DA argues Parly erred in processing of Employment Equity Amendment Act
The party has told the North Gauteng High Court on Tuesday that the bill was incorrectly classified and should have included provincial input through the National Council of Provinces.
Democratic Alliance (DA) flag. Picture: X/@DA_Gauteng
CAPE TOWN - The Democratic Alliance (DA) has argued that Parliament erred in its processing of the Employment Equity Amendment Act that allows the minister to set racial targets for employment.
The party told the North Gauteng High Court on Tuesday that the bill was incorrectly classified and should have included provincial input through the National Council of Provinces (NCOP).
ALSO READ:
- DA argues that employment targets set by labour minister could lead to employers firing employees who don't meet quotas
- Zille on DA's employment equity court challenge: 'Unconstitutional, unfair'
- Employment Equity Amendment Act will worsen unemployment, says DA's Zille
The DA is challenging a specific section of the act that gives the minister the power to set targets across all sectors, which the party argued was akin to setting racial quotas because employers could be punished if they were not met.
The DA said that at the heart of its case were the rigid targets that could be imposed by a labour minister on all employers who employed more than 50 people.
Advocate Ismail Jamie argued that these targets, which incidentally were published two weeks ago in preparation for the act to come into force, were unreasonable when provincial demographics were considered.
He said Parliament should have given the provinces a say when it considered the legislation.
"The minister, by imposing these national targets without having any regard to province and with it being tagged as a section 75 bill, where provinces then necessarily have less input into its processing through Parliament."
Jamie said the DA found it problematic to accord the minister vast powers to set blunt targets across all sectors that were not provincially determined, because they would discriminate against rights enshrined in the Constitution.