Hon Speaker, today's subject for debate does not require any philosophical interpretation. There is no argument about the impact of these wildcat strikes. What is disheartening is the loss of life which accompanied them. An environment in which everything is skewed towards what we can get rather than what we can give is at the core of the crisis. We are more concerned about wealth distribution than wealth creation. It is a given that the mining sector is going through a crisis, and pointing fingers will not, on its own, provide solutions. We are unable to talk about the crisis without untangling the context within which it is unfolding.
While the strikes have been spontaneous, violent and disruptive, the demands also seem to be ostensibly outrageous. This has created a collective bargaining regime in which it is becoming difficult to manage industrial relations within the existing legal prescripts. The loss of confidence by the workers in management and trade unions has created a space for cowboys within the workplace to try to display their short- sighted objectives in order to make themselves relevant.
We have seen religious leaders, traditional leaders and politicians, whose sell-by date has expired, converging all over the place where these unprotected strikes mushroomed. The impression that the government, the capital and the National Union of Mineworkers are colluding against the mineworkers is not far-fetched. These days it is difficult when one observes a meeting between employers and trade unions to discern whether it is a collective bargaining forum or a shareholders' meeting. Black economic empowerment has just been rendered nothing but an opiate for the people.
When ordinary South Africans, including mineworkers, watch television and see a well-connected lawyer and ex-convicts do what is called "a lot of political lobbying work" to acquire a mining licence for a big company, one wonders who was lobbied. Could it be the President, the Minister, the Deputy Minister, an influential member of the ANC's executive committee? Would the real lobbied person stand up?
When it is reported that these lobbying ex-convicts became directors of companies in contravention of section 218 of the Companies Act, which specifically disqualifies anyone who has been jailed for theft, fraud, forgery or perjury from being a company director - unless the High Court set aside the disqualification - and the government does not do anything to enforce the law, we have reason to believe that we are now an animal farm where some are more equal than others.
Mineworkers see Cynthia Carroll, the recently resigned CEO of Anglo American, get paid just more than R22 million for being the boss - an increase of 38%. As if that was not enough, she gets R850 000 for just being a nonexecutive director of British Petroleum, BP. To add insult to injury, she gets R770 000 from Amplats as a nonexecutive director. In the midst of this display of crass materialism, we are told that the workers' demands are outrageous.
Not to be left behind is the commander of "concomitant action", Mr Cyril Ramaphosa, who gets more than R600 000 from Lonmin. With this we now understand where the demand for concomitant action comes from. Whilst Cope does not support the violence which has accompanied these wildcat strikes, one is left to wonder why the call wasn't made when municipal strikers were destroying innocent people's property. Why was this call not made when patients were chased out of wards during the public sector strike? Why was this call not made when teachers were intimidating those who wanted to teach our children? I hope that the Minister of Mineral Resources and the Minister of Police will approach the Marikana commission to explain what the concomitant action entailed.
The only losers in this crisis are ordinary South Africans. Treasury states that these strikes have dented confidence in South Africa and have also lowered the growth prospects for the year. As a result, tax revenue had to be revised downwards. The wildcat strikes have cost the country more than an estimated R10 billion. On the other hand, foreign direct investment flows to South Africa are reported to have tumbled 43,6% in the first half of 2012. This is contrary to the trends on the continent. Whilst Africa is being viewed in a positive light, we are regressing. What are the reasons?
Ratings agencies Moody's and Standard & Poor say the reasons for downgrading South Africa are because of the government's diminished capacity to manage its political and economic challenges. I thank you. [Time expired.]