[ Home ] [ Speeches & statements ]

Minister of Labour, Tito Mboweni, said at the NEDLAC Summit on 16 May 1998 at Gallagher Estate in Midrand that democracy was finally achieved in South Africa just over four years ago. He said that one of the first tasks of the new Parliament, was passing the National Economic, Development and Labour Council Act which established this institution now commonly referred to as NEDLAC. This was a major development for our country in the quest to promote social dialogue amongst the key stakeholders in our society. This institution was deliberately designed to provide the nationally organised constituencies with a framework within which to "strive to promote the goals of economic growth, participation in economic decision-making, and social equity." This goal was to be achieved by seeking consensus on social and economic policy before such policy was finalised by government or in the case of labour laws, before submission to Parliament. The intention was to promote the co-ordination of policy.

How far have we come? Has NEDLAC promoted economic growth, participation in economic decision making and improvements in social equity since the watershed period of 1994/5? I will look at each of these questions briefly.

Has NEDLAC promoted economic growth? This is both the most illusive and yet the most critical of the indicators. Whilst NEDLAC as an institution could not directly ensure higher rates of growth and economic development, we are convinced that by promoting social dialogue and consensus on may economic and social issues this institution has contributed indirectly to the growing confidence in the South African economy (confidence which is critical in order for us to attain high rates of investment). Although there has not been a simple climb towards a 6% rate of economic growth as we hoped, nevertheless the projected growth for the end of next year is both positive and encouraging. Clearly democracy has been generally good for the economy, and to the extent that NEDLAC is part of the infrastructure of democratic expression and practise in South Africa, it has, by its very establishment, created a positive atmosphere.

Economic growth on its own is not a necessary and sufficient condition for development. Tackling unemployment and poverty is an important variable in the equation for national development. The Comprehensive Labour Market Commission, back in June 1996, specifically identified the need to ensure that macro-economic policies, industry policies and labour market policies work together for employment growth. Has NEDLAC helped to achieve this objective? Not yet - it is clear that there has been a tendency for the various Chambers to work in relative isolation from each other. Although this is not to detract from some of the important work done in the Chambers - including, for example, the Workplace Challenge initiative of the Trade and Industry Chamber. The industry policy research programmes have also played an important contribution - such as a footwear and electronics.

Two important national gatherings will take place in the next two months or so. The first one is the conference on poverty and the second is the Presidential Jobs Summit. We are convinced that if properly handled, both these gatherings could make substantial contributions towards alleviating poverty and unemployment. At the Jobs Summit in particular, employers, the trade union movement and government will meet to hammer into shape a common strategy to attack the problem of unemployment. This common strategy should be based on alignment of existing initiatives and introduction of new ones. The groundwork for the Summit has been laid by the parties to NEDLAC and others. However, more closer to home and frankly speaking, the credibility of this institution will be tested by the calibre of its contribution to the Summit. Can the social partners stretch towards a national goal - including, but also going beyond, their sectional interests? Government will be publishing their response so that we can all benefit from these in finalising our inputs to the Summit. We are convinced that it is an opportunity for NEDLAC in particular to rise to new heights and demonstrate to all and sundry that it is able to provide a forum in which the "greater good" is able to triumph over sectional interest and ideological differences. We urge everyone here to take up the challenge for our country's sake.

There are, we think, a range of optimistic signs which auger well for the Jobs Summit - not least of which is the spirit in which the recent negotiations on Skills Development and Employment Equity Bills were concluded. In both instances the employers and trade unions accepted the end objective and found ways to achieve common cause (albeit with reservations) on the way the objective is to be arrived at. There was also a shift away from "line by line" negotiations, and a move towards negotiations on principles which has assisted efficiency and effectiveness.

The undertaking from employers to support a levy equivalent to 1% of payroll for skills development - and the willingness of the trade union movement to accept this level as a starting point - is also a powerful signal that government, labour, business and the community organisations are prepared to make a real and meaningful contribution to solving the problems of this country. We would like to take this opportunity to commend everybody for this.

The second evaluation question is easier to answer: Has NEDLAC promoted participation in economic decision making? Certainly it has. It has greatly contributed towards to the credibility and legitimacy of labour legislation and has promoted debates on economic, social and developmental issues. The list of agreements over the four years is remarkable. And even where there has been no agreement on all aspects of policy tabled, the process of negotiations and consultations has facilitated wide ranging information dissemination, debate and education on the issues associated with policy and legislation and therefore laid the groundwork for better implementation.

At times we have tended to dramatise areas where we are not yet finding common ground and this has been expressed through extreme forms of adversarialism and rank posturing. To the extent that this is true, we think that it is important that we do not make Mount Everests out of ant holes. However, there is evidence that new trends are beginning to emerge into which social dialogue in NEDLAC is contributing. For example, the work done by the Social Plan task team in NEDLAC provided an important input into the declaration signed by all participants at the Gold Mining Summit convened by the National Union of Mineworkers in February this year. The fact that the NUM was frustrated by the pace of events and took a parallel initiative in no way detracts form the role of NEDLAC. Cabinet has now approved the NEDLAC Framework Agreement on the Social Plan that will in turn assist the mining industry and other sectors.

Participation in decision making about labour legislation has contributed to the acceptability of the legislation. For example, the fact that over 80% of disputes heard by the CCMA are either resolved or sent to arbitration is testimony to the fact that the Labour Relations Act has been imbedded into our labour relations fabric. This acceptance is due in no small measure to the process by means of which this labour law was finalised.

However, there is a caveat here - the parties at NEDLAC have tended to focus heavily on the process of arriving at legislation. Once legislation is passed, there seems to be a much lower sense of urgency and engagement with issues of implementation. The NEDLAC parties tend to delay the implementation of legislation. We have been unable to appoint a new chair to the CCMA Governing Body and the Essential Services Committee still remains without a labour representative for the same reason. This presents government with a very serious problem - as our performance is not measured by good policies so much as by performance. NEDLAC needs to address this problem urgently if this is not to be seen as an obstacle to implementing policies.

The final question was: Has NEDLAC promoted improvements in social equity? Many of the Bills, ILO Convention ratifications and Codes of Conduct passed by NEDLAC have had this as their explicit objective. The formal legislative framework for greater equity would appear to be almost in place: Ratification of ILO Conventions on abolition of forced labour, discrimination, part-time work, freedom of association are important in this regard. Of course, the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, in protecting the most vulnerable, contributes to equity as does the Employment Equity Bill.

The challenge for NEDLAC in the period that lies ahead, is how can the NEDLAC members assist in ensuring that the partnership established at the policy level is translated into real improvements in the lives of ordinary people. Enforcement of rights and obligations is partially a formal process of litigation and punishment - but is much more effective when it does not depend exclusively on punitive measures. Shop stewards and managers on the front line need to actively participate in the implementation of the agreements reached. We need to create a culture where not only is paying your TV license the only "right thing to do":

* paying your workers the set rate;
* ensuring healthy and safe conditions on the mine and in other workplaces;
* not employing children;
* tendering in a way which gives new entrepreneurs a chance;
* giving a day's work for a day's pay

are all equally important.

The role of the NEDLAC members does not stop even here - in government we are accustomed to being the main party to bring issues to the NEDLAC table for negotiation and the sole party held to account for implementations of agreements. However, is this correct? It is time, we think (and we have raised this issue previously from this podium), that another parties should begin to bring issues to the table, and it is time for other parties to be held to account for undertakings given and the consequences of actions taken. If the government is to table its budget for discussion, why do the trade unions not discuss implication of their bargaining strategies and why do the employers not need to present their pricing and investment policies - which after all have an equally important effect on general economic performance?

Another issue to ponder is: What is the relationship between NEDLAC and the other multi-partite bodies established for specific social or economic policies? The issue was raised in the negotiations on the Skills Development Bill - should NEDLAC or the National Skills Authority oversee the establishment of institutions for the implementation of the skills policy? It is our view that the role clearly belongs to the dedicated agency, in this case the National Skills Authority. Identifying NEDLACs "core business" - and sticking to it, is necessary to ensure the agency remains focused and effective.

The issues will no doubt come up at the Job Summit and during the months ahead. As the legislative programme recedes and the elections approach, there will be more time for reflection on implementation challenges and on the challenges that lie ahead.

We have created a vibrant and living organisation in NEDLAC - which has made remarkable progress in its short history. New challenges lie ahead and it will have to change and adapt along with the society in which it is embedded - "to (continue) to strive to promote the goals of economic growth, participation in economic decision-making, and social equity".

- THE END -

<EOD>