Hon House Chairperson, hon members, Cabinet colleagues, hon Deputy President, ladies and gentlemen, comrades and friends, there shall be a national minimum wage, paid annual leave, sick leave for all workers and maternity leave on full pay for all working mothers.
The Basic Conditions of Employment Amendment Bill seeks to translate ... [Interjections.]
Order! Hon Minister, can you just take your seat please? There are too many members standing around in the aisles and others are about the leave the House. Will you please make your decision? We want to continue with the debate. Hon Minister, you may continue.
As I have said, the Basic Conditions of Employment Amendment Bill seeks to translate the vision enshrined in the Freedom Charter, the Constitution of the land and the 2009 election manifesto of the ANC. I am pleased to point out that by and large the Basic Conditions of Employment Amendment Bill is in line with the aspirations of the Freedom Charter, the election manifesto and our international obligations, thanks to the ANC government.
In 1998, the 86th International Labour Conference adopted the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. This declaration contains four fundamental policies, the right of workers to associate freely and bargain collectively; the end of forced and compulsory labour; the end of child labour; and the end of unfair discrimination among workers. We deemed it necessary to propose amendments to the basic conditions of employment. We are very pleased that the National Assembly is considering the proposed Basic Conditions of Employment Amendment Bill and will find it appropriate to adopt the passage of the Bill.
You will recall that these amendments are intended to respond to the growing informalisation of work in the South African labour market and to align the Basic Conditions of Employment Act with the Labour Relations Act in addressing unfair labour practices. The amendments also seek to bring the provisions relating to child labour in line with international standards and strengthen the mechanisms for enforcement of basic conditions of employment, including wages.
It is worth mentioning that 12 June 2013 was the International Day Against Child Labour. This day was celebrated last week, coinciding as it did with the International Labour Conference. Part of what this Bill does is to align our policies with international best practices. It will also prohibit the unethical behaviour of requiring work seekers to pay a fee in order to be placed in employment.
The law will also prevent employers from forcing employees to purchase goods from their businesses as conditions of work. It will also prohibit work by children under the age of 15 years. It will strengthen the labour inspectorate and enforcement. The Bill seeks to introduce measures to discourage noncompliance by, among other things, imposing heavier penalties. The Bill is also a direct consequence of the 2009 ANC election manifesto, which promised South Africans that the ANC-led government would introduce legal measures to promote our decent work agenda.
I want to thank members of the Portfolio Committee on Labour for their time, energy and wisdom in their efforts to enhance the objectives of the Bill. Let me also take this opportunity to call on our social partners to assist with implementing the amendments in their places of work. I am aware that some of the proposed amendments were complex, and it was not easy to reach consensus. Well, let me submit that labour laws have been and always will be a highly contested terrain, not only in South Africa, but the world over.
I would also like to encourage those who have not read this particular piece of legislation and are always saying that the labour laws of the country are rigid, to do so. I want to confirm that the labour laws of this country are flexible. When we were attending the International Labour Organization conference there were countries that had already requested to come and learn from our country. That is why I am appealing to this House to adopt these amendments. I thank you. [Applause.]
Hon Chairperson, can I please just bring it to your attention that there seems to something wrong with our electronic systems. From what I understand from other members it is not only a few, but apparently throughout the benches.
Point noted. We are requesting the NA Table staff to look into the matter. At the moment it does not have any bearing on the debate that is taking place. If you are uncertain about the speakers' list, you can get a copy from the NA Table staff. Hopefully, by the end of this debate, the system will be up and running again.
Hon Chair, hon Ministers, hon Deputy Ministers, hon members, staff from government departments, esteemed guests, sometimes it is nice, once in a while, to vote "No".
"The future of our continent lies in the hands of Africans themselves." These were the words of Carlos Lopes, Executive Secretary, UN Economic Commission for Africa, during the panel discussion at the International Labour Conference, ILO, last week. He went on to say, and I quote:
... to successfully create the conditions for jobs, growth and social progress, the continent needs to have its own control of its own vision and narrative. We need a structural transformation of African economies to ensure jobs, growth and social progress. In South Africa, there is no confusion about that. The Freedom Charter is crystal clear on the vision of South Africa on workers' rights. It states in no uncertain terms the following: Firstly, there shall be a forty-hour working week, a national minimum wage, paid annual leave and sick leave for all workers, and maternity leave on full pay for all working mothers. Secondly, miners, domestic workers, farm workers and public servants shall have the same rights as all others who work. Thirdly, child labour, compound labour, the tot system and contract labour shall be abolished.
South Africa has a long history of suffering and injustice. These challenges are automatically transferred to the labour market. Our labour market is characterised by inequalities and by the large number of those trapped in working poverty. It is within this context that when we deal with labour market challenges we have to understand our history and the political climate within which we operate.
We also acknowledge that South Africa operates within a global village and that such an intricacy sometimes forces us to abandon our values and that which is morally binding to our cause. These amendments are a reflection of the fact that we operate within an environment where we have to nurture economic growth while at the same time establishing a sound protection system for the vulnerable workers.
This is the reality facing us today. In principle, the Basic Conditions of Employment Act is in line with the human rights values enshrined in our Constitution. It complies with most, if not all, of the core International Labour Conference conventions. However, as a dynamic piece of legislation, it requires some fine-tuning and realignment from time to time. The 2009 ANC election manifesto made a promise to the people of South Africa that it would introduce laws to regulate contract work, sub-contracting and outsourcing, address the problems of labour broking, and prohibit many abusive medieval tendencies and practices within this social system. Through these proposed amendments, we are living up to our promises that we made in 2009.
In the 2009 ANC manifesto, we undertook to make provisions to facilitate the unionisation of workers and the conclusion of sectoral collective agreements to cover vulnerable workers to ensure the right to permanent employment. The amendments in the Basic Conditions of Employment Amendment Bill do precisely that in response to the new environment on this front.
On this day in June 2013, Parliament welcomes the efforts of the ANC in introducing amendments to the labour laws in order to prohibit the inherently abusive practices in labour broking; to restore the dignity of our society in general and workers in particular; to create an environment where all workers not only feel that they are protected, but can also see and experience tangible protection; to create an employment environment that is free from any form of naked or super-exploitation and that ensures the complete eradication of all medieval practices within the profit-making system; and to eliminate instances where workers do not know who to cite when referring their cases to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration, CCMA.
Cases of workers who have worked for many years without social benefits, including provisions for retirement and medical care, will soon become history. These amendments are flexible enough not to become an obstacle for addressing employment opportunities. The time utilised to consider amendments for finalisation bears testimony to that.
The Minister of Labour, the daughter of our soil, in pursuit of the ruling party's vision, tabled this amending Bill in Parliament. The Bill, in our view, seeks to address the gaps that have emerged since the last amendments; to effect alignment with the country's international obligations, as well as alignment with the relevant jurisprudence; and, most importantly, to strengthen the protection of vulnerable workers. I hope this House will be united in giving this Bill the right of passage as that will be the right thing to do. I thank you. [Applause.]
Hon Chair, the DA opposes the Basic Conditions of Employment Amendment Bill. [Interjections.] As hon Minister Oliphant has said, South Africa can be proud of many aspects of its labour dispensation. However, we must hang our heads in shame about our incredibly high unemployment rate. We rank in the top 14% of countries in terms of unemployment. Many African countries have done far better in terms of employment than us. This includes countries such as Ghana, Gabon, Zambia, North and South Sudan and Nigeria.
It is unthinkable that we currently have a higher unemployment rate than in 1994, when we were coming out of a long period of labour unrest, trade boycotts and sanctions - a period when foreigners, quite understandably, did not want to invest in our country and when our exporters were struggling to find markets for South African products. What is worse, however, is that that period prohibited some South Africans from using their talents in certain fields, and from working and residing where they wanted.
Today, those aspects have mercifully changed and our products are welcomed all over the world. One would therefore have expected this country to be put on a high growth path, one second to none. Thankfully, the standard of living of employed South Africans has improved significantly. However, the burden of the fast-growing group of unemployed South Africans has worsened. Rising levels of unemployment, a phenomenon which started during the 1970s, has accelerated since 1994. We have a national crisis in terms of unemployment. Our official unemployment rate exceeds 25%. We have all seen the increase in the number of people waiting in vain on street corners for someone to offer them a short-term job, and hundreds of thousands of South Africans have given up all hope of ever finding a job.
The unemployment figure, which is an average figure, masks the real unemployment figures in certain age groups, with more than 50% of our young people not being able to find employment. Any society in which the young are bearing the brunt in terms of unemployment must commit itself to serious introspection and action.
Daar is ook groot verskille in werkloosheid tussen die verskillende bevolkingsgroepe. Werkloosheid het 'n enorme negatiewe invloed op hierdie gemeenskappe, en hou groot risikos vir ons land se toekoms in. Dit het ook 'n negatiewe invloed op belangrike nasionale doelwitte, soos om die gaping in inkomste tussen ryk en arm te verklein, of om 'n sukses van regstellende aksie te maak. Effektiewe regstellende aksie verg dat daar vakatures by werkgewers sal ontstaan wat per voorkeur gevul moet word deur werkers uit die aangewese groepe. Die inkrimping in die arbeidsmark kan dan ook duidelik gesien word in ons land se swakker prestasie op die gebied van regstellende aksie sedert 2008. In plaas daarvan om die eintlike probleem, te wete ekonomiese groei, aan te pak, word werkgewers nou geblameer dat hulle nie erns maak met regstellende aksie nie.
Van die wysigings aan die Wet op Basiese Diensvoorwaardes, wat vandag deur hierdie Huis oorweeg moet word, skep verdere regulering, terwyl die Wreld Ekonomiese Forum se ranglyste wys dat ons arbeidsmark reeds oorgereguleer is. Verskeie bepalinge in hierdie wetsontwerp sal die kostes van indiensneming vir werkgewers verder verhoog.
Dit is duidelik uit 'n antwoord van agb minister Oliphant dat die getal werkers in 'n sektor soos landbou sedert die instelling van minimum lone baie gedaal het. Dit is daarom baie jammer dat agb minister Naidoo, wat so ewe die titel van Minister van Ekonomiese Ontwikkeling dra, vroer vanmiddag so laag gedaal het om politieke punte oor werksverliese in the Wes-Kaap te probeer aanteken. [Tussenwerpsels.] Ek sien hom nie tans in die Huis nie. Dit lyk vir my hy wil nie die waarheid hoor nie, en dit terwyl dit sy regering en sy kabinetskollegas is wat verantwoordelikheid vir die werksverliese in die landbousektor moet aanvaar. [Tussenwerpsels.]
Hierdie wetsontwerp maak dan ook voorsiening dat die Minister van Arbeid minimum lone kan bepaal vir werkers in daardie sektore wat nie tans deur ander sektorale vasstellings gedek word nie. Ons kan maar net hoop dat die Minister deurgaans haar goeie oordeel sal gebruik. Die persepsie bestaan egter dat onrus wat van buite werkplekke gestook word die Minister se onlangse besluite rakende minimum lone benvloed het. Indien dit waar is, voorspel dit 'n slegte toekoms vir goeie arbeidsverhoudinge en die skep van verdere werkgeleenthede.
Die DA plaas dan ook op rekord dat ons nie ten gunste is van die nuwe bepaling wat nou aan die Minister die reg gee om benewens minimum lone ook minimum verhogings in lone te bepaal nie. Werkgewers gaan baie lugtig wees om in goeie jare meer as die minimum lone te betaal, terwyl hulle weet dat die Minister hulle vorentoe gaan verplig om in die maer jare steeds minimum verhogings aan hulle werkers te gee. Dit is 'n voorbeeld van 'n bepaling wat op die oog af na 'n positiewe bepaling lyk, maar wat in effek gaan lei tot werksverliese en 'n toenemende neiging om niks meer as minimum lone te betaal nie, die sogenaamde "race to the bottom" [afwaarts voortsnel].
Aan die positiewe kant steun die DA die uitbreiding in die beskerming van kinderregte wat met di wysigingswetsontwerp verdere steun ontvang. Suid- Afrikaners moet kennis neem dat enige werk deur kinders onder die ouderdom van 15 jaar verbied word, en dat enige werk wat nie by kinders van 15 tot 18 jaar oud pas nie, ook verbied word.
Desperate werksoekers is soms uitgebuit deur agente wat aansoekfooie gevra het in ruil vir bedenklike beloftes van werk. Ons verwelkom daarom die bepaling wat hierdie praktyke verbied. Ons verwelkom ook die bepaling wat werkgewers verbied om werknemers uit te buit deur hulle te verplig om sekere produkte of dienste teen buitensporige pryse aan te koop.
Tog, die vermindering in die regte van werkgewers om appl teen die bevindinge van arbeidsinspekteurs aan te teken, is vir ons 'n bron van groot kommer. Weer eens het 'n parlementre antwoord gewys op die enorme verskille in die standaarde wat deur arbeidsinspekteurs in die verskillende streke van ons land gestel word. Dit is iets wat reggestel kan word deur verbeterde opleiding en die standardisasie van die werk van arbeidsinspekteurs, maar ongelukkig het daar nog min tereg gekom van die jarelange beloftes tot groter professionalisering van die arbeidsinspekteurs se diensbedeling.
Ten spyte van die positiewe aspekte in die wetsontwerp, glo die DA dat die nadele van groter regulering die positiewe aspekte oortref. Ons kan eenvoudig nie groter werkloosheid duld nie. Ons sal dus hierdie wetsontwerp tydens die stemming teenstaan. Ek dank u. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[There are also marked differences in unemployment between the various population groups. Unemployment has a hugely negative effect on these population groups, holding big risks for our country's future. It also has a negative effect on important national goals, such as narrowing the gap between rich and poor, or making a success of affirmative action. Effective affirmative action requires the development of vacancies with the employers, which preferably have to be filled by employees from the specified groups. The contraction of the labour market therefore can also be clearly seen in our country's weaker performance in the sphere of affirmative action since 2008. Instead of tackling the real problem, which is economic growth, employers are now being blamed for not being serious about affirmative action.
Some of the amendments to the Basic Conditions of Employment Amendment Act under consideration in this House today will create further regulation, while the grading lists of the World Economic Forum indicate that our labour market is already overregulated. Various provisions in this Bill will further increase employment costs for the employers.
It is clear from a reply by hon Minister Oliphant that the number of labourers in a sector such as agriculture has decreased significantly since the introduction of minimum wages. It is therefore such a pity that the hon Minister Naidoo, who jauntily bears the title of Minister of Economic Development, earlier this afternoon sunk so low as to try and score political points from the job losses in the Western Cape. [Interjections.] I don't see him in the House right now. It would seem to me as if he doesn't want to hear the truth, and this while it is his government and his colleagues in Cabinet who should be taking responsibility for the job losses in the agricultural sector. [Interjections.]
This Bill now also provides that the Minister of Labour can stipulate minimum wages for labourers in those sectors that are not currently covered by other sectoral determinations. We can only hope that the Minister will always use her good judgement. However, the perception holds that unrest stirred from outside the workplace did affect the Minister's recent decisions regarding minimum wages. If this is true, it predicts a dim future for good labour relations and the creation of further job opportunities.
The DA therefore puts on record that we are not in favour of the new provision which will now give the Minister the right to determine, apart from minimum wages, also the minimum increase in those wages. Employers will be very loath to pay more than the minimum wage in a good year, knowing that in times to come the Minister will still be compelling them to grant their labourers a minimum increase in the lean years. This is an example of a provision which at first glance would seem to be a positive one, but which in effect will lead to job losses and a growing trend not to pay more than the minimum wage; the so-called race to the bottom.
On the positive side, the DA supports the extension of children's rights, which through this amending Bill will receive further support. South Africans should take note that any labour by children under the age of 15 is prohibited, and that any labour unsuitable for children between the ages of 15 and 18 is also prohibited.
Desperate work-seekers have at times been exploited by agents demanding application fees in exchange for dubious promises of work. We therefore welcome the provision that prohibits such practices. We also welcome the provision that prohibits employers from exploiting their employees by forcing them to buy certain products or services at excessive rates.
Still, the curtailment in the rights of employers to appeal against the findings of labour inspectors is a big cause for concern to us. Once again a parliamentary reply has indicated the enormous differences in standards that are applied by labour inspectors in the various regions of our country. This is something that could be rectified by improved training and the standardisation of the work done by labour inspectors, but unfortunately little has come from years of promises regarding increased professionalisation of the service dispensation of labour inspectors.
Despite the positive aspects of this Bill, the DA believes that the disadvantages of increased regulation overshadow these positive aspects. We simply cannot permit increased unemployment. During the voting we will therefore be opposing this Bill. I thank you. [Applause.]]
Hon Speaker, hon Ministers and hon members, I stand here to confirm that Cope will support this Bill. The reason why we will support this Bill is because it addresses some of the most feudal practices which are still found in the labour market in this country. These practices are not supposed to be taking place, but it is unfortunate that they are still being practised.
This Bill prohibits employers from demanding that the employees pay for being employed or agents demanding that people who have been given the job pay for getting it. It also prohibits an employer from forcing workers to purchase goods from him or anybody chosen by him. This practice is well known and it used to be normal on farms, where workers were forced to buy from the farmer's shop that was on the farm. It also used to happen at the mines, where there would be a Frasers outside the compound and workers were forced to buy from that particular shop. This practice should not be allowed to continue. That is the reason why we would support this Bill, because the Bill prohibits this type of practice.
This Bill also prohibits child labour. The Bill not only prohibits the employment of children below 15 years, but also puts the onus on the employer not to allow children who are under age to work. This prohibition allows exemption through the Minister because some children can be allowed to work, like those who are involved in adverts and acting. However, it would be through the Minister giving an exemption through the regulations the Minister is going to develop. Therefore, it is not to say that all children should not work, but it actually protects children from being exploited and being put at risk. This Bill gives teeth to the labour inspectors to enforce our labour laws. We should not pretend that all employers are law-abiding citizens, because some of them are real criminals. The labour inspectors are empowered by the Bill to protect vulnerable workers. They will then be able to enforce undertakings which are usually made by employers and then they don't do anything because there was no mechanism to enforce those particular undertakings. Therefore, the labour inspectors will now have teeth to bite.
The department will have to understand that even if we have the law, but the labour inspectors are not properly equipped to enforce that law, those who have no respect for our laws will continue to disrespect our laws. The department should ensure that the inspectorate is supported by being provided with the tools of the trade. The professionalisation of inspectors should be prioritised so that they can be effective and efficient.
Lastly, the Bill gives the Minister the power to publish sectoral determinations that should apply to employers and employees who are not covered by any other sectoral determination. This is right because there are certain workers who are not members of the union, who are more vulnerable. If the market is allowed to set the wages, these workers will always be super-exploited.
Cope also supports the increase of fines, but believes that these fines should be reviewed every five years. The Bill is aimed at protecting vulnerable workers and that's the reason why we support this Bill. [Applause.]
Hon Deputy Speaker, I rise on behalf of my colleague, the hon Mncwango, who is unable to be in this debate today. The Basic Conditions of Employment Act protects the most vulnerable in our country from unscrupulous employers and employment practices. In South Africa we have many cases where legislative protection of the workforce is necessary, and it is in this respect that the Basic Conditions of Employment Act has done a great deal to improve the lives of many citizens through improving their working conditions and wages.
Recently we have had the issue of the extremely poor working conditions of workers in the textile industry in Kwazulu-Natal, to which they were being subjected by foreign national company owners. This is unacceptable and we hope that this amending Bill will further entrench minimum and decent work standards in workplaces around South Africa.
The IFP also hopes to see the inspectorate division further capacitated, so as to enable it effectively to carry out its mandate to ensure that our workplaces comply with the minimum standards, as legislated for. In this Bill we see amendments that ensure that a worker is protected as a full- time worker after a period of six months of temporary work and is entitled to all privileges enjoyed by other workers.
The regulation of contract work is an area surely in need of clarity and regulation, and the amendments in this regard are very welcome. Labour brokering is another contentious issue which is also dealt with and, as the IFP, we reiterate our position that labour brokering must not be done away with, but rather stringently regulated.
Firmly believing in our timeless philosophy, as the IFP, of Education for Liberation, we believe that children should not have a place in the labour force; children should be at school, learning. Child labour is cruel in that it not only physically and psychologically damages the child, but also prevents that child from doing anything else, as he or she has been robbed of an opportunity for education. Heavy penalties must therefore be exacted from any employer engaging in such practices.
In conclusion, the IFP will support this Bill and we will support any action that makes the lives of South Africans better. I thank you. [Applause.]
Chair, this Bill contains some sensible features that we support, but it also raises some questions. The alignment of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act with the constitutional rights of children and the international labour standards is indeed positive and the Minister and her department deserve to be commended for this initiative.
Ons het egter 'n probleem met die skrapping van artikels 71 en 72 van die Wet op Basiese Diensvoorwaardes wat dit vir die werkgewer onmoontlik maak om protes aan te teken teen 'n afdwingingsbevel en om teen 'n bevel van die direkteur-generaal na die Arbeidshof te applleer. Die skrapping van hierdie regte is twyfelagtig op 'n grondwetlike basis aangesien die rels van natuurlike geregtigheid ondermyn word. Daar kon veel eerder 'n wysiging gewees het wat vir die balansering van die werknemer en werkgewer se regte voorsiening maak, deurdat veral kleiner werkgewers, wat die grootste werkskeppers in Suid-Afrika is, wel beswaar kan maak of met appl kan voortgaan.
Die rede vir die beskerming van kleiner werkgewers is juis om hulle nie in die onmoontlike posisie te plaas waar die regte van die werknemer en die arbeidsdepartement effektief kan lei tot die afskaling of sluiting van die besigheid nie. Te veel klein besighede sluit eerder hul deure as om gehoor te gee aan wetgewing wat eintlik vir groot besighede, wat beperkings makliker kan absorbeer, bedoel is. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[However, we have a problem with the deletion of sections 71 and 72 in the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, which makes it impossible for the employer to object to an enforcement order and to appeal to the Supreme Court against an order by the Director-General. The deletion of these rights is questionable on a constitutional basis as the rules of natural justice are undermined. An amendment providing for a balance between the rights of employees and those of employers, where smaller employers - the biggest job creators in South Africa - could in fact raise objections or lodge appeals, would have been preferred instead.
The reason for protecting smaller employers is precisely to avoid putting them in the impossible position where the rights of the employee and the department of labour effectively lead to downscaling or closing the business down. Too many small businesses rather close their doors than comply with legislation that is actually meant for large businesses, which are in a better position to absorb restrictions.]
Minister, in the end, while building a fine network of protection for the employee, we must become alert to the pressures bearing down on small and medium enterprises and must, for the sake of growing the economy and job opportunities, ensure more freedom for those businesses specifically. In the end, we must strike a balance between protecting the employee and the vehicles of value and employment creation. In the greater scheme of things, we cannot forget about the rights of the entrepreneur as well. Thank you.
While hon Manamela is coming to the podium, hon members, the IT staff have requested members not to plug their laptops or mobile phones into the system. It interferes with the system and that might just be the reason for the problem we are experiencing at present.
Although it is being restored, it is creating a problem if there are more members who plug their units in.
Hon Deputy Speaker, the hon member from the DA spoke of the fact that this is Parliament and that we should not make this Disneyland. I agree with him, but I was shocked that he brought along Minnie, Mickey, Jumbo and Mumbo, all the Disneyland charaters, into the House. So, he should not complain about this House being Disneyland when he himself brought along characters from Disneyland. [Applause.]
I see that since my last appearance on this platform there have been plenty of beautiful changes in society in general. A councillor has been suspended for allegations of racism; the cloud on Table Mountain has been cleared; and the rand, I am told by hon Minister Gordhan, has gained against the US dollar last night.
Minister Gigaba told me that since the weather is so clear, flights to Cape Town have not been delayed. They have been on time. I leave the rest of the changes in the House to the hon members to judge. [Applause.]
Since the introduction of the Basic Conditions of Employment Amendment Bill, the big debate about the labour market flexibility again dominated the newspaper pages and policy debates and submissions to Parliament.
We, as committee members, were implored by some to make laws that would create jobs, and stop protecting those who are already employed and represented by big unions. We were told that the rigidity of our laws makes it impossible to allow new entrants into the labour market, and that part of the incentivisation to business includes making our labour laws flexible.
We have consistently asked the opposition parties to point out which laws are rigid, so that we can wave the magic wand that would result in economic prosperity, growth and full employment.
Consistently, the opposition parties, through the amendments of the BCEA, failed to point out these laws, besides moaning about the long procedures required to fire workers, which apparently consumes massive administration costs for an entrepreneur who wants to concentrate on his business.
Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition, the hon Lindiwe Mazibuko, asked the President the same question about the effects of labour laws on employment and, to her credit, also raised other issues which should make South Africa competitive, both on the continent and in the world.
I do not blame the opposition parties for not being clear, because there is contradictory evidence on the flexibility of South Africa's labour market. For instance, the Economic Intelligence Unit ranked South Africa last out of 60 in the labour flexibility afforded by its labour laws, but on the other hand a World Bank study ranked South Africa l6th out of l33 countries. So, there is this contradiction in relation to whether our labour laws are flexible or not.
I therefore decided to look into what the policies of the various political parties say in relation to this in order for us to understand why there is this insistence on labour laws being rigid and why there is a need for change.
If we look at the election manifesto of the IFP for the 2009 elections, they declared that, and I quote:
Overall labour market policy will be aimed at increasing flexibility and promoting wage settlements in line with increases in productivity and inflation. It goes further to say that, and I quote:
Reforms that would increase flexibility could include a lower wage schedule for young trainees and increased incentives for more work shifts and job-sharing arrangements, where overtime work is cut and more permanent employment is created.
The current labour law amendments are intended to resolve this issue of the lack of permanent employment amongst workers to better protect workers.
But to increase wages of workers based on productivity and inflation, as the IFP says, without saying anything about the millions in bonuses earned by CEOs of companies that are not linked to the same principles and that have led to increasing poverty and inequality is opportunistic to say the least.
According to the Labour Research Service the CEO of Pick n Pay, for example, in the period of 2011 and 2012, earned more than R20 million in bonuses and wages. The CEO of MassMart earned more than R14,152 million in 2008-09. What is even worse is that the CEO of Shoprite Checkers, Whitey Basson, earned more than R627 million in 2010 and also earned R36,47 million in 2011. This is in contrast with the fact that the average permanent worker in Shoprite Checkers and generally in the retail sector earns less than R3 237 per month, which makes it less than R40 000 a year. These are the inequalities about which many political parties here in the House are silent. We should ask the question: Is it not time that we call for flexibility in relation to earnings because these huge inequalities are actually sickening. You have a CEO of a company earning nearly R670 million in two years and you have a worker who is earning less than R3 237 per month in a particular year.
Since the IFP undertook to review all legislation in the manifesto, as cited, there was the opportunity for us to look into some of these issues and unfortunately this opportunity was missed.
I must concede that the IFP took the time actually to put together policies. If you look at the other political parties, you don't find that. If you want to check what the economic policies of Cope are, for example, all you see is a picture of the party leader and a huge section on obituaries. You do not find anything on the policies. Party leaders come here and repeat the fact that they want labour market flexibility in order to create jobs.
Jerry Mathekga, a Master's student of philosophy, wrote a dissertation on labour market flexibility. One of the things he found was that labour market flexibility has to do with reducing regulation and protection of workers, and involves the use of nonregulated employment contracts such as subcontracting or outsourcing. He further asserts in this dissertation, under the auspices of the University of Stellenbosch, that those who have been drawn into flexible jobs are seen as the working poor because labour market flexibility is disadvantaging workers by reducing wages. Is this what you are preaching? Are you saying the farm workers in De Doorns and everywhere else should not rely on the Minister of Labour and government to double their wages?
Are we saying that the domestic workers should not rely on government to impose UIF benefits, minimum wages - irrespective of how minimum they are - and maternity benefits, and that they should be fired like dogs by some employers just because some of the political parties here in this House are demanding flexibility?
Are you saying the workers at Shoprite Checkers, Woolworths and Pick n Pay should continue to earn transport money whilst their CEOs earn far more than all of them combined in a financial year? If we had time, we could even go into the insane amounts that are earned by the shareholders of these particular companies.
Are we not flexible enough, as has already been demanded by some in the opposition benches?
In our view, your policies are against the workers and the poor and the ANC's policies are for all South Africans, and for their collective prosperity. Our people must see and feel this 20-year democracy, and the only way they can feel that we are in a democratic dispensation is if their wages and working conditions are improved. If we improve the quality of wages of the majority of workers in this country, then this democracy will mean something to them. It will be through these laws, in particular the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, that quality jobs and a living wage will be attained.
We are worried about unemployment, but we have to create jobs and ensure that our economy works and yields more jobs. We do not want to have an army of the working poor, like some of the political parties want us to do, by arresting or voting against this particular law.
Just as a disclaimer, I must say that there were no elephants, no hippos or baboons that were hurt in the preparation of this speech and also in its execution. Thank you. [Applause.]
Hon Deputy Speaker, hon members, hon Ministers and, most importantly, the South African people, the Basic Conditions of Employment Amendment Bill is being presented in this esteemed House during Youth Month and I feel very honoured to be here today. One of the main objectives of this amending Bill is to prohibit the exploitation of children. Section 43 of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act prohibits certain employment of children, but not work performed by children. Clause 3 of the Bill seeks to amend section 43 of the Act in order to prohibit work by children under the age of 15 years. Clause 3 also makes it an offence for any person to require or permit a child to perform any work or provide any service that places at risk the child's wellbeing.
Section 93 of the Act is also amended to extend penalties for offences of employment of children and forced labour from three years to six years. Chairperson, the main objective of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act is to provide for the prohibition of certain exploitative practices by employers.
Some sections of South African society believe that our labour laws are restrictive and reduce economic growth. Now the question that we as South Africans need to be asking is: Why is it necessary to have laws that seek to prohibit exploitative practices by employers? Surely, we wouldn't need laws like this if employers treated their employees with respect and dignity. Surely, we wouldn't need provisions that prohibit child labour if employers didn't exploit children.
Sadly, Chairperson, in South Africa today children and adults are often exploited by their employers. Sadly, we find ourselves living in a country where the lust for wealth far outweighs the love of humanity. This lust for wealth is detrimental to the poor and vulnerable workers. It is unpatriotic to exploit workers and this ANC-led government will not stand for it. The DA doesn't support the laws that try to stop exploitation. So, the question is: Whose interests is the DA protecting? Perhaps the former apartheid collaborators, who sit in this very House, would like to see the return of slavery, where workers had no rights at all. Perhaps the former apartheid collaborators would like to bring back apartheid. [Interjections.]
Let us not forget that some sections of our society made lots of money exploiting workers during apartheid. Chairperson, the exploitation of children under 15 years of age occurs largely in the farming and domestic work sectors and in some cases the mining, manufacturing and retail sectors. The proposed amendments seek to address the situation by mirroring section 28 of our Constitution, which says:
Every child has the right not to be required or permitted to perform work or provide services that are inappropriate for a person of that child's age; or place at risk the child's wellbeing, education, physical or mental health or spiritual, moral or social development.
Chairperson, it is up to us as society to make sure that our children are not exploited in any way and this proposed legislation will go a long way towards addressong this situation. These proposed amendments will also achieve full compliance with South Africa's obligations under relevant international standards, and breach of these proposed provisions is a criminal offence.
When this ANC-led government passes this amending Bill, it will be a criminal offence to exploit children in the workplace. We as South Africans must take responsibility. It is up to us to report situations where we see child exploitation happening around us. If you know of anyone who is employing children on any farms - report it. If you know of anyone employing children in their homes - report it. If you know of anyone employing children in their factories or shops - report it. Report it, South Africa.
On 16 June 1976 children died fighting against an exploitative system so that we, South Africa, can live in a democratic country. Let us as a collective not fail our children today by averting our eyes when we witness child exploitation. Let us as one united South African tribe send a clear message to all those who exploit children in the workplace. Let us report every single incident of child exploitation in the workplace and bring an end to this practice. South Africa is a much better place to live in since the dawn of our freedom in 1994, because working together, we do more.
The ANC supports this Bill. Now let us as South Africans implement it. It is we, South Africa, who implement the laws because working together, we can do more. I thank you. [Applause.]
Deputy Speaker ...
... kungekudala nje, akakomi namathe, umhlonishwa u-James ubemi la ekhuluma nge-"better life for all". Umbuzo wami uthi ngabe nomhlonishwa u-Van der Westhuizen ukhuluma nge-"better life for all" na? Okwesibili, Phini likaSomlomo ukhuluma ngeziteleka zabasebenzi ngiyazi usho into yase- Rustenburg eMarikana kanye neyase-De Doorns. Mhlawumbe uMnumzane Van der Westhuizen angasho na ukuthi ... (Translation of isiZulu paragraph follows.)
[... not long ago, just a while ago, hon James was standing here talking about "a better life for all". And my question is whether hon Van der Westhuizen is also talking about "a better life for all". Secondly, Deputy Speaker, he is talking about the labour strikes and I know that he is referring to the strikes that are taking place around Rustenburg in Marikana and De Doorns. Maybe Mr Van Der Westhuizen can say whether ...]
... they are talking about a better life for all, when the CEO of Lonmin earns R850 000 a month and the rock driller ...
... okuyiyona ekhipha umnotho ihola izi-R4 000 ngenyanga. Ngabe umhlonishwa u-Van der Westhuizen uma ekhuluma ngodaba lwe ... [... who is the one who is extracting wealth, is earning R4 000 per month. If hon Van Der Westhuizen is talking about the issue of ...]
... sectoral determination, saying farmers cannot afford it, is he saying to other farmers that they should pay foreign nationals, rather than paying South Africans? Is that a better life for all? When a farmer tries to bribe an inspector for R11 000, but the inspector is the one who is arrested, is that a better life for all? Maybe hon Van der Westhuizen has to discuss that.
I just want to thank the political parties who have supported these pieces of legislation. I want to tell hon Van der Westhuizen that when you talk about flexibility, this particular legislation talks about the following: guidelines for justifiable different treatment of temporary and fixed-term contract workers; allowance for fixed-term contracts where there are justifiable reasons; exemption applications from collective agreement, and appeals to be dealt with in 30 days, and businesses employing fewer than 10 employees or businesses employing fewer than 50 that have been in operation for less than two years are excluded from the section dealing with fixed- term contracts.
Mhlawumbe-ke umhlonishwa udukuza oswini yingakho engezwa ukuthi sithini uma sikhuluma nge-flexibility. [Then maybe the hon member is confused - that is why he doesn't understand when we are talking about flexibility.]
There is flexibility in our legislation because the companies are allowed to apply for exemption. I want to say to the hon member I am not going to deal with the issue of labour broking now. I will deal with it when we talk about the Labour Relations Act. At the same time I want to say that, as the ANC, we will not rest until vulnerable workers are fully protected and are paid equally for equal work of the same value by their partners in the companies. I thank you very much. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Question put.
Bill read a second time. (Democratic Alliance and Independent Democrats dissenting.)