MARTHINUS VAN STADEN: Labour migration white paper has a lot of good, but some bad and ugly too

The national labour migration policy (NLMP) 2025 white paper, approved by the cabinet in May, represents the country’s first comprehensive attempt to regulate labour migration since democracy. Like Sergio Leone’s iconic Western movie trilogy, it presents a complex narrative with clear heroes, villains and morally ambiguous characters. As SA grapples with record unemployment of 31.9% while simultaneously requiring critical skills, the question remains: will this policy be the country’s Clint Eastwood? 

The good: a long overdue framework 

After three decades of ad hoc immigration policies and reactionary measures, SA finally has a coherent framework for labour migration. The white paper deserves credit for its comprehensive approach, addressing inward and outward migration flows while acknowledging the country’s historical dependence on foreign labour in mining and agriculture. 

The policy’s rights-based approach represents a significant philosophical shift from previous punitive immigration measures. By embracing equality of treatment for all workers regardless of migration status, the policy aligns SA with international labour standards and constitutional values. This is particularly important given the country’s troubling history of xenophobic violence and the systematic exploitation of migrant workers in sectors such as agriculture, domestic work and construction. 

The establishment of four key areas of intervention demonstrates sophisticated policy thinking. The emphasis on evidence-based decision-making through co-ordinated data collection is particularly welcome, given the historical reliance on anecdotal evidence and political rhetoric in immigration debates. The policy’s acknowledgment that SA lacks reliable data on foreign labour stocks and flows represents an honest assessment that should inform future planning. 

The skills-based approach shows pragmatic recognition of SA’s dual challenge: high unemployment alongside critical skills shortages. The three-tiered system of skills lists —department of higher education and training occupations in high demand; occupations in high demand opened for foreign labour; and the annual critical skills list — provides flexibility while maintaining oversight. This nuanced approach recognises that blanket restrictions on foreign workers would harm sectors requiring specialised expertise. 

The policy’s attention to SA emigration is particularly noteworthy. The “brain drain” of skilled professionals, particularly in healthcare and engineering, has been largely ignored by previous governments. The NLMP’s commitment to diaspora mapping, skills retention incentives and repatriation programmes represents a mature acknowledgement that labour migration is bidirectional. 

Regional integration remains central to the policy framework, with specific provisions for Southern African Development Community co-operation through bilateral labour agreements and social security portability. This reflects SA’s leadership role in the region while recognising the historical reality of labour mobility in Southern Africa. 

The bad: challenges and contradictions 

Despite its comprehensive scope, the NLMP white paper contains significant weaknesses that could undermine its effectiveness. The most glaring concern is the implementation capacity of government departments, particularly the department of employment and labour, which must assume expanded responsibilities while battling existing capacity constraints. 

The proposed quota system, while politically popular, lacks sufficient detail about implementation mechanisms. The policy suggests a 60% SA employment requirement across sectors but fails to adequately show how this will be monitored, enforced or adjusted based on labour market realities. The constitutional implications of such restrictions, particularly the right to equality and human dignity, remain largely unexplored.

Given the scale of undocumented migration, the policy’s treatment of irregular migration appears inadequate. While advocating legal pathways to reduce irregular flows, the document provides insufficient detail about regularisation mechanisms beyond ad hoc special dispensations. The emphasis on deportations as a last resort is welcome, but alternative strategies remain vague. 

The co-ordination challenges between the departments of employment and labour and of home affairs are acknowledged but not convincingly resolved. The proposed “one-stop shop” model for visa processing has been tried, with limited success. Bureaucratic delays and inconsistencies are likely to persist without a clear delineation of responsibilities and robust co-ordination mechanisms. 

The policy’s ambitious scope may also prove problematic. Attempting to tackle labour migration governance, data collection, inward migration management and diaspora engagement simultaneously risks diluting focus and resources. While comprehensive, the four key areas of intervention may overwhelm implementation capacity. 

Social dialogue mechanisms, despite their importance, remain poorly defined. The proposal to use Nedlac’s Employment Services Board subcommittee for policy oversight lacks details about decision-making processes, frequency of engagement, and conflict resolution mechanisms. 

The ugly:  realities and consequences 

The NLMP white paper’s darkest aspects emerge when considering the political context of its development and potential unintended consequences. The policy was designed to deal with rising xenophobic sentiment and political pressure rather than purely economic considerations. This reactive approach risks legitimising discriminatory attitudes while failing to tackle underlying causes of unemployment and inequality. 

Despite its economic rationale, the quota system could prove constitutionally problematic and practically counterproductive. Restricting foreign employment without corresponding increases in skills development or job creation for South Africans may reduce economic activity rather than improve employment outcomes. The manufacturing sector’s experience with BEE targets offers sobering lessons about the complexity of labour market interventions.

The policy’s treatment of refugees and asylum seekers reveals troubling tension between humanitarian obligations and labour market protectionism. The acknowledgement of restricted work rights for asylum seekers under the 2017 Refugees Amendment Act contradicts the policy’s rights-based approach and may violate constitutional principles on human dignity. 

Given the scale of informal employment, the enforcement mechanisms proposed for labour inspection and compliance appear inadequate. The policy’s emphasis on formal sector regulation ignores the reality that most migrant workers operate in informal economies where conventional labour protections are difficult to enforce. 

Perhaps most concerning is the policy’s potential to increase administrative complexity and corruption opportunities. Additional layers of bureaucracy, quota monitoring and skills assessments create new avenues for rent-seeking behaviour. SA’s troubled history with immigration administration suggests that complex regulatory frameworks often benefit officials more than intended beneficiaries. 

The policy’s silence on integration programmes for legal migrants represents a significant oversight. Without active integration measures, the presence of foreign workers may continue generating social tensions regardless of their legal status or economic contribution. 

The verdict: promises amid peril 

The NLMP white paper represents SA’s most significant opportunity and gravest risk in immigration policy since 1994. Its comprehensive approach and rights-based framework offer hope for rational, evidence-driven policymaking. However, the implementation challenges, political pressures and potential unintended consequences suggest a difficult path. 

Success will depend largely on three factors: genuine political commitment to evidence-based implementation rather than populist grandstanding; adequate resources and capacity building for implementing departments; and sustained engagement with social partners and civil society to monitor outcomes and adjust policies accordingly. 

The policy’s ultimate test will not be its legislative passage but its practical implementation in factories, farms and offices across the country. If it succeeds in balancing SA employment needs with economic realities while protecting worker rights, it could serve as a model for other developing countries. If it fails, becoming another example of good intentions undermined by poor execution, the consequences for both South Africans and migrants could prove severe. 

Like Leone’s Westerns, this policy story’s ending remains unwritten. Whether it concludes with justice and prosperity for all or chaos and conflict will depend on the choices made in the months and years ahead. SA’s future as a destination for talent and a leader in regional integration hangs in the balance. The white paper’s good, bad and ugly reflect the complexity of the country itself: a nation struggling to balance competing demands while building a society that works for everyone. Only time will tell which aspect ultimately prevails. 

• Prof Van Staden is with the Wits School of Law. He writes in his personal capacity.