolio committee has, since the beginning of this session, visited several institutions, such as the National Productivity Institute, the Unemployment Insurance Fund and the Compensation Commission in Pretoria. We want to thank the leadership of these institutions, particularly Ms Magojo and Mr Mkhonto, for their leadership and their determination to succeed in this regard.
We have also visited factories, such as KWV and Consani in the Western Cape, as part of our oversight role. We are pleased to report that the majority of employers and workers are doing their best to function within the law. There are, however, still too many unscrupulous employers whose greed for profit maximisation totally disregards basic conditions of employment, health and safety requirements, employment equity, and the necessity for social justice.
We need to redouble our efforts in strengthening the inspectorates of the Department of Labour, the Department of Health and the Department of Minerals and Energy. We need to finalise the integration of inspection services amongst these departments as a matter of urgency. We cannot afford another Lenasia, where 11 workers were burnt to death in a locked-up factory over a year and a half ago. Neither can we afford to see another Ms Nokuthula Hlatswayo, who lost her twin babies after she gave birth to them while locked up in a factory in November 2001. [Applause.]
Comrade Maxwell Moss has asked me to raise an incident that happened yesterday. Six fishermen from Saldanha on the West Coast went missing at sea. During the past month 29 fishermen who work on small boats lost their lives. These fishermen, also known as line and lobster fishermen, are not covered by the Labour Relations Act, the Basic Conditions of Employment Act or workmen’s compensation.
Research has shown that working at sea is most dangerous, even more so than working on the mines. That is the message which Comrade Max Moss wanted us to pass to this House.
We know that, according to the preliminary annual report of the Department of Labour, there has been a remarkable decrease in accident statistics in almost all sectors of our economy over the past three years. There is a similar trend in the mining industry, and we wish to commend both business and labour, as well as our Government, for this improvement. We particularly wish to congratulate Comrade Minister of Labour, Membathisi Mdladlana, and his team, business and labour for the historical health and safety accord signed by all stakeholders on 8 April 2002.
There are, however, worrisome factors in the labour market. Many employers are contracting out of formal employment, and resorting to casualisation, outsourcing and retrenchments. This is in addition to the already complex problems of unemployment, high levels of poverty, rocketing food prices, the HIV/Aids pandemic and the persistent inequality in income distribution. According to the latest Mesebetsi Labour Force Survey Report over 60% of African women are unemployed, compared to 10% of white men.
I want the hon Groenewald to listen very carefully to these statistics, because he is the one …
… wat baie geraas maak hierso van regstellende aksie. [… who makes a lot of noise here about affirmative action.]
Over 60% of African women are unemployed, compared to 10% of white men. [Interjections.]
So, die stories wat agb Groenewald en agb Aucamp hier kom praat is goggastories. Ons het regstellende aksie om reg te maak, en as hulle ‘n tydsbeperking wil hê, dan kan ons onderhandel oor 40 jaar, want dit is wat apartheid hierso gehad het. [Tussenwerpsels.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[So, the stories that the hon Groenewald and the hon Aucamp try to sell us are ``goggastories’’. We have affirmative action to rectify, and if they want a time limit we can negotiate in 40 years’ time, because that is what apartheid had here. [Interjections.]]
The poorest 50% of the population receive 10% of the national income while the richest 10% receive 50%.
The average monthly salary amongst whites is R6 131 compared to R1 638 amongst Africans. This ratio has shown no change since 1995.
So as ons regstellende aksie wil hê, sal ons hier moet begin. [So if we want affirmative action, we shall have to start here.]
The report also shows that 70% of the income of the unemployed comes from remittances from other household members who have jobs. Forty-nine percent of the poorest people rely on gifts from household members. Only 15% of households receive Government pensions and 1% live on unemployment benefits from the UIF.
Mnr P J GROENEWALD: Mnr die Voorsitter, is die agb lid bereid om ‘n vraag te beantwoord? [Tussenwerpsels.] Hy verwys daarna dat daar ‘n verskil is in salarisverhogings in terme van blankes en swartes. Dink hy dit is billik om dit op die brood van blankes te smeer as dit gaan oor die werkgewers wat salarisse verhoog en nie die werkers self nie? [Tussenwerpsels.]
Mnr G G OLIPHANT: Dit het niks te doen met die brood van blankes nie. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Mr P J GROENEWALD: Mr Chairman, is the hon member prepared to take a question? [Interjections.] He refers to the fact that there is a difference between salary increases in terms of blacks and whites. Does he think that it is fair to heap this upon the heads of whites if it is about the employers who increase salaries and not the workers themselves? [Interjections.]
Mr G G OLIPHANT: It has nothing to do with the bread of whites.]
The reality is that white people are earning far more than blacks in the country. We have agreed with that member, as members of the portfolio committee, that we need to correct this. If we have to correct it, we have to correct it together. That member should not come here with ``goggastories’’ and say that whites are this and that, and that people are leaving - which is actually a myth. We have responsible white people here, in South Africa, who stay on because they are patriotic. [Applause.] [Interjections.]
I do not wish to place too much emphasis on the statistics that I have stated, but I would like to illustrate the complexity of the challenge that we face in our fledgling democracy. We are heartened by the fact that the leadership of the democratic movement is already grappling with some of these issues in order to find lasting solutions, not piecemeal solutions. [Interjections.]
We emerged from the recent alliance summit as committed as ever to dealing with problems of poverty, unemployment and disease in an honest, systematic, decisive and responsible manner. The ANC is determined to push back the frontiers of poverty and to grow the economy for a better life for all.
Let me conclude by congratulating the Congress of South African Trade Unions and its allies for organising successful and peaceful May Day rallies in 28 centres throughout the country. The struggle for a decent living and an 8-hour working day continues. This historical demand and mandate can never be abandoned.
The National Union of Mineworkers also needs to be commended for their 20th anniversary celebrations which were held in Bloemfontein last month. The Government has already tabled a Bill in Parliament that seeks to change the ownership patterns in the mining industry in line with the Freedom Charter. If I have the time, I want to quote it and say:
The national wealth of our country, the heritage of South Africans, shall be restored to the people. The mineral wealth beneath the soil shall be transferred to the ownership of the people as a whole.
So, ownership patterns will definitely change.
The South African Communist Party will also be celebrating its 81st anniversary in July and we wish them well. The ANC is now over 90 years old and is the oldest liberation movement in Africa. Sibadala kuwe DP. [We are older than the DP.] [Applause.]
Lastly, I have observed that the hon Pillay is genuinely seeking information. I would therefore like to invite him to the meeting of the portfolio committee on Tuesday to come and learn more about the Setas. It is a genuine offer. But, we cannot accept that the hon Clelland-Stokes still comes here, at this hour and in this century, to advocate cheap labour. Those days of cheap labour are gone - gone forever, never to return. [Applause.]
Comrade Durand, from the New NP, was quite right to say that the cost of labour is dropping and productivity is rising. [Interjections.] Yes, he is our comrade now because we have taken him away from the DP. He cannot belong in that camp. [Applause.]
The MINISTER OF LABOUR: Chairperson, in the interests of time and also because of some of us are diabetic and need to have some food now, I will spare the hon members a long response. Suffice it to say that changes that were made in the Labour Relations Act and Basic Conditions of Employment Act were not cosmetic - I address this to the hon Clelland-Stokes - but radical and fundamental.
One of the reasons why trade unions in this country said that there was going to be blood on the floor was precisely that the changes that we were making were not cosmetic. The hon member was not there to save my blood, but there was no blood on the floor because we debated the issues. The hon member also voted in favour of those amendments. They were definitely not cosmetic. I strongly urge my dear brother not to try his luck.
I want to thank the hon members for supporting us, but I want to respond to the hon Groenewald. The reason why I want to respond, and I want to say it very clearly, is that …
… i-ANC ayilalanga, iguqe ngamadolo. Makangayibambi ngesixhanti ukuba mayiphakame, kuba uya kuba unqika ilitye elineembovane. Aze ahlale ke ezixhokonxa. Makazixhokonxe ke umhlobo wam, azixhokonxe kakhulu. Aze angakhali xa zimqwenga. [Uwele-wele.] (Translation of Xhosa paragraph follows.)
[… the ANC is not sleeping, it is on its knees. He must not hold it by its neck and challenge it because by so doing he would be lifting up a stone full of ants. He should continue to do that. Let my dear colleague do that as much as he likes. He should not cry for help when they are all over him. [Interjections.]]
Racism was not on our agenda. It was never invented by the ANC. We fought against, and we will continue to fight against, racism. I invite my learned brother to study the Freedom Charter very carefully.
Angakhe alinge ke umhlobo wam azenzele inyakanyaka … [My colleague must not start trouble …]
… because I want to repeat it. It is not the ANC that invented apartheid. All that the employment equity legislation requires is that blacks, women of all races and people with disabilities, who have been historically discriminated against, must be affirmed. Let me tell Mr Aucamp that affirmative action is not a brain drain but brain gain because …
… sithi abantu ababethatyathwa njengezidenge, izityhifili, iziqihela. Namhlanje sithi aba bantu bamnyama ababonayo naba mama, nabantu abakhubazekileyo, banayo le nto ephantsi kweenwele. Ngoko ke … [… we are the people who were perceived as stupid, fools, idiots. Today we say that these black people that he sees and these women and these disabled persons, do have brains. Therefore …]
… they must be affirmed …
… Mhlekazi kuba ubuchopho banabo, abulahlekanga. Akukho buchopho bulahlekileyo apha, qha into eyenzekayo, sithabatha obu buchopho obe bukho obuqiniswe bubudenge babo ngoba into abayenzileyo bona basiqinise ifokotho. [… Sir, because brains they do have, they are not lost. There are not brains that are lost here, but what is happening is that our brains have been made even wiser by their stupidity, because what they have done is to actually strengthen us.]
My warning to them is that …
… ihashe elinesilonda emqolo aliqatyelwa ngenkani, hleze litelephule limkhabe, limbhuzule amazinyo. [Kwaqhwatywa.] [… one does not ride by force a horse that has a wound on its back in case it becomes wild and throws one to the ground, and one loses one teeth. [Applause.]
Mnr C AUCAMP: Mnr die Voorsitter, op ‘n punt van orde: kan ek hier vra vir
‘n korreksie? Die agb Minister het voorgegee dat ek ‘n rassistiese
konnotasie heg aan brain drain''. By brain drain’’ word bedoel
gekwalifiseerde mense: swart, wit en bruin prokureurs, advokate en dokters
wat weggaan.
Ek vra hom om asseblief nie daardie konnotasie aan my woorde te heg nie. Ek dink dit was moedswillig. [Tussenwerpsels.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Mr C AUCAMP: Mr Chairperson, on a point of order: May I ask for a correction here? The hone the Minister maintains that I am attaching a racist connotation to the brain drain. Brain drain refers to qualified persons: black, white and brown attorneys, advocates and doctors who are leaving.
I am asking him rather not to attach that connotation to my words. I think that was done on purpose. [Interjections.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon Minister, do you want to respond to Mr Aucamp?
UMPHATHISWA: Mhlalingaphambili, ndiyaphinda ngesiXhosa sasekhaya. Asizizo iziqihela, asizizo izityhifili, asizizo izidenge. Lo Mthetho uYilwayo into oyenzayo uthi obu buchopho bethu masibusebenzise kweli lizwe. Ngoko ke akukho buchopho bumkayo. Into eyenzekayo, kusetyenziswa ubuchopho babantu beli lizwe ngendlela eyiyo. Nantso ke into endiyithethayo. Andiyazi ke le ayidwabayo. [Kwaqhwatywa.] (Translation of Xhosa paragraph follows.)
[The MINISTER: Chairperson, I repeat in my mother tongue that we are not idiots, we are not fools, we are not stupid. What this Bill does is to tell us that we should use our brains for the benefit of this country. There is, therefore, no brain drain encouraged by it. What happens is that the human brain is being used by people of this country in an appropriate manner. That is what I say. I do not know what this nonsense is all about. [Applause.]]
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: According to my limited knowledge of Xhosa, Mr Aucamp, I think that clarifies the matter.
Debate concluded.
The House adjourned at 13:44.