WEDNESDAY, 30 MAY 2007 __

                PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

                                ____

The House met at 14:03.

The Speaker took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayers or meditation.

                          NOTICES OF MOTION

The ACTING CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Speaker, I move:

That the House debates the situation in Israel and Palestine and in particular the arrest and detention of members of the Palestinian Legislative Council.

Mev D VAN DER WALT: Agb Speaker, hiermee gee ek kennis van my voorneme om die volgende voorstel voor die Huis te laat dien:

Dat die Huis dringend die kwessie van naamveranderings in ons land debatteer. (Translation of Afrikaans notice of motion follows.) [Mrs D VAN DER WALT: Hon Speaker, I give notice that I intend to bring the following motion before the House:

That the House urgently debates the issues around name changes in our country.]

Mrs C DUDLEY: On behalf of the ACDP I shall move:

That the House calls for a debate on Pan-African Parliament’s discussions on a United African State.

Thank you.

                TIME ALLOCATIONS FOR PARTY RESPONSES


                         (Draft Resolution)

The ACTING CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Speaker, I move without notice:

That, notwithstanding Rule 106(5), the time allocated for party responses to executive statements for the remainder of the Third Parliament be as follows: African National Congress: 8 minutes; Democratic Alliance: 3 minutes; Inkatha Freedom Party: 2 minutes; and all other parties: 1 minute each.

Agreed to.

      TIME ALLOCATED TO THE PRESIDENT FOR REPLIES TO QUESTIONS


                         (Draft Resolution)

The ACTING CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Speaker, I move the motion printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

That, notwithstanding Rule 113, time allocated to the President for replies to questions be unlimited for the remainder of the Third Parliament.

Agreed to.

                  PUBLIC SERVICE WAGE NEGOTIATIONS


                             (Statement)

The MINISTER FOR THE PUBLIC SERVICE AND ADMINISTRATION: Madam Speaker and hon members of this House, I want to express my appreciation for the opportunity to make a statement on the current wage negotiations. Please allow me to take us all back to 1994, when we first gathered in this House as representatives of a democratic dispensation.

One of our first tasks was to forge a public service able to serve the needs of a democracy; a democracy facing the challenges of serving a widely disparate society with extreme inequities where services had been offered to the privileged few and denied to the disadvantaged majority. The challenge was not only to provide services within an established structure, but was far more complex.

The Public Service was faced with the challenge of acting as agents of change and transformation, while being transformed and reformed itself - a challenge and obligation that we were later to codify in our Constitution, which in Chapter 10 speaks of the values that must underlie and mandate the developmental role which characterises our Public Service. Thirteen years later the challenge of building a public service that has the capability to deliver to the needs of the developmental state is still with us as we strive to consolidate the transformation and build on the considerable advances we have made since we embarked on our transformation project.

You may wonder what this has to do with the topic at hand. In one word: Everything. The conditions of service for our cadre of public servants are central to the building of a skilled, dedicated and innovative Public Service. This must be our starting point when we consider the conditions of service of our public servants. Public servants must be properly rewarded for their labour, their skills, their performance and their dedication. We must have the framework in place to attract and retain the best and brightest of our labour pool. Our public servants must work in conditions that are conducive to good performance, receiving payment that recognises their worth in line with market conditions and with opportunities for advancement and career development.

The general welfare of public servants is a prime consideration. As employer we have the responsibility to ensure that these benefits in areas such as pension provision and healthcare are available to ensure a healthy workforce and retirement free of insecurity. We must be vigilant – and I want to emphasise it - that these provisions are not eroded though short- term expediency, such as high salaries at the expense of longer term security and broader conditions of service. Those who labour under particular conditions, such as weekends or at night, must receive proper compensation for the toll this takes on their personal lives.

The state must balance what it spends on wages and benefits with what it spends on the goods and services it provides to the populace. This is particularly important considering that the developmental character of our state requires that we consider the long-term implications of this expenditure on the lives of the disadvantaged and needy as we seek to fulfil their justified aspirations to a better life.

Our offer seeks to ensure that the buying power of public servants is not eroded through inflation, that the general wellbeing of public servants is addressed through provision of appropriate medical aid and housing allowances and that in certain special categories non-pensionable allowances are adjusted. In addition we put on the table a new dispensation for professionals and specialists in order to ensure that we are able to attract people with these skills to the public service and ensure that their careers are developed within the service in order to retain them.

Much is made of the low levels of pay of public servants, but it is important to note that between 1997 and 2006 employees on salary levels 1-8 received a real increase, over and above inflation. Level one, unskilled general workers received a real increase - after inflation is taken into account - of 13,3%. We do, however, recognise that levels 9 to 12, which includes those in the professional categories, received a below-inflation increase over this period and this is what we want to address. Since 2002 there has been a real increase above inflation at higher levels, but we want to move forward much more dramatically with a proposed new structure.

I will not go into too many figures, but I would just like to point out some detail of the earnings of our public officials. The lowest level worker in the Public Service currently earns R35 916 per annum. If we were to include macro benefits – and this is medical, pensions, service bonus and housing - the total package at this level would be R71 850. The macro benefits therefore constitute more than 50% of the package. With a hypothetical 6% salary adjustment, the minimum salary will be R38 070 and the total package will be R75 940. I want to leave you to draw your own conclusions, bearing in mind that this is the salary that a general worker, a cleaner, earns in the Public Service.

To give further detail with regard to the new salary structure, our key focus over the next few years will be to develop and implement occupation- specific dispensations with the aim to improve the Public Service’s ability to attract and retain skilled employees. Our biggest challenge encountered in the Public Service is to adequately remunerate the diverse categories of employees by means of a single salary scale. This is further aggravated by the current lack of appropriate progression and promotion opportunities in certain occupations. It is therefore accepted that in a number of occupations salaries are generally not competitive for the more skilled and experienced employees.

To address these challenges, the introduction of the occupation-specific dispensation will be developed and implemented for identified occupational categories. This entails introducing unique salary structures per occupation, including grading structures and job profiles, as well as progression and career opportunities based on competencies, experience and performance.

This House is well aware that labour originally tabled demands which were impossible for the state to meet. Their demands would have added R200 billion to the wage bill in the first year of implementation, more than doubling the current wage bill. Clearly we were a long way apart. The House is also aware that over the last two days, at the request of the employer, the parties reconvened to discuss a way forward. The purpose of this meeting was to find a way of coming together and to this end a technical working group with representatives from each side – nine a side – sat through Monday night and came back with a working document. Discussions around this continued yesterday, up to the early hours of this morning, and I am happy to announce that in the past few minutes this document has been tabled before the Public Service Co-ordinating Bargaining Council as a working document to adopt official status in the bargaining chamber. This is a major breakthrough, and while much work still needs to be done, we can now start charting our way forward.

The objectives of this document are: To provide a basis for the general salary adjustments for employees for the forthcoming years; to introduce revised salary structures for specific occupations in the professional area, catering for career-pathing, pay progression, grade progression, seniority, increased competencies and performance, with a view to attracting and retaining professionals and specialists. This covers educators, health professionals and legal professionals, amongst others, and will ultimately reach 80% of the Public Service; to replace the existing Scarce Skills Framework for the Public Service with the introduction of the revised salary structures; to review the nonpensionable allowances; to deal with certain leave matters; to provide for the adjustment of the medical aid subsidy; to provide for the alignment of the Public Service with the requirements of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, 1997; and to provide for processes to review certain existing terms and conditions of employment.

Labour has agreed to consider this proposal in its entirety, while negotiating certain aspects within the proposal. Agreement has been reached on the larger part of this proposal, with exceptions amongst others being the level of the salary increase, the conditions relating to medical aid and the pay progression for those who will remain outside the new pay framework for professionals and other specialists. We consider this a major advance. We have collectively moved from a deadlock situation to one in which we are able to negotiate on the future nature of the Public Service.

Madam Speaker, I would like to use my remaining time to give a little detail to our proposal for the occupation-specific salary structures, developed to attract and retain certain employees. This structure will enable us to address the current ‘one size fits all’ approach which we use to remunerate a wide range of occupation categories. Much is made of the poor conditions under which such professionals, for example educators and nurses, work and we recognise the need for their salaries to be revised. This system will recognise the unique skills and experience of such categories. It will offer a unique salary structure per occupation with centrally determined grading structures and broad job profiles. No longer will professionals reach a plateau early on in their careers, which is often the cause of their departing from their chosen occupation or from the Public Service. They will now have career-pathing opportunities based on competencies, experience and performance. The system will cater for pay progression within the salary level and certain current benefits and allowances will be incorporated into their salaries. We will, where appropriate, align salaries to the market, enhancing the Public Service as an employer of choice.

We are proposing to implement the new structure for nurses with effect from 1 July 2007. Certain categories of nurses with ten years or longer experience stand to earn a very significant increase in the area of 50 percent. Legal professionals within the justice cluster will become eligible from July 2007, educators will be included from 1 January 2008 and social workers engineers and architects from July 2008, followed by correctional officials, environmentalists and other identified professionals in July 2009. Other professionals in these sectors are also catered for, and the detail is available.

The negotiations related to each of these occupations will be dealt with at the relevant sectoral bargaining council, but these professionals can rest assured that they will see very significant increases. These negotiations are not only about a percentage increase, but about a change in the nature of the Public Service, where those who work hard and have skills and experience will be recognised and rewarded.

Provisions for the roll-out of the housing allowance are also on the table and represent very significant assistance, particularly to the lower levels of workers. We also agree to undertake a comprehensive review of the current housing allowance and undertake to complete this and negotiate the recommendations by July 2008.

The employer also recognises the need to reward improvement in qualifications that are job related and will enhance performance and service delivery, as well as the need to revise the existing long-service award, in order to retain skills and reward loyalty.

Madam Speaker, while these provisions often pale against the heat generated by the debate on percentages, it is these benefits that make an organisation an employer of choice. It was that great revolutionary, leader and thinker V I Lenin who coined the term “economism” to describe certain groupings in the terrain of social change, who sought to reduce the needs of the workers to the mere monetary, ignoring the long-term needs and aspirations of those who toil for their salary.

He wrote: “If the economic struggle is taken as something complete in itself, there will be nothing socialist in it.’’

I am happy that we have moved from such positioning in our negotiations and that we can now face the challenge of shaping our Public Service so that it is both able to cater for the needs of its employees and the needs of our nation.

Mr K J MINNIE: Mevrou die Speaker, agb Minister, agb kollegas … [Madam Speaker, hon Minister, hon colleagues …]

… while the DA acknowledges the constitutional right of workers including the public servants to strike, we would like to urge all stakeholders to ensure that the looming national strike, reportedly scheduled to begin on 1 June, takes place within the ambit of the law and that violence is avoided at all cost. Public servants play a key role in the delivery of services such as emergency services, water, electricity, education and health. If the rendering of these crucial services were to grind to a halt, most South Africans, especially our children, our elderly and the sick would suffer immensely.

Die swak vlak van dienslewering waaraan Suid-Afrika se mense blootgestel word, kan deur ’n staking net verder versleg. Belangrike projekte met die oog op, onder meer, die 2010-Wêreldbeker is reeds agter. Dit kan tot verdere verleentheid vir Suid-Afrika lei, sou dit verder ontwrig word. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

[The poor level of service delivery to which the people of South Africa are exposed, can only deteriorate further through a strike. Important projects with regard to, among others, the 2010 World Cup are already behind schedule. Should these be disrupted even further, it can only lead to additional embarrassment for South Africa.]

In the not-so-distant future our children will be sitting for their mid- year examinations. Needless to say, their preparations will be hampered by an indefinite strike and precious time may never be recovered.

Daarom doen die DA ’n beroep op almal wat aan die staking gaan deelneem om respek te toon, ook aan die staatsamptenare wat hulle grondwetlike reg uitoefen om nie te staak nie. Verder moet die regering alles in sy vermoë doen om die veiligheid en sekuriteit van diegene wat nie aan die staking wil deelneem nie, te verseker. Ek dink dit is die plig van die regering om dit te doen. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

[The DA therefore calls on all those who are going to participate in the strike to show respect, inter alia to those public servants who exercise their constitutional right not to strike. Furthermore, the government must do everything in its power to ensure the safety and security of those who do not wish to participate in the strike. I believe it is the government’s duty to do so.]

The DA believes that it is not too late for the parties to reconsider their positions in the name of the wellbeing of all South Africans.

Wanneer voordele beding is, behoort meriete die oorwegende faktor te wees in die toekenning van hierdie voordele. Ek wil vir u sê, agb Minister: U moet u nie deur kwetsende plakkate van stryk laat bring nie. U moet u oog op die bal hou. Ons is dankbaar dat daar vordering gemaak is met die oog op ’n oplossing vir dit wat vir ons voorlê. Ons wens u en u onderhandelingspan baie sterkte toe. Ek dank u. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

[Once benefits have been negotiated, merit ought to be the determining factor in the allocation of these benefits. I want to say to you, hon Minister: Don’t allow yourself to be distracted by insulting placards. You must keep your eye on the ball. We are grateful that progress has been made with regard to a solution to what lies in store for us. We wish you and your negotiating team all the strength. Thank you. [Applause.]] Mr H J BEKKER: Madam Speaker, we thank the hon Minister for her statement and we wish her all the best for the future. We can only trust that a breakthrough will come in these negotiations and that the preliminary agreement will subsequently be fulfilled.

We would like to know – and the Minister hasn’t mentioned anything in this regard – what is going to happen on Friday? Is that particular strike off, and what is going to happen in the succeeding weeks? There was no clarity with regard to that in the Minister’s statement.

Furthermore, what will be the position of this discussion, and does the Minister believe that we will have a way forward before the end of June and whether we will be on an even keel after that?

The IFP is very concerned about the stalling in the negotiations and that it is only as a last-ditch effort that these things come to the fore. We agree with the Minister that public servants must receive an equitable remuneration and that we must attract the best possible employees that the labour market can offer, and that special skills must be developed and retained.

The IFP, however, also understands the anxiety of public servants who believe that they are receiving on average marginally more than the inflation rate. Perhaps more emphasis should have been placed on the monetary value, which is what is at stake here – what goes into the public servant’s pocket - and not on the other aspects that are not directly measurable to people on the outside of the process.

Regarding the different categories that have been mentioned by the Minister, we would like to know what is going to be position with regard to the police in future, etc? Having said all that, the IFP can only wish that this unfortunate situation comes to an end and that we can hold hands and move forward united. I thank you very much.

Mr A HARDING: Madam Speaker, firstly, it would appear that some progress has been made, and as the ID we sincerely hope that both parties in this dispute can find each other. We say this on the basis that if the labour unions go ahead with the strike, South Africa will lose because this will have dire consequences for service delivery to the poor and for our economy.

This democracy was built on compromise, finding each other and reaching out to each other, and we as the ID therefore make the call that the same spirit resonates in the negotiations between government and the unions.

The fact that all 19 unions are standing together cannot be ignored, and therefore it is very important that both parties to this dispute find each other. I thank you.

Mrs C DUDLEY: Madam Speaker, the ACDP is of the opinion that the 6% wage increase that government offered public servants was yet another blow to the already crippling shortages of skills and dwindling capacity at all levels of service delivery. The ACDP believes that this was a missed opportunity.

This year’s annual increase could have carried a message of government’s commitment to ensuring that those delivering much-needed services in our country are valued and that retaining and attracting skills have been prioritised. In view of much talk and promises by government, of ensuring retention of skills, the increases proposed by the state were unrealistic.

The new system that the Minister has outlined, however, which recognises scarce skills and competence, sounds like a promising solution, positively influencing critical areas of service delivery. It is imperative that the government adequately addresses the current perceptions and serious lack of skills and capacity owing to unrealistic salaries.

The ACDP, however, calls on protesters to continue to commit to a negotiated solution. Thank you.

Mnr W D SPIES: Speaker, drie jaar gelede het staatsdienswerkers en die regering onder moeilike omstandighede geskik op ‘n drie-jaarplan vir salarisverhogings. Daardie plan het behels dat salarisse aan die hand van die inflasiekoers aangepas sou word.

Dit is goed so en die VF Plus het dit destyds verwelkom. Die realiteit wat egter elke werker in die gesig staar, is dat daar ‘n groeiende gaping bestaan tussen die amptelike inflasiekoers en wat deur baie gedefinieer word as “werkersinflasie”, met ander woorde, die styging in lewenskoste wat elke deursnee werker in die land beleef.

Ons moet daarvan kennis neem en ons moet dit ook in berekening bring by die formules en die persentasies wat ons bepaal. Terwyl die VF Plus dus begrip het vir die staat se posisie in hierdie opsig, wil ons nietemin pleit dat die omstandighede van die land se werkers, en spesifiek sy onderwysers en die beskermingsdienste, nie uit die oog verloor moet word nie.

Ons verwelkom daarom die aankondiging van die Minister, veral ten opsigte van gesondheidswerkers, verpleegsters en onderwysers om hul salarisse op ‘n nuwe spoor te plaas. Ons steun die Minister in hierdie verband en ons verwelkom ook die aankondiging. Baie dankie. (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)

[Mr W D SPIES: Speaker, three years ago civil servants and the government agreed, under very difficult circumstances, on a three year plan for salary increases. The plan entailed the adjustment of salaries according to the inflation rate.

It was well done and at the time the FF Plus welcomed the agreement. However, the reality that every worker has to face up to is the growing gap between the official inflation rate and that which has been defined by many as “workers inflation”, in other words, the increases in the cost of living experienced by the average worker in the country.

We must take cognisance of this and we must also include it in our calculations when we decide on the formulae and the percentages. While the FF Plus understands the government’s position in this respect, we nevertheless want to plead that sight should not be lost of the circumstances of the workers in the country, specifically its educators and the protection services.

We therefore welcome the announcement by the Minister, especially in regard to health workers, nurses and educators’ salaries being placed on a new track. We support the Minister in this regard and we also welcome the announcement. Thank you very much.]

Mr M T LIKOTSI: Madam Speaker, our position as the PAC of Azania is crystal clear: Let’s avert the workers’ strike at all cost because it will have a negative impact on the stability and the growth of our economy. Let there be a political will to resolve the impasse. Our country has been hurt several times by disagreements between the government and the workers. Common sense tells us that where two big, strong and fat elephants fight, it is the grass that most suffers.

Madam Minister, the government’s offer to the workers, as you explained it here, appears reasonable. On the contrary, the workers’ demands in comparison also look most reasonable.

When a Cabinet Minister, after work, goes home with a wheelbarrow full of wage, the poor Member of Parliament, with half a spade of wage, the poorest of the workers with a spoonful of wage, then there is a problem.

Let the government, through the Minister, try its best and become most reasonable. Let the Minister be reminded of Marie Antoinette who, when hungry people called for bread, said: “Let them eat cake.” Let this government abandon capitalist policies and move towards socialism. It is a well-known fact that capitalism is about the rich becoming richer and the poor becoming poorer.

The PAC says, avert the strike by the workers and negotiate a middle deal for all parties to enjoy the fruits of their toil. I thank you. [Applause.]

Ms S RAJBALLY: Madam Speaker, Ministers, strike action throughout the country will create some instability in service delivery. In view of the Minister for the Public Service and Administration’s multiterm agreement, the MF calls for reasonable and open negotiations.

The scales of the multiterm agreement need to be weighed against the benefits demanded by labour unions. We are a poverty-stricken nation, working hard to develop and grow both socially and economically.

Under no circumstances does the MF support the exploitation of labour. While the MF supports the plea by labour, we also call for reasonable and flexible negotiations to settle the pending matter with little consequence to the Public Service.

Hon Minister, the MF wishes you and the other party well in your negotiations and hopes that you reach a compromise. I thank you.

Mr P J NEFOLOVHODWE: Madam Speaker, Azapo is of the view that Public Service workers have had a hard blow for sometime now. Their salaries had been in the lower brackets compared to other workers in the country. Some of these workers perform essential services. Those services are fundamental to our lives and to the country. Azapo believes these services deserve recognition and workers should therefore be paid reasonably well. The Minister of Finance has complicated the matter by issuing a statement that in fact there is money that can be used to this effect. And to paraphrase the Minister of Finance, we must surely prioritise our budget and share with those workers so that every individual’s life has equal worth.

To negotiate on the basis of inflation targeting alone does not help since the government does not control prices. Azapo urges all parties to continue with negotiations until a solution is found. I thank you.

Mnr S SIMMONS: Speaker, ek is seker dat die agb Minister dit duidelik aan Cosatu sou verduidelik het dat die fiskus nie so ’n groot uitgawe van 12%- verhoging aan staatsamptenare sal kan dra nie, tensy ander dienste soos behuising, gesondheidsdienste en welsyndienste se begrotings gesny word. Die vraag is: Kan dit bekostig word en is dit in belang van Suid-Afrika? Daar sal maar voortgegaan moet word met die onderhandelingsproses omdat daar geen ander manier is om oplossings te vind nie. Ons kinders wat ons toekoms is, sal die hardste geslaan word indien daar voortgegaan word met die beoogde staking. Ek wil nie eens verwys na die negatiewe uitwerking wat dit sal hê op dienslewering nie en hoe dit die ekonomie sal raak nie. Ek wil net sê dat dit vir Suid-Afrika miljarde rande gaan kos, wat ons nie kan bekostig nie.

Die UPSA wil hiermee ’n pleidooi tot die betrokke partye rig om terug te keer na die onderhandelingstafel en in belang van Suid-Afrika en sy mense op te tree. Die vordering wat die Minister genoem het, word waardeer. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)

[Mr S SIMMONS: Speaker, I am certain the hon Minister will have made it clear to Cosatu that the fiscus cannot afford such a great expenditure as a 12% raise for public servants, unless the budget for other services such as housing, health services and welfare services is reduced. The question is: Can this be afforded, and is it in South Africa’s interest? The negotiation process will have to be continued, because there is no other way to find solutions. Our children, who are our future, will be hardest hit if the planned strike goes ahead. I don’t even want to refer to the negative impact it will have on service delivery, or to how it will affect the economy, except to say that it will cost South Africa billions of rand, which we cannot afford.

The UPSA wishes to appeal to the parties concerned to return to the negotiating table, and to act in the best interest of South Africa and her people. The progress which the Minister had mentioned is appreciated. [Applause.]]

Mr P J GOMOMO: Madam Speaker, hon Minister for the Public Service and Administration and hon members of Parliament, at occasions like this, where one has to respond to the statement on wage negotiations, one always has a responsibility to tread responsibly. We all know that the negotiation process in itself is sensitive and therefore places an enormous challenge on all involved to be equally responsible.

On this score, we want to congratulate all parties involved in the negotiations who went back to the negotiating table. We know that they did that with a view to trying to find one another. We know that they did so with the intention to manage the gap that kept them so far from each other. We knew and expected that such a move was an opportunity that could possibly to respond to address the possible collapse of negotiations and the declaration of a dispute. We knew and understood that a move back to the negotiating table was a voluntary and responsible step taken by the parties themselves and that it coincided with calls that some of us made even at this very podium last week.

Once more, we salute you for that bold, relevant and responsible move. Of course, we were not naïve to expect that such move back to the negotiating table was going to be a smooth one. We know that people at wage negotiations are emotional themselves and that they always have two extreme positions. We are only lucky that we sometimes have a position in the centre. It is common cause that both of the extreme positions will always seek to maximise their position to have their shine over the other and they each put their points forward in such a manner that they are seen to be committed to the agenda of the constituency they represent.

Given an opportunity, each side will like to talk of the other as if to suggest that the other party is out of order and they call one another all sorts of names. Some of us understand this kind of undertone.

The question that society is asking is: If responsibility is the name of the game in dealing with the negotiations, is a sense of responsibility at all times maintained by all the negotiators? In this current wage negotiation, I leave it to society to judge and to the negotiators themselves to do an introspection as to how they think they project of themselves.

As Parliament, we have a duty to tread more responsibly and be part of the solution that is being seen as part of the problem. We should therefore occupy space at the centre to give support and encouragement to the parties at the negotiating table that they should try their best to address the negotiations issues to such an extent that society does not get the worst out of their dispute.

Not long ago, President Thabo Mbeki led us to acknowledge that we have entered a season of hope. This did not come like manna from heaven, but it came as the fruit of our own labour. We soiled our hands in the management of the tight programme that we had and we still have to transform South Africa to be a better nation and an influential player in the international family of nations.

We have acquitted ourselves quite well and the weapon that was delivered to all of us as a nation is dialogue. This has been a master key that has opened so many closed doors that today we speak of ourselves as a nation to be relied on.

It is not surprising therefore that even this statement presented to us today confirms that some breakthroughs have been recorded in the Public Service wage negotiations. It confirms that even today we still have champions of the struggle to use this weapon to advance the course of transformation and settlement of dispute. We know that parties may not claim that they achieve all they intend from the negotiations. But our call as Parliament should be that as they continue to engage on these matters, they should do so in such a manner as not to distract the nation from the broad national agenda that we as a country have adopted and enshrined in the Constitution.

We call on the parties, as they continue to advance the cause of the mandate to compete mandate in the democracy, that they should also look at the bigger picture to ensure that there is peace and stability.

Addressing Codesa on 20 December 1991, Comrade Nelson Mandela said:

Nothing could be more irresponsible than for us to deny our people the right to peace and freedom of association and deny our country its due economic growth.

He continued to say:

We want to make a strong appeal to everybody to place the compelling national concerns above narrow sectoral interests.

We need to demonstrate that we are capable of dealing with these issues in an amicable way so as to confirm that indeed the tool of dialogue is working for us as it worked before and that we are ready to keep on sharpening it at every encounter. Let us march forward with responsible negotiations and let us remain in a season of hope forever. I wish you well, Minister. I really hope you reach a conclusion so that everyone in this society will be a happy person. I thank you very much. [Applause.]

The SPEAKER: Order! Members are reminded that the Extended Public Committee on the Minerals and Energy Budget Vote starts at three o‘clock in the Old Assembly Chamber.

Debate concluded.

The House adjourned at 14:47.