Keynote Address by the Minister of Labour, Mildred Oliphant, on the occasion of the KwaZulu-Natal Economic Summit held at Elangeni Maharani Hotel in Durban
Programme Director
Premier of the Province; Honourable Senzo Mchunu
MEC for Economic Development, Tourism and Environmental Affairs; Hon Mike Mabuyakhulu
Members of the Executive Council
Members of the Provincial Legislature
Leaders of all Spheres of Government here present
Leaders of our Social Partners; Organised Labour, Business and Community Formations
Members of the media
Distinguished guests
Ladies and Gentlemen
Sanibonani, Good Morning, Goeie More;
Thank you for inviting me to come and make a contribution to this important gathering of the esteemed leaders of the Province. I am deeply humbled by your show of confidence in me and the portfolio to which I am deployed. ”Milk and honey have different colours, but they share the same house peacefully”, one of the African proverbs on peace. So we may, as leaders have different views on issues, but we only have one South Africa that together we must develop, defend and share peacefully.
Programme Director; Dialogue in general and social dialogue in particular is not a foreign concept in South Africa by any means, the journey of social dialogues comes a long way in this country. Just a short trip down memory lane may be nostalgic for some in here, including MEC Mabuyakhulu.
Some of you may recall that by the mid 1980’s formations inside the country such as the Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu), academics and activists opposed to the apartheid state, began to conduct research to develop policy options for a post-apartheid South Africa. There was a dynamic interplay between the struggle for democracy and the demand for participatory democracy instead of simply, a Parliamentary democracy.
At the same time business formations such as SACCOLA also began to argue that business in South Africa had to start doing things differently if they have any hope of influencing and shaping the inevitable new order. The top employer industrialists in the country also understood the role industrial relations would play as the work place become the terrain of conflict. To pursue this new thinking, business created a Consultative Business Forum as a platform through which to engage the Mass Democratic Movement (MDM) and the ANC in exile.
By the late 1980’s various initiatives were underway between the ANC economists in exile and those working internally within the MDM, old guard National Party economists and private sector economists. The first official meeting with the old guard government economists and the ANC was held in Switzerland and was followed by a series of further engagements. Some of you will also recall back in 1988, when the old government proposed new amendments to the Labour relations Act which included things that were aimed at reversing the gains of workers achieved over many years of struggle. This was the first trigger and a real test of whether or not social dialogue had a chance in the real world to deliver sustainable solutions in the policy world of work.
Ladies and gentlemen; These proposed Amendments triggered mass action and strikes of the same, if not greater, proportion last seen in the 1973 strikes that started right here in Durban. The strikes and mass action of 1988 presented an opportunity to test if business under the umbrella of SACCOLA was genuine about their resolve to find a new way of doing things in South Africa. The bilateral meeting between the Employers and the trade union leaders resulted in what became known as the SACCOLA Accord.
The SACCOLA Accord paved the way for the very first formal tripartite meeting of the leadership of Business Formation, the leaders of the Labour movement and representatives of the old government to engage on the proposed amendments to the LRA and a plan to restructure the National Manpower Commission as it was known then.
It is instructive to note however that in order to get a deal from the then Government, the then Minister of Labour, Leon Wessels had to be taken away on a bos-beraad to persuade him of the need to review government’s position and to move away from the culture of adversarialism.
The outcome of this particular dialogue session became known as the Laboria Minute. It proved that it was possible, through true social dialogue, to reach agreement on even the most difficult of issues.
By the early 1990’s, with the release of Nelson Mandela and the unbanning of political parties, social dialogue initiatives were emerging everywhere and in many forms and shapes at the national level. The best example was the start of the political negotiations in the form of the Conference for Democratic South Africa (CODESA).
Programme Director; it is important to recall that KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) also used social dialogue to conclude the milestone National Peace Accord.
Towards the end of 1993, discussions began on creating a mechanism to consolidate the many tripartite structures that had emerged in the country and one of the outcomes was the formation of National Economic Development and Labour Council (NEDLAC) as we know today. Unlike other models of social dialogue institutions around the world, Nedlac is but the only known social and economic council that includes Community based organisations. Nedlac departs from the tripartite configuration known around the world in that is has the fourth chamber.
High expectations and enthusiasm surrounded the launch of Nedlac on 18 February 1995, at Gallagher Estate in Midrand. Its key supporters saw it as an important part of the democratic form of government and the fulfilment of what is envisaged in the Freedom Charter, where it makes the call that “The people shall govern”.
For President Nelson Mandela, the launch was of towering significance and in his opening address he said, and I quote “Democratisation must reach beyond the narrow governmental domain and Nedlac represents the broadening and deepening of our democracy by directly engaging sectors of our society in formulating policies and in managing institutions governing their lives.”
As you know by now that the ink had barely dried on the signing of the Nedlac founding declaration, when social partners and by extension social dialogue got its first test in the form of the tabling of the Labour Relations Amendment Bill. It took social partners 10 weeks of hard work to reach key agreements on the Labour Relations Amendment Bill. The Nedlac deal on the Labour Relations Amendment Bill was a delicate balance of trade–offs and concessions.
The conclusion of the Labour Relations Amendment Bill was followed in its foot-steps by the introduction of the more difficult and complex Basic Conditions of Employment Amendment Bill which took about 18 months to complete. Once again another true testimony that social dialogue as a new way of doing things was capable of living up to expectations.
In May 1999, Deputy President Jacob Zuma challenged Nedlac social partners to deliver a Tough Employment Accord by no later than the end of the year 2000. Social partners acknowledged that the call for an Employment Accord was a toll order, given the inherent contradictions of the social partnership which sometimes bursts into momentary conflicts and adversarialism.
In the midst of intense and often demanding negotiations by the social partners, Nedlac social partners engaged and agreed on a set of interventions to grow the economy and to create decent jobs. The stage was set for the Presidential Jobs Summit that was convened in response to a call by President Nelson Mandela back in October 1998.
We have also used social dialogue to address many of our socio-economic challenges in the recent past, with varying degrees of success.
In 2002, at the 7th Nedlac Annual Summit, Deputy President Zuma again reminded the Nedlac Social Partners that achieving a Social Compact remained one of the unfinished businesses for Nedlac. The call by the Deputy President lead to social partners’ again commencing work towards developing a social compact, using the lessons learnt in the 1998 Presidential Jobs Summit. Six months later in 2003, social partners were ready to present to the nation a package of interventions that will form part of the Social Compact elements. This gave birth to the Growth and Development Summit Accord (GDS) as it was known then.
Ladies and Gentlemen; I am raising these issues and the journey of social dialogue to illustrate the point that without one form or the other of social dialogue, it would not have been possible to do some of these things let alone sustaining them. I am convinced that social dialogue remains one of the tried and tested means to translate the notion of “The people shall govern” into reality.
Nedlac operates within an extremely dynamic environment and fraught with high levels of adversarialism. Nedlac remains a contested terrain and it will be expected that from time to time that there will be tensions.
Whist some of the high expectations and enthusiasm that surrounded the launch of Nedlac on 18 February 1995 have not been met, its achievements to date have been encouraging, albeit with some set-backs. The socio-economic landscape, not only in South Africa, but globally, ferns the flames of adversarialism and one would have hoped that with Nedlac in our midst, the impact would not have been so dire.
Others argue that the recent outburst of adversarialism in the Industrial Relations world of work should not have visited a country with such a rich history and institutions of social dialogue. The proliferation of organisations and interest groups that seek audience with the state give an impression that there are no institutions that were set up to do this kind of work and/or provide the link between the state and its people when it comes to shaping and introducing social and economic policies.
The Nedlac Constitution makes provisions for all social partners to introduce policy in Nedlac for engagement, but to date, it is only government that has played this role with very little from other social partners. Yet, there are interest groups that seek and prefer to engage the state directly instead of channelling their concerns through an institution like Nedlac. Well, we all admit that Nedlac was set up during a particular epoch in the evolution of our democracy, now that things have changed so much, is there a case to revisit the institutions mandate and focus?
It is intriguing that in the recent bilateral engagements between the state and social partners, very little is said about Nedlac as the epicentre of policy engagement. The only thing that you hear more is Section 77 notices. Are our social dialogue institutions with such an excellent repertoire of success and finesse, overwhelmed or ill-equipped to deal with the 21 century challenges?
One business leader at one of the bilateral engagement with government remarked that Nedlac has failed in its duty to facilitate consensus on critical labour market policy issues and proposed a review of the mandate and role of Nedlac.
Programme Director: I have observed with a degree of disappointment that in most strikes around collective bargaining issues, workers down-tool when the gap between what the employers are offering and their demand is so minute that going on strike for weeks on end does not make social and economic sense. Imagine workers going out on strike because the employer is offering 8%, but are quite happy to come back after two weeks of strike shouting victory when the employer improves the offer by a meagre .05%.
In some cases, parties end up calling on the government to assist in general and the Minister of Labour in particular. I must say that calling on government to get involved in Industrial Relations operational matters is undesirable, for a simple reason that government has created institutions for this purpose. The unwarranted intervention by government carries the real danger of undermining the very institutions it created in the first place.
Examining the genesis of social dialogue in South Africa, its achievements to date and the challenges that face the country in the present and future, using the Nedlac platform to engage on policy matters and other pressing socio economic challenges, is vital. For this reason, the institutionalised Social dialogue under the auspices of Nedlac remains an important and indispensable tool for transparency and participation in policy formulation.
It is true that most of the leaders who conceptualise, concretise and formed Nedlac are either retired or moved on to other things.
The institutional memory and the raison detrè for creating Nedlac may not have been passed on to the new generation. Whist Nedlac is revered not only in the African continent, but globally, it is important that social partners must understand that the environment within which the organisation operates is dynamic and complex.
Social dialogue is not an event, but a process, sometimes it produces the results we all agree to, and sometime it doesn’t, it is sometimes quick and sometimes it is painstakingly slow. It is said that senior leaders of all social partners no longer see value in participating in Nedlac processes and structures, hence undermine the robustness and proper execution of its mandate. Some people argue that it was not designed to deal with the 21st century type issues since it is a 20th century formation.
Notwithstanding all of these challenges, the purpose for which Nedlac was set up is as relevant today as it was back in 1994 when the first people’s parliament unanimously voted in favour of the Legislation that established the legal basis that gave birth to Nedlac.
The National Economic Development and Labour Council (Nedlac) remains one of the platforms through which government, labour, business and community organisations seek to cooperate, through problem-solving and negotiation, on economic, labour and development issues, and related challenges facing the country. The Nedlac Founding Declaration calls on the social partners to;
- Strive towards achieving Sustainable economic growth through facilitating wealth creation; as a means of financing social programmes; as a spur to attracting investment; and as the key way of absorbing many more people into well-paying jobs.
- Foster greater social equity both at the workplace and in the communities to ensure that the large-scale inequalities are adequately addressed, and that society provides, at least, for all the basic needs of its people.
- Promote greater participation by all major stakeholders, in economic decision-making, at national, company and shop floor level and foster cooperation in the production of wealth, and its equitable distribution.
To carry out this work, Nedlac conducts its engagements in four distinct consultative and negotiating Chambers covering;
- Public Finance and Monetary Policy Chamber, which deals, primarily, with fiscal and monetary policy and the lead Government Department is the National Treasury.
- Labour Market Policy Chamber which deals with all aspects of Labour Market policy and the Lead Government Department is Labour
- Trade and industrial Chamber deals with issues relating to Trade and Industrial Policy related matters, and the lead Government Department is Trade and Industry.
- The Development Chamber which deals with the social and developmental dimension of National Policies; The lead government Department is Public Works.
It is expected of all social partners to send their best negotiators to the engagements given the contested nature of some of the issues that are dealt with in each chamber. There are also instances where issues become extremely technical and as such social partners have to find technical people to lead their respective teams.
The outcomes from each chamber are tabled at Management Committee level for consideration and sign-off if all parties agree. There is however cases where parties agree to disagree and in such cases, the Executive Council steps in. The Executive Council is made up Ministers, Leaders of Business, Presidents and General Secretaries of the Labour Federations and leaders of Community based formations covering SANCO, Women, Youth and Co-operatives
Delegates and Friends; I am sharing this with you as part of ensuring that you understand the DNA of the place and as such craft the best way of leveraging and extracting maximum value out of social dialogue.
Whilst the fore fathers of Nedlac for good reasons at the time, had no appetite of creating Provincial Nedlac(s), as they saw that as federalising social and economic policy formulation. You will also know that here was a robust debate in the CODESA talks on whether or not South Africa should embrace a Federal state and/or a unitary state. The fact that we ended up with provincial tiers of government was in itself, a compromise.
Key social partners at Nedlac argue that creating provincial Nedlac’s with the same remit as the National Structure could cause unnecessary duplication and at worst create fragmentation of policy positions. The leaders feared that provincial Nedlac (s) might create the undesirable tendency of double-dipping and forum hoping. The leaders were concerned that if a national organisation loses a debate at a national level it might run to the Provincial processes to try their luck.
Enhancing collaboration between Nedlac and the KZN Economic Council should be a simple matter of the Overall Convenors of Nedlac engaging the Overall convenors of the KZN Council on the Memorandum of Understanding highlighting areas for cooperation. I do not foresee any difficulties in the two institutions finding common grounds on the elements that should form part of joint programme of action as long as such is not materially out of sync with the national positions of the principal organisations’ policy stances.
Just imagine if the Cosatu KZN province were to articulate a view that is out of synch with Cosatu as a federation, that will be undesirable I guess, and/or if the Provincial government were to make different pronouncements that are not in keeping with the National government stance on policy matters.
Building cooperation and working partnerships between the two organisations will be a welcome relief.
I suggest that the first task is to assign the provincial leadership of our social partners to solicit support for the project of establishing a structured relationship between the two organisations. The Executive Directors of the two organisations must also engage with a view to commence working on the key issues where cooperation could be pursued in the short to medium term whilst examining those issues that are more long term in nature.
Well, it is said that the best country where you will find the best written policies and programmes of action, is South Africa, but equally they say, if you want to learn how no to implement policies and programmes, go to South Africa. This is a bad reputation indeed; therefore the starting point should be to ensure that social partners account for their commitments and that there should be regular feedback sessions of reporting and evaluating progress. Peer review might also be an excellent tool and/or approach to take in dealing with progress and undoing bottlenecks where they exists.
Why are social partners not honouring what they said they will do? What are the bottlenecks and how can we help if all other interventions have failed; are the key questions that should inform the feedback sessions.
This Province has an excellent track record of implementing Accords judging from the success of the National Peace Accord of years gone by.
There is no alternative to social dialogue and building working partnerships. Choosing key strategic interventions that promise the greatest impact within a short space of time is the way to go. Others call this targeting the low hanging fruits.
Charlotte Maxeke, the first African Women Graduate in South Africa and the first National President of the National Council of Women, her advice to women in 1938, goes something like this, and I quote, “This work is not for yourselves – kill that spirit of “self”, and do not live above your people, but live with them. If you can rise, bring someone with you. Do away with that fearful animal of jealousy - kill that spirit, and love one another as brothers and sisters.” Close quote. This calls for selflessness for the common good. Please take note that this is the opposite of the current practice of kicking the ladder once one reaches the top.
They do this in order to prevent others from climbing as well.
Recently, I addressed a conference of the Black Management Forum in Johannesburg and during the question time, one delegate pointed out that they have now perfected the art of preventing others from climbing the ladder, and what they do these days is not to kick the ladder anymore, but they fold it and store it away.
They changed the tactic because they realise that when they kick the ladder, others simply pick it up, and climb as well. I hope you get the drift.
Amilcar Cabral, a fighter and a revolutionary who together with others, was instrumental in promoting the fight for the independence of the then Portuguese colonies, once said, and I quote, “Always bear in mind that the people are not fighting for ideas, for the things in anyone’s head. They are fighting to win material benefits, to live better and in peace, to see their lives go forward, to guarantee the future of their children. . .” Close quote.
I believe that as leaders and as social partners, we can emulate what Cabral advocated at the time by speeding up the pace of service delivery to our people. Yes, there are challenges, but as a collective, we can triumph.
Together let’s move South Africa Forward Ladies and Gentlemen!
I thank you
