Labour:

Labour argued for an integrated approach to migration policy. The White Paper also needed to accommodate a focussed discussion on the impact of the International Migration Policy to the gender issues or project.

Agreed:

The parties agreed that the migration policy and legislation should be aligned with sectoral policy and vice versa. The policies should be harmonised in the most appropriate way.

Labour:

Labour wanted a separation between the broad policy statements and concrete proposals. It recommended the inclusion of an opening statement on the vision of the International Migration White Paper to policies on labour markets, education and others. The next area should focus on the details of its impact to labour markets, education and others. The last part should deal with the administration of processes.

DHA:

The White Paper correctly defines the scope, the content and the perspective of the migration policy. Migration should not formulate but should merely reflect on labour, foreign, investment, health, tourists and other policies. For instance the White Paper ensures that labour standards are respected. As far as the executive is concerned, the White Paper is a completed policy formulation which can now be taken further only through Parliament.

Labour:

Labour wants a focussed discussion on the relationship of the White Paper and the RDP. In addition, a further discussion on issues concerning human rights and culture was requested by labour.

Business:

Business had no problem with the structure of the White Paper though it acknowledges that it is difficult to follow the policy proposal clearly on the White Paper.

No Agreement:

The parties did not reach consensus on the issue.

Labour:

Labour was not satisfied by the international obligation raised in the White Paper with regards to International Conventions. The recommendation was for the White Paper to be unambiguous on the issue.

Business:

Business believes that the usual process of ratification of ILO Conventions should be followed before incorporation of unratified provisions

DOL:

The Department of Labour requested alignment with the following Conventions: 

Convention No. 19 concerning Equity of Treatment for national and foreign workers, as regards women's compensation for accidents.

Convention No. 97 concerning migration for employment

Convention No.143 concerning Migration in abusive conditions and the promotion of opportunity and treatment of migrant workers.

DHA:

The Department of Home Affairs was satisfied that the White Paper complied with ILO Conventions No. 19, 79 and 147, to the extent that they have been domesticated through the required process of accession, and to the extent that there had been ratification which did not seem to apply to Conventions 79 and 147 

Home Affairs believed that the ratification of core ILO Conventions required both the Departments of Labour and Foreign Affairs that would be set out by the Departments of Labour and Home Affairs and Trade and Industry. The White Paper provided that the Departments should be represented in the Immigration Board.

Agreed:

The parties agreed that the migration policy and legislation must comply with the government's international obligations.

Labour:

Labour wanted to ensure that the issuing of visas was not delegated to business but should be retained in the IS. Concerns were also raised about the possibility of the red tape to deal with corporate permits being cumbersome.

DHA:

The Department of Home Affairs felt that the Immigration Service (IS) would be in a better position to check and monitor the activity of businesses than it could in its own structures. The privatisation nature would also create an incentive for business.

Home Affairs believed that the chartered accountant of the business concerned performed the certification of compliance with labour legislation.

Business:

Business endorsed the proposed transfer of administration processes to enterprises. It supported the establishment of a simple system, ensuring a free movement of skills as far as practicable. There should be simple agreed criteria to employ foreigners. Business preferred vouching of conditions of employment by the enterprise itself instead of accountants or the Department of Labour, subject to the right of the Department of Labour to object to the vouched facts.

Agreed:

It was noted that the wording of the White Paper suggested that the power to issue visas would be delegated to business. It was however understood that the intention was to state that business would issue corporate permits. The clarified process was acceptable. 

A coordinating mechanism would be developed between the Departments of Labour and Home Affairs to fast track certification.

Business:

Business was of the view that the additional levy would tend to make labour less affordable, and bring further rigidity into the labour market. The introduction of a levy into the system would create greater opportunities for abuse and corruption. 

Business maintained that the levy was self-defeating and its consequences would diminish business investors' confidence as well as have an adverse impact to commercial enterprises and foreign labour, which would also put pressure on the domestic labour costs.

Business was of the view that if the levy was persisted with, there needed to be a process for exemption in terms of established parameters, so that enterprises could anticipate their entitlement to exemption and plan accordingly. Contract labour from our neighbors should be entirely excluded.

Labour:

Labour wanted clarity on the relationship between the Levy and the Skills Development Act. In principle, labour supported the licensing fee as a mechanism to prioritise South Africans. The licensing fee did not replace the levy and the grant system under the Skills Development Levy Act. Labour wanted discussions about the areas of waivers in respect of conditions, reasons and period of waiver.

DHA:

The notion of a waiver in favour of a training programme would be exercised when the Department of Labour consulted on the training programmes and was satisfied that what was offered in training was more advantageous than a common training fund. The Department of Home Affairs pointed out six classes or several grounds for waivers.

No Agreement:

The parties did not reach consensus on the issue.

DOL:

The Department of Labour agreed with the temporary residence permits to be extended to small business that might require or rely in the employment of a family member.

Labour:

Labour wanted the White Paper to clarify the status of foreign workers and how the system would operate. Foreign workers should not be required to periodically renew permits, as was the case with mine workers.

DHA:

The Department of Home Affairs felt that the fact that the White Paper prescribed no time limit for a work permit, was an element of novelty in itself. The policy facilitate acquisition of permanent residence by investors, thus the temporary status should not be regarded as a disincentive. Also after five years of employment a foreign worker could acquire a permanent residence permit.

Agreed:

Parties were satisfied with the Home Affairs response.

Business:

Business recommended simple and efficient criteria, which took skills into account.

DHA:

The Department of Home Affairs supported the notion of a simple criteria, however the criteria was complicated by the different needs that it tries to balance, namely the needs of the country, the employer and the foreigner.

Agreed:

Home Affairs agreed to efficient, simple criteria but business disagreed on the licensing fee being a criterion.

Labour:

Labour raised concerns about the system of compulsory deferred pay and the fact that the White Paper has completely avoided the issue.

DHA:

The White Paper clarified that the determination of compulsory deferred pay was an issue for all those who had policy responsibility on the matter who may decide to terminate the system. They involved the Departments of Foreign Affairs, Labour and the Presidency. All relevant legislation would need to be amended and international treaties denounced if the payment was scrapped.

Agreed:

The parties agreed that the relevant government departments would start the process of consultation with the relevant stakeholders and government departments including the neighbours of South Africa, in due course.

Labour:

Labour wanted the Cabinet Human Resource Cluster to devise a Human Resource Strategy regarding a long-term skills development strategy, in order to reduce dependence on skills of migrants.

DOL:

The Department of Labour wanted a migration policy that would have a short run programme to seek international skills to fill in the areas of domestic shortages. The country must expand human resource development and training. SAQA and the SETAs must be linked to the process.

Business:

Business believed that the need to seek skills from outside was likely to be long - term. It was crucial to ensure that growth was not inhibited by restrictions on the entry of needed skills.

DHA:

The Department of Home Affairs was of the view that the CDE criteria that suggested two years professional experience as a qualifying criteria for a work permit would force the IS to investigate CVs. The White Paper had eliminated the distinction between skilled and unskilled labour and the only instance where skills were relevant was in respect of special permits for people with exceptional skills and qualifications. 

The Department of Home Affairs would impose a training levy as a contribution towards the training of nationals the recipient of which will be nationals and will possibly be designated under the Minister of Labour. Home Affairs would be involved in determining exchange programmes that might be relevant to perform the functions of the Department of Labour.

Agreed:

There was broad agreement that South Africa needed a long - term Skills Development strategy to reduce dependency on skilled migrants.

Agreed:

The parties agreed that continued attention should be given to help to alleviate social and economic problems, which were the root cause of massive migration within our region and continent. Nedlac would convene a briefing under the Labour Market Chamber to this effect.

Labour:

Labour wanted the White Paper to focus on building the capacity of IS. The IS should serve as a coordinating mechanism for all government departments that have a stake in migration issues such as Labour and social services. In this regard a Charter of Rights must be developed to articulate the rights of immigrants.

DOL:

The Department of Labour wanted the IS to be capacitated with monitoring and investigation. The role of the police in the enforcement of immigration needed to be reflected in their statutory power and should be coordinated practically.

DHA:

Home Affairs was of the opinion that the notion of privatising certain functions would be more effective in addressing redress and corrupt practices, while the IS would be in a better position to monitor. The issue of rights of foreigners whilst in South Africa could be discussed later.

Business:

Business believed that the IS must be fully funded by the fiscus.

Agreed:

Parties agreed that the priority was to ensure that migration enforcement institutions should have adequate resources to execute their mandate.

Labour:

Labour wanted an equally representative Immigration Board. The suggestion in the White Paper regarding the appointment of experts business person to the Board could render business over - represented. Labour recommended that the experts must be drawn on the basis of their expertise, not the constituency they represent and labour should be included on the Board.

DHA:

The Department of Home Affairs believed that people are drawn on the basis of their expertise and representativeness, not on the basis of being an "expert business person".

Agreed:

Parties agreed that the Nedlac constituencies would be represented on the Board. There would be a distinction between constituency representation and representation of experts.

Labour:

Labour wanted the terminology "aliens" to be removed from the White Paper. The notion that illegal immigrants had flooded South Africa must be debunked. Furthermore the unsubstantiated claims regarding the negative impact of illegal immigrants on the provisions of service must either be elucidated or removed from the White paper. 

Labour wanted the enforcement of immigration policy to be left to well-trained officials of the immigration service not the community.

Labour supported the emphasis on training that was embraced by the White Paper, as it would assist in developing efficient enforcement and sensitivity among immigration officials.

DOL:

The Department of Labour felt that the notion of illegal immigrants posing a negative impact on provisions of service and society was replete with inappropriate assumptions. 

The White Paper must substantiate its argument that the "illegal aliens" have been involved in criminal activity and that they corrupt officials.

The Department of Labour echoed labour's position that the White Paper must substantiate claims regarding the negative impact of illegal immigrants on the provisions of service or be removed from the White paper.

Business:

Business believed that xenophobia must be combated and that migration policy did not indirectly encourage xenophobia under the guise of combating it.

DHA:

The issue of community enforcement in the White Paper had been misunderstood. The enforcement of the law would remain the responsibility of the well-trained officials and will work in co-operation with the communities. 

The social costs of illegal aliens referred to by the White Paper were the appropriate findings of the policy document. The sanctions by community were an unintended misunderstanding.

Agreed:

The parties agreed that the White Paper did not seek to respond to xenophobic tendencies. Where it made statements that seemed to suggest such tendencies, it needed to be qualified.

Agreed:

In agreement with the other parties, government made a commitment that the White Paper ensured that foreigners may not work in the country at terms and conditions inferior to those applicable to nationals. 

It was further agreed that decisions affecting foreigners should be subject to both judicial and administrative review.