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.]