ILO Recommendation on National Floors of Social Protection & constitution amendment: ratification

Meeting report

Opening Remarks by Chairperson
The Chairperson welcomed all present in the meeting. He said the purpose of the meeting was for the Committee to be briefed by the Department of Labour (DOL) on the Ratification of the 1986 Instrument of the Amendment of the Constitution of the International Labour Organisation (ILO), and be briefed on the Ratification of New International Labour Organisation (ILO) Recommendation concerning National Floors of Social Protection.

Mr Sam Morotoba, Acting Director-General: DOL said as a department, the DOL’s purpose was to regulate the labour market in terms of economic growth and they did that through a number of instruments, and one of them had to do with social and income protection and enforcement of compliance to monitoring labour standards. Secondly, the DOL derived its mandate from constitutional provisions and one of them was found in section 27 of the constitution, which provided for social security nets to protect venerable workers.
Therefore, it was within that context that the DOL was presenting the instrument that was adopted by ILO which was the recommendation concerning National Floors of Social Protection. It was a non-binding convention which was normally presented to all Governments’ Parliaments of what was expected of them as a country. The Department would provide a report to the ILO which indicated that they presented the instrument to their parliament for noting purposes. They were coming to the Committee to solicit support so as to ratify that convention because with it they will be able to change the constitution of the ILO so that Africa as a continent and South Africa in particular occupied its position in the ILO Governing Body which was the reason why they were there.

Briefing on the Ratification of New International Labour Organisation (ILO) Recommendation concerning National Floors of Social Protection
Mr Thembinkosi Mkhaliphi, Acting Deputy Director-General, DOL, said the presentation was a recommendation which was not binding and Parliament should note that it was a new recommendation dealing with National Floors of Social Protection. The new recommendation provided guidance to member states in building comprehensive  social security systems and extending social security coverage by prioritizing the establishment of national floors of social protection accessible to all in need. It complemented the existing Conventions and Recommendations.  In particular, it assisted member states in covering the unprotected, the poor and the most vulnerable, including workers in the informal economy and their families. It thereby aimed at ensuring that all members of society enjoy at least a basic level of social security throughout their lives.

Objective of the Recommendation
Mr Mkhaliphi said the objective of the recommendation was to reaffirm that social security was a human right and a social and economic necessity. The recommendation provided guidance to countries in terms of establishing and mainlining national social protection floors as a fundamental element of national social security systems; and implementing their floors within strategies for the extension of social security that progressively ensured higher levels of social security to as many people as possible, guided by ILO social security standards. The guidance provided by the recommendation represented a major step toward ensuring universal access to basic income security, food security, adequate nutrition, health care and other essential services (such as education, housing, water and sanitation and other services, as nationally defined). It contributed to the Global Social Protection Floor Initiative, which was supported by a large coalition of international organisations and development partners. The National Social Protection Floors, as fundamental elements of national social security systems, constitute an essential element of national and international policies aimed at building more inclusive societies and economies.

Mr Mkhaliphi told the Committee that South Africa’s current social security system was reasonably comprehensive by middle-income country standards.  The system was broadly comprised of an extensive social assistance programme and a number of social insurance programmes, and is underpinned by an entrenched Constitutional right to social security.

Mr Mkhaliphi concluded that the recommendation was endorsed by the African Renaissance Committee (ARC); the International Cooperation Trade and Security (ICTS), and Cabinet. Given that recommendations serve as non-binding guidelines the Department of Labour submitted this recommendation for noting by the Labour Portfolio Committee (LPC). ILO Member states were required to submit international labour standards adopted by the International Labour Conference to its Parliament. The aim of this obligation was to ensure that competent authorities examine the instruments with a view to their enactment or other action.

Discussion
Ms E Van Lingen (DA, Eastern Cape) noted that the presentation referred to middle income country standards. She asked what “middle income country” meant, and where on the scale South Africa was.

Mr Mkhaliphi replied that the countries they were talking about were China, Malaysia, India, etc. In Africa there were few countries that met the middle income standards and they looked at SA social security benefits all elements compared favourably with those countries, and with the recommendations themselves.

Briefing on the Ratification of the 1986 Instrument of the Amendment of the Constitution of the International Labour Organisation (ILO)
Mr Mkhaliphi said in 1986 the International Labour Conference discussed and adopted an Instrument of Amendment proposing changes that affected 11 of the 40 articles within the Constitution of the International Labour Organisation (ILO). The main objective of the proposed Amendment was to make membership of the Governing Body of the International Labour Organisation to be more representative by providing a means of appointment that took into account the various geographic, economic and social interests of its constituent groups. With this Amendment members of the Governing Body will increase to 112 - and the manner of their allocation will also be affected. Of these, 56 seats were allocated to government representatives, 28 each will be allocated to employers' and workers' representatives. There would no longer be seats guaranteed for the member States of chief industrial importance.

Issues Addressed by the Amendment
Mr Mkhaliphi said the amendment addressed four main areas, namely, the composition and governance of the Governing Body of the Office; the principal reasons for proposing the amendment were to give the Governing Body a more representative membership by providing a means of appointment of its members that took into account in a more contemporary manner the various geographic, economic and social interests of its constituent groups. The procedure for appointment of the Director-General; The Director-General of the ILO would continue to be appointed by the Governing Body but the appointment would be submitted to the International Labour Conference for approval. Voting at the International Labour Conference; and Constitutional provisions relating to international labour conventions and recommendations would require three-fourths of the votes cast and would have to be ratified by three-quarters of the Members for it to come into effect. Rules governing how the Constitution may be amended; any amendment to the Constitution would require two-thirds of votes cast and ratification by two-thirds of the Members would be required to take effect.

Mr Mkhaliphi told the Committee that in terms of African Group deliberations the composition of the Governing Body had been of significant interest to the African Group. The Group had been actively engaged in deliberations within the International Labour Organisation governance structures on ways to address the historical geographical imbalance in regional representation on the Governing Body. The African Group was clear and unanimous in its view that Africa has been historically discriminated against in terms of the composition of the Governing Body. The Group also agreed that the 1986 Amendment represented the ultimate goal of equitable, non-discriminatory representation of all regions within the Governing Body.

Mr Mkhaliphi concluded that the ratification of the ILO instrument was endorsed by the African Renaissance Committee on 21 May 2013; the International Cooperation Trade and Security (ICTS) cluster on 21 July 2013; the National Economic Development and Labour Council (NEDLAC); and by Cabinet.  As at 03 February 2014, ratification stood at 102 Member States, including two of Chief Industrial Importance (India and Italy).  In this regard, entry into force of the 1986 Amendment required a further 22 ratifications including at least three more from the States of Chief Industrial Importance. 44 African countries have ratified the Instrument. The DOL requested the approval by the Labour Portfolio Committee with the view to finalize the ratification process.

Discussion
The Chairperson said in terms of ratifications, it was unfortunate that in 1986 South Africa was not part of the ratification but now it had been brought in line to be part of the world at large through these agreements.

Mr M Khawula (IFP, KwaZulu Natal) said besides India and Italy as countries of industrial importance which other countries fell into the category of industrial importance.

Mr Mkhaliphi replied that the countries of industrial importance were Germany, Britain, Russia, France, United States, Japan, China, Italy and India. Italy and India were already there and they needed only 3 more countries of industrial importance. The chances of the US, Germany and UK being part of that agreement were very scarce because the problem was that when they discuss that in the ILO it had implications to the United Nations (UN) as a whole, and with the call to reform the security council they wouldn’t want to create a precedent that will be used in the UN pressure body. Therefore, he didn’t that those countries would concede to that agreement unless there was a change in the UN.

Mr Morotoba said it should be indicated that it was not all doom and gloom in the sense that since 1986 the ILO in trying to be seen as progressive and also getting the pressure on all angles in practice there was movement although not yet change in terms of the constitution. Because if they looked at Africa’s representation within Southern African Development Community (SADC) they were having that rotation process, and the membership although the constitution had not yet formally changed has also increased, that is, the governing body of the ILO was no longer confined only to that organisation. Therefore, there was movement however the ratification of the instrument would definitely put the seal they needed to the whole process and formalising it in terms of the formal constitution of the ILO.

The Chairperson said the Committee was satisfied and agreed with the recommendations. It was a progressive step because South Africa should be on par when it came to international politics especially when it came to labour matters. They were looking at that jealously because their background came from there and should not compromise South African workers especially when it came to those matters.

Ms Van Lingen noted that the presenter referred to countries by name and it always looked as if it was a G8 situation. She asked which of those countries would likely to be lobbied to sign those agreements, why it took so long from 13 May 2014 till now, and it got stuck at the National Economic Development and Labour Council (NEDLAC) and Government.

Mr B Nthebe (ANC, North West) said history had taught them that the real battle was not at the ILO plenary but rather at the side caucuses with like-minded people persuading each other to agree. And if that needed to be done taking into consideration the power houses of this world but also what created soothing feeling to him was that these presentations fell right into the cracks of what they wanted to do as a country  which at the end of the day would give them some caution. He asked whether were there any persuasion mechanisms outside the plenary of the ILO to persuade dominant forces in the institutions which were like minded so that they could build on whatever they were presenting moving forward.

Mr Mkhaliphi said there were other avenues they were using, for example, the G8 they’ve known had been extended and transformed into G20 although South Africa was the only country in Africa currently participating in the G20 process. And there was a task team that looked at matters of employment and economic growth which was quite significant. It has drawn Ministries of Labour and Employment and also Ministers of Finance from the G20 member states. Therefore, they believe that was one forum that was currently very strategic to the country in terms of persuasion and they were beginning to see all countries that were part of the G20, although initially was established to respond to the economic meltdown, they believed in the long run some of them in their side meetings will be persuaded.
Secondly, there was BRICS which consisted of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa which have already signed. But through the BRICS interaction and discussion they believed that apart from economic issues there were matters of strategic importance that affected their countries and in that forum there was a vehicle they could use for the benefit of them all.
The third issue related to their social partners and unlike Government, their labour and business because of the contribution that they make to the governing body of the ILO refused to back down they have permanent sits in the governing body and unfortunately they’ve adopted the stand point of countries of industrial importance whilst as Government they had to abide by the view of SADC and broadly that of Africa as a continent that would allow rotation in terms of participation in the governing body of the ILO. In that scenario as well labour and business were exerting pressure to Government in terms of South Africa playing a significant role in the affairs of the ILO.

The Chairperson noted that the irony of what the DDG was saying was that BUSA and COSATU were permanent members of the governing body, and other business institutions in SADC were not permanent members of which it was a decision that had been taken at the labour caucus internationally. But in governments there was no Government in Africa that was a permanent member of the governing body, it only came by rotation.

The Chairperson remarked that on the question of the delay, there had been lot of debate on that issue. The delay was caused precisely by the uncertainty on the issue. There was a view that stated that if they go and ratify that agreement what difference would it make because the countries of industrial importance were not going to change and the chances of them getting a two thirds were very slim. There were also debates in Africa and those debates came to them and a decision was taken that symbolically it made sense that all countries in Africa had to ratify the agreement which was why they were now pushing it. Therefore, those were the delays that happened because initial they taught ratification would serve no purpose, and they needed to make sure when they ratify it they were likely to succeed.

Adoption of Committee Reports
The Chairperson read out as follows: “The Select Committee on Economic and Business Development having considered the request for  approval by Parliament of the 1986 Instrument for the Amendment of the Constitution of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) referred to it in terms of section 231 (2) of the Constitution, recommends that the House approve the said convention”.

The Chairperson said that they would request that the first report should be approved.

On the second report the Chairperson read out as follows: “The Select Committee on Economic and Business Development having considered the request for approval by Parliament of the Adoption of the Automatic Recommendation of Social Protection Floor by the International Labour Organisation, referred to it in terms of section 23 (2) of the Constitution, recommends that the House approve the said convention”.

The Chairperson said that they would request that both conventions should be approved.

The Committee agreed to the approval of both conventions.

The Chairperson thanked the delegation from the Department of Labour for the informative presentation. He said the Department of Transport was not available to make its presentation. The Committee Secretary would write a letter on behalf of the Committee indicating its dissatisfaction with the Department of Transport’s undermining of the Select Committee because Members were waiting for it to come and present but it failed to make an appearance.

The meeting was adjourned.