CGE Reports on Transformation in Public and Private Sector, State of Shelter in SA

Meeting report

Appointment of full-time commissioner

The Chairperson began by congratulating Commissioner Nomasonto Mazibuko at the Commission for Gender Equality (CGE) on her appointment as a full-time commissioner. She expressed concern at the fact that she thought there had been two commissioners submitted for conversion -- Commissioner Mazibuko and Commissioner Gertrude Mothupi -- but according to the letter that was sent the last week, it seemed as if the letter for Commissioner Mothupi had been done only last week. The letter contained many grammatical errors and errors concerning dates. The chairperson and deputy chairperson of the CGE needed to account for this.

Last year, when the Committee engaged with the CGE, it had been indicated that they needed to finalise these conversions. The Chairperson had written to the Speaker that the Committee was being delayed by the Presidency and that the two Commissioners had not been converted to full-time commissioners to allow Parliament to start the process of recruitment to fill two vacant posts. She asked whether the CGE was sabotaging the Committee, considering that they had not submitted the names of both Commissioners at once, or immediately after Commissioner Tlaleng Mofokeng had resigned, as they should have done. That had delayed the process of Parliament advertising those positions. The Committee also knew that the process of recruitment took a long time and that the CGE’s term of office would be expiring this year. Therefore she did not take kindly to this issue, because it seemed as if the CGE was being deliberate so that the Commission would not have the required number of Commissioners to continue its work. This was not a newly raised concern. She took it upon herself to write to the Speaker so that the Speaker could write to the President regarding those outstanding conversions.

She had been informed last week that the letter for Commissioner Mothupi had just been sent to the President and Parliament last week. If the letter contained grammatical errors and incorrect dates, how was the letter expected to be taken seriously and processed? Why were letters not being proofread, especially for the highest office like the Presidency? The errors that were made in the letter were the errors that would delay the process further. She had told the Institutions Supporting Democracy (ISD) office to write back to the CGE to correct those errors and withdraw the initial letter and submit the correct one. Such errors gave her the impression that the CGE did not take its work seriously. That was why Commission issues were being reflected in the newspapers. She asked whether the CGE read their documents before they were sent. She had told Dr Tembe (from the ISD office) last week to write back to the CGE to correct it and find a way to fast-track Commissioner Mothupi’s conversion so that Parliament could start with the recruitment process.

Concerning the meeting the Committee was to hold that week, it could not have a meeting consisting just of CGE's staff members. The people who needed to account to the Committee were the Commissioners, the chief executive officer (CEO) and chief financial officer (CFO), without whom there would be no meeting. The two reports would be presented at this meeting.

CGE's explanation

Ms Tamara Mathebula, Chairperson of the CGE, said that Commissioner Mazibuko was absent with apologies, and that the Committee’s congratulatory message would be conveyed to her. The CGE had been surprised by the letter received on 31 January, because it concerned the conversion of one Commissioner and stated that both Commissioners had been considered. The first submission for conversion had been made in 2020 after the resignation of Commissioner Jennifer Smout. Both Commissioners had submitted a request for conversion and that request was processed by, and sent through, the office of the Chair. There was one vacant position and two available part-time Commissioners who had applied for the same position. In explaining this controversy, the response that came on 31 January had seemingly responded to the 2020 request for conversion, based only on Commissioner Smout’s post. This had surprised the CGE, which was why there was only one Commissioner who had been converted, based on that one post.

She reiterated that when Commissioner Tlaleng resigned in 2021, there had been two positions. The same letters and motivations of the letter of the Chairperson had been sent to the same offices to indicate that the CGE had two vacant positions and whether consideration could be given to the fact that the conversions were for two part-time commissioners for two current vacant positions. Even in that letter dated last April, they had mentioned that the first position was Commissioner Smout’s position, which had been left vacant in 2020, and the other position was for Commissioner Tlaleng’s position, who had left the CGE in March 2021. The letter that was submitted in March 2021 had indicated two vacant positions and the two commissioners who had motivated for those positions.

Later in the year, the CGE had written another letter requesting and following up at the same offices, asking whether the matter was being looked at, as time was running out and there was a need to fill those vacancies. The only response the CGE received on 31 January was the letter saying that the conversion was for one position. Immediately after receiving that letter, on 8 February a letter was sent to the Speaker's office and the Office of the President, acknowledging the letter that had been sent to the CGE converting Commissioner Mazibuko. However, it had noted that Commissioner Mothupi’s position had not yet been filled, and the filling of the position should be considered.

Regarding the issue of grammatical and spelling errors contained in the 8 February letter, the letter sitting in front of her did not contain any grammatical errors. When they sent that letter, they had attached Commissioner Mothupi's letter, as they had wanted the office to look at the earlier motivations put forward by Commissioner Mothupi. She acknowledged that there were a few grammatical errors contained in that particular attachment. She committed to sending the 8 February letter, together with the attachment of Commissioner Mothupi’s letter, as well as letters that were sent last year referring to the vacant positions, to the Committee.

The Chairperson requested these letters be corrected, written properly and sent to the Speaker's office so that the Committee could fast-track the process. She highlighted that Ms Mathebula's office was the highest in the institution, so they would not be taken seriously without the appropriate corrections.

Ms Mathebula confirmed that these letters would be corrected and re-sent.

The Chairperson thanked Ms Mathebula. She said the Committee wanted to finalise the matter concerning the conversions, as they did not want to be bombarded with a large workload. They were trying their level best to push all the reports before the Committee. It had been given a deadline of next Wednesday to finalise these reports. Extending the deadline would not be possible due to parliamentary logistics and time constraints.

The Chairperson and Members expressed concern over Commissioner Busisiwe Deyi’s repeated absence from Committee meetings.

Ms Mathebula noted this concern. She confirmed that the CGE was doing oversight at police stations in all nine provinces. They were also doing oversight at the Thuthuzela Care Centres and trying to conduct court monitoring visits. A lot of ground had been covered concerning the police stations in the provinces. There was a draft six-month report that the CGE was consolidating with their research unit, and they were in the process of consolidating the last six months as they went out to the provinces. When they were done with the last six months ending in March, they would have a consolidated report on what the SAPS monitoring visits looked like. The CGE was hopeful they could bring this report before the Committee, high-level SAPS officials and the Portfolio Committee responsible for safety and security.

The Chairperson requested a list of the police stations that the CGE had visited already so that when the Committee went and did oversight visits, they could check the progress on their recommendations.

CGE progress reports

Ms Jamela Robertson, Chief Executive Officer, CGE, presented the progress reports on behalf of the CGE. Key recommendations and progress were highlighted from each presentation.

State of shelters in South Africa 2021

Free State: Department of Social Development

• Recommendation - The Commission observed that the shelters within the Free State were not functioning optimally and the number of available shelters within the province was insufficient.
• Progress - The Department submitted in its progress report that it agreed that the number of available shelters within the province was insufficient. To address this, it had set aside R500 000 for the establishment of a shelter in Xhariep for the 2020/21 financial year.

Western Cape: Department of Social Development 

• Recommendation - The Commission recommended that staff training, focusing on members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and questioning, intersex, asexual and more (LGBTQIA+) community and their respective needs, be implemented within six months following the hearing.
• Progress - The programme on 26 November 2019, in partnership with the disability sector, was to sensitise the sector on gender-based violence (GBV) and services available for victims. It was stated that these sessions were also supported by various stakeholders.

Gauteng: Department of Community Safety (GDCS)

• Recommendation - Ikhaya Lethemba (IKL) must review its policies to ensure that it does not discriminate against those living with disabilities and members of the LGBTQIA+ community; provide a proper breakdown of the various non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that it works with and their staff compositions. Proper qualifications and/or skills must be properly set out in this breakdown. The IKL should develop a standard operating procedure (SOP)for the intake and accommodation of the LGBTQIA+ community and victims with disabilities.
• Progress - IKL had indicated that in relation to the (SOP), the shelter provides services for all victims of GBV, and this was inclusive of people with disabilities and those of the LGBTQIA+ community. IKL further made an undertaking that it would review its policies to ensure that it does not discriminate based on gender.

Gauteng: Department of Social Development

• Recommendation - The Department should review its funding model and budget allocation to ensure consistency with the funding and/or costing model.
• Progress - The Department had indicated that it had a funding model, but the budget allocation had been inconsistent, and shelters were not funded equally. It had developed a model which would be effective from April 2021 for the allocation of budget.  The costing model, which had been reviewed, adequately provided equal apportionments for the various shelters, and this addressed the inconsistencies.

Mpumalanga: Department of Social Development

• Recommendation - SOPs and policies for admission in Mpumalanga shelters.
• Progress - There was an operating procedure followed in every shelter. Before a person could be admitted, there was screening by completing form CW2. Once done, form CW5 was completed in case the client was accepted. Whilst the client was at the shelter, they were assessed and a care plan drafted according to their needs. The developed standard code of conduct required that shelters adhere to accessibility, confidentiality, safety and security. There was strict monitoring of adherence by the Department on shelters.

National: Department of Health (NDOH)

• Recommendation - The NDOH must develop norms and standards for the provision of services to domestic and GBV survivors.
• Progress – On the prioritisation of survivors of GBV at clinics and hospitals, the NDOH advised that it was still discussing a circular which would alert heads of health departments in provinces that survivors of GBV should be prioritised when they attend clinics and hospitals. The commission was yet to receive a finalised circular.

National: South African Police Service (SAPS)

• Recommendation - The Commission recommended that all members who assist victims of sexual offences and GBV undergo specialised training on GBV. This had to be done by August 2020. If SAPS did not have a specialised course available, it must develop one and start with the rollout of the specialised training before the end of the financial year 2020/21.
• Progress - SAPS submitted that due to the Covid-19 pandemic, it could not commence with providing the specialised training on GBV. In the same light, however, SAPS made a firm commitment to provide the training as soon as the Covid-19 national regulations allow for trainings and mass gathering.

National: National Treasury

• Recommendation - Treasury should hold the departments accountable for failure to adhere to regulated governance practices and failure to account for where misspending was known.
• Progress - As per the response from Treasury addressed to the CGE, it was advised that the Department of Social Development (DSD) was responsible for oversight and support of shelter programmes. Therefore, budget and allocations to departments and programmes were, and had always been, informed by departmental plans and resources available. It was asserted that the DSD was responsible for policy and the implementation of victim empowerment programmes. The recommendation to the CGE was that it was the DSD, which was in the best position to provide progress reports.

National: Department of Social Development

• Recommendation - The Department must provide a draft sector funding policy on or before 20 December 2019. The finalised or approved policy had to be furnished to the CGE on or before 31 March 2020, and the Department must provide the Commission with the intersectoral policy once it was finalised.
• Progress - The Department had provided the sector funding policy as recommended by the Commission. In terms of monitoring the implementation of this policy, it was submitted by the Department that in the past, transfers to non-profit organisations (NPOs) and other entities had not been managed transparently. This had changed to ensure accountability for the allocation and use of public funds. The publication of information relating to transfers was an essential mechanism to improve transparency and accountability

Gender transformation in the private and public sectors 2019/20

• The CGE conducted transformation hearings in the financial year 2019/2020.
• A total of four entities were subpoenaed to appear before the Commission and account for compliance with the Employment Equity Act (EEA) and other gender-related legislations. These entities were the Vodacom Group Limited, Woolworths Holdings Pty Limited, the National Department of Cooperative Governance and the National Department of Justice and Constitutional Development.
• The CGE was concerned about the lack of a proper understanding of gender dynamics in the workplace, accompanied by a slow pace of transformation. Females and persons with disabilities were under-represented at the top, senior and middle management of the entities. The under-reporting of sexual harassment cases was a cause of concern. Further, the buildings were not conducive or accommodative to persons with disabilities.

Vodacom: Recommendations

• Vodacom should increase the representation of women in top and senior management positions;
• Engagement should be conducted between the CGE and Vodacom on sexual harassment by March 2020;
• Vodacom should assess its organisational culture and how it affects women, and accordingly develop a culture change strategy based on the outcome of the culture audit;
• All employment policies must be gender-neutral.

Vodacom: Progress report on the findings and recommendations

• Vodacom submitted that the information and technology (ICT) sector in both the emerging and first world countries was dominated by males, more especially in the engineering and technology side of business. However, the entity was making serious strides to address this imbalance by introducing several pioneering programmes to ensure that women emerge as leaders;
• Vodacom submitted that in top management, there had been an improvement in the representation of African people. The entity committed to fully exploit employment equity (EE) drivers such as appointments, promotions, development and retention, to facilitate progress. Therefore, its key focus would be on recruiting women into top, senior and middle management positions;
• The entity indicated that achieving gender balance continued to be one of the company’s five strategic pillars adopted in the Vodacom diversity and inclusion strategy document. Vodacom planned to improve gender balance through programmes such as the Vodacom advanced executive programme.

Woolworths: Recommendations

• Woolworths should increase the representation of African women and persons with disabilities (PWD) in top and senior management positions;
• Woolworths should segregate data regarding the budget spent on individual employees, to track spending per race and gender;
• The company should ensure that its grievance policy was time-bound regarding the finalisation of hearings /cases;
• The company should review all its policies and conduct training to all employees on the newly introduced or amended policies by March 2021;
• Woolworths should provide action plans to deal with the identified barriers and their implementation;

Woolworths: Progress report on the findings and recommendations

• In terms of increasing the representation of women and PWD in top and senior management positions, the company had prepared an interim one-year EE plan, given the challenging and uncertain times in which the business found itself in the context of Covid-19. Further, the usually extensive consultation process on the plan and identification of barriers proved difficult;
• The company had committed to kick-start a five-year planning process in the current financial year, assuming this was feasible within the macro-context. The plan would be aligned with the eminent legislation and sentiment of EE sectorial targets by the Department of Labour and Employment.

National: Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA): Findings

• The Department had failed to demonstrate commitment to transformation in its practices;
• Persons with disabilities were not represented at top and senior management positions;
• The working environment was not conducive for persons with different forms of disabilities;
• Top and senior management positions were dominated by African males;
• The Department did not have an employment equity manager, as required by section 20 of the Employment Equity Act;
• The Department did not have policies to deal with relevant issues with specific reference to gender, disability and the LGBTQIA+;
• It had been found that the Department did not take cognisance of black people living in rural areas in its procurement practices, and women-owned businesses typically received tenders amounting to R 50 000 and below.

National: Department of Cooperative Governance: Recommendations

• The CGE had to meet with the Minister of COGTA by March 2021 to discuss the lack of gender transformation in this department;
• The Department should conduct a culture survey by September 2020 regarding work satisfaction, sexual harassment, wellness, issues relating to LGBTQIA+, and disability;
• The Department should develop and provide a plan to the CGE aimed at creating a working environment that was conducive for persons with different forms of disabilities by September 2020;
• The Department should appoint a designated EE manager, as required by the Act;
• The Department should conduct sexual harassment workshops for all employees by September 2020;
• Top and senior management positions should reflect diversity;

National Department of Cooperative Governance: Progress report on findings and recommendations

• In terms of failure to demonstrate commitment to transformation, the Department submitted that this was due to constraints in the compensation of employees (CoE) budget, therefore it was unable to meet the government’s wide transformation targets by utilising the available vacant posts;
• Regarding PWD not being represented in top and senior management, the Department indicated that it would consider guidance in appointing persons with disabilities into the aforementioned positions. However, this would require the changes to its employment equity plan;
• The Department had failed to provide the plan to address the issue of a conducive environment for persons with disabilities;
• The Department said that it would appoint an employment equity manager to deal with the finding that top and senior management was dominated by African men;
• Currently, the Department did not have an EE manager.

National Department of Justice and Constitutional Development: Recommendations

• The Department should increase the representation of black women and PWD at the management level;
• The Department should create an implementation plan to deal with the availability of breastfeeding rooms in the new model for sexual offences courts and maintenance courts by September 2020;
• The delays in handling sexual harassment cases should be addressed by policy and informed by best practices to create a conducive working environment;
• The Department should conduct a culture survey by September 2020 covering work satisfaction, sexual harassment etc.

National Department of Justice and Constitutional Development: Progress report on findings and recommendations

• To establish the representation of black women at senior management, the Department had conducted a workforce analysis in February 2020, which was in preparation for reviewing the EE plan which expired on 30 June 2020. The workforce analysis confirmed the CGE’s findings. The economically active population targets, as provided by StatsSA were 36.2%, and African women were at 27%;
• To address this, the Department had set 50% women targets in the EE plan for 1 July 2020 to 31 June 2025, which was approved on 13 October 2020
• Progress made as at 31 January 2021 indicated an increase of 1.9% in African women at the senior management level -- from 28% to 29,9.
• Regarding delays in handling sexual harassment cases, the Department asserted that it was currently implementing a sexual harassment policy that had been revised in 2015. The policy was benchmarked with other government departments and fully aligned to the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) policy.
• The Department conceded that there was a possibility of under-reporting sexual harassment cases, and therefore committed to continue with sexual harassment training and awareness sessions. The Department had appointed a highly-skilled, trained and experienced official to deal with and investigate cases.
• The Department had further deepened cooperation with stakeholders and labour relations experts regarding the training of employees, providing advice and ensuring proper handling and the timeous finalisation of cases.

The Committee agreed that the third report on an investigation into the choice of termination of pregnancies in South Africa would be deferred to the next meeting.

Discussion

Ms C Phiri (ANC) welcomed the fruitful and helpful presentations. She requested that the CGE add timelines in the recommendations that the two private entities -- Vodacom and Woolworths -- had discussed in the second presentation. If there were no timelines, it would take forever for these entities to embark on transformation in terms of gender equity. Now that there was a report, it was suggested that the next follow-up report provide timelines to make sure the entities adhere to the requirements outlined in the recommendations.

She realised that the presentation on the state of shelters was based only on government-run shelters. She requested clarity or more information on privately-owned shelters, as based on her experience and geographical perspective, these shelters were not being taken care of. They were overcrowded, lacked skills development programmes, and there were many illegal migrants in these shelters. However, she acknowledged that these migrants were African and within South Africa.

She asked what the role of the CGE was in terms of shelters that were not adhering to the requirements they had outlined. There were requirements mentioned addressing health issues and skills development, but there were a lot of robberies and illegal activities were happening in the shelters. What was the role of the Commission in making sure that the shelters were adhering to the requirements of the CGE, and what had government put in place? She emphasised that the two shelters she was aware of were well known for their criminal activities. For the people in these shelters to eat, the community needed to go and buy them food or offer them part-time jobs. Therefore, these shelters were not fully-fledged. She had gone personally to try to get information on these shelters, as she believed that they were not doing justice or adhering to what had been presented in the meeting.

The Chairperson asked Ms Robertson whether any guidelines were prescribed for shelters.

Ms Robertson responded that in the progress reports of the follow-up studies, the CGE had found that provincially, some departments had guidelines while some did not. Nationally, the DSD had specific guidelines, and those were some of the recommendations they had responded to in terms of establishing uniform guidelines, especially around uniform funding standards, uniform admission procedures, and so forth. Some provinces had specific procedures in terms of the standard operations in shelters.

The Chairperson asked the CEO to share these guidelines with the Committee.

Ms Robertson said they would be requested, and shared accordingly.

Ms N Sharif (DA) said while there was an issue with the funding model, it was great to see that the CGE had taken up having a standardised funding model for shelters. A lot of the shelters that she had visited, or to which she had referred people, struggled with resources so she hoped that the funding model being created would be helpful. She said it was a good idea that NGOs were managing shelters because NGOs "do God's work," and they had the necessary experience and skills to do the job properly. However, she commented that there was a lack of transparency where NGOs were involved, and wanted to know if this had been rectified and addressed by the CGE.

She said there were no shelters that specifically accommodated the LGBTQIA+ community. The research indicated that there were survivors in these shelters who did not necessarily feel comfortable sharing rooms with members of the LGBTQIA+ community. This was very concerning because members of the LGBTQIA+ community were victimised on a daily basis, and often found themselves on the streets because there was no safe space that would provide shelter and help them get back on their feet. When she was in Johannesburg, she was the chairperson for the section 79 Oversight Committee on Gender, Youth and Persons with Disabilities. They had held a stakeholder engagement across the city and spoken to members of the LGBTQIA+ community, and it was so disheartening and sad to realise how many members of this community were rendered homeless by their families simply because they were not accepted for who they were. Shelters were so important in ensuring they had a safe space.

Looking at IKhaya Lethemba and the recommendation that it must be ensured that it did not discriminate against the LGBTQIA+ community, she requested more information on where this recommendation had come from and whether there were incidents that had occurred where members of the LGBTQIA+ community had been discriminated against. What was the CGE’s thinking around establishing at least one or two LGBTQIA+ shelters per province, solely for members of this group? She understood that she may be critiqued on that suggestion because they spoke of being united and not separated or divided in shelters, but it seemed to be the only way to start. Individual LGBTQIA+ shelters could deal specifically with the LGBTQIA+ community and have resources that were dedicated to skills development and psychological assistance, and helping victims to get back on their feet. Would the CGE consider including this proposition in their recommendations, to ensure that there were safe spaces for the LGBTQIA+?

What was the status of the Department of Health's (DOH's) development of a training manual to manage nurses and doctors on survivors of rape and sexual violence? What was the update around the collaboration between SAPS and UN Women on the training manuals, where SAPS had not heard back from UN Women? Was it necessary for SAPS to wait on the UN to actually implement the training manuals? The presentation had mentioned that because of Covid-19, a lot of things had come to a halt. Ms Sharif noted that the regulations had been easing and the country had been at level one for quite some time, so what was the update regarding the commencement of training the SAPS? Why did SAPS have to wait for Covid-19 regulations to relax when in fact training should have been happening already, considering everyone had become accustomed to Zoom. GBV was such a massive concern in the country that the fact that training had not commenced was a real issue, and the CGE must get more answers from SAPS.

She requested an update on the progress of further education and training (FET) colleges in terms of skills development.

She was concerned that during Covid-19, many women were turned away from shelters because of the regulations, and she had previously raised this concern in the Committee. She hoped that the Commission would include this issue in their report, and requested a follow-up from the CGE. This situation was simply unacceptable, especially considering that survivors and victims had nowhere to go and had to stay with their abusers during the pandemic.

The Chairperson said she thought the report would capture the issue of the families with children that were placed in shelters. Some of the children had passed matric and were due to apply to universities. Some had already applied to the universities. When they applied for National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) support it became difficult for them to be approved and their applications were being declined because according to the requirements of NSFAS, the salary bracket of the families were at a certain level. When they were placed at the shelters, they encountered a problem whereby the fathers may be in the disqualified brackets. This situation led to children being disadvantaged for the sake of being in a place of safety. She had been approached by some women who were in those shelters and were experiencing those problems. As the CGE was doing their visits, did they encounter such problems and challenges? If so, what recommendations did it have to the Committee? She said the Department of Higher Education (DHE) should be aware of these situations, as the system was designed in such a way that it did not account for those circumstances, and there had been an outcry from women in those shelters. She had been uncertain as to how to deal with this issue when it was raised. Some parents had told her that their children were threatening to commit suicide. No one could find this okay, and as Members of Parliament, they needed to deal with this issue. She was certain that the CGE had come across these questions during their visits. The issue needed to be captured in the CGE’s report.

The CGE had made a recommendation to the DSD regarding the funding of the shelters. She asked whether the recommendations and policy document they had drafted were benefiting those NPO’s/NGO’s? Had they ever reviewed their document after their initial recommendation, because she was not sure whether the DSD had implemented the recommendations and would like an update on this? She emphasised that when recommendations were made, the CGE must come back and conduct an assessment on whether what they had proposed was workable and achievable, or whether there was a need for any improvement.

Ms A Hlongo (ANC) suggested the CGE should look at other sectors of the private sector because they had spoken only about Vodacom and Woolworths in their presentation. She asked whether they had conducted studies on other sectors such as mining, forestry and the farming industry, because she believed their transformation was far from happening and that wage differences were still a problem, especially between white women and black women. In mining industries, women were not present at all, and if you found one, it would be a white woman. She suggested that the CGE does transformation studies on those sectors.

The Chairperson asked whether the CGE had presented their report to the DSD and the DOH. It was important that when an investigation was being conducted, they rein in the relevant department so that they could deal with issues pertaining to them.

Ms T Masondo (ANC) referred to the first report and asked what progress had been made since the CGE last presented to the Committee on the report. What challenges had it experienced in the development of the report and with the implementation of the recommendations? What had the CGE proposed to Vodacom in its bid to create employment policies that were gender- neutral? The report had noted that COGTA had failed to demonstrate a commitment to transformation in its practices. The Department had submitted that due to constraints in the CoE budget, it had been unable to meet government-wide transformation targets by utilising the available vacant posts. How was this justifiable?

The Chairperson asked whether the CGE had presented the progress report on transformation in the public and private sector to the Department of Women, Youth and People with Disabilities (DWYPD) regarding its findings. The CGE had commented that gender transformation in the public and private sector was very slow. What was the CGE intending to do to make sure the implementation of its recommendations was being fast-tracked? Merely making a recommendation in the report that would not be implemented would be a fruitless exercise. It was important to come up with another strategy on how the Commission was going to ensure that the private and public sector implemented their strategy holistically and with speed because once it was not taken seriously, the Commission essentially did not have a policy that obliged entities to implement gender transformation at the expected rate. It was time that when things were not done according to the CGE’s findings and recommendations, there be a plan B on how it would be ensured that their recommendations were being taken seriously by everyone. She suggested having a team that would fast-track all these recommendations and check whether they were being considered or not.

CGE's response

Ms Mathebula agreed with Ms Hlongo’s suggestion that the CGE should look at other sectors such as mining, forestry and farming. The CGE had looked at gender transformation in the mining sector, but it was not yet conclusive. She acknowledged that the forestry and farming sectors were big industries that remained untransformed. The CGE would look at the mining report and see when the investigation had been done. While they did this, they would also be looking at the status of gender transformation in both small and big entities in the private sector, like they did with government. She committed to looking into other industries and entities that had not been explored in the coming financial year.

The CGE had engaged the DSD regarding minimum standards of services rendered in the shelters funded by the Department for victims of GBV and/or sexual crimes. One of those minimum standards was related to service delivery for victim empowerment. This was a 2004 minimum guideline. It looked at the quality and experience of living in a shelter, the physical environment, security measures, and processes and procedures to be followed concerning victim rights. The DSD had developed guidelines in terms of the provision of short-term interventions in the shelters, including the people who worked in them in terms of their training and capacity-building needs. It had looked at the intake sheets that should be standardised in all the shelters. It also looked at the types of accommodation for all types of victims, be it victims of GBV, children or members of the LGBTQIA+ community. It had a minimum guideline in terms of how victims should be accommodated. It had looked at security standards in the shelter, as well as the monitoring and oversight. These minimum standards were also looking at the monitoring and evaluation and the standard templates used to monitor and evaluate.

When it came to women and children, there was a 2013-2018 integrated programme and action plan to address victims. This was a DSD standardised programme for people admitted into the shelters. It looked at the programmes that victims should be able to access, like psycho-social support for women and access to schools for children. It also provided for responsibilities for the Department to ensure that these minimum standards were implemented in the shelters. There was quite a variety of these minimum standards, guidelines, programmes and policies that the Department had developed. The only challenge that they faced was whether these policies had been implemented in the various shelters that they visited.

Ms Mathebula was cut off from the meeting due to connectivity issues.

Ms Robertson took note of Ms Phiri’s comments regarding the provision of timelines and follow-ups of the transformation projects at the private entities. In the recommendations, timelines had been established between 2020 and 2021. When entities did not adhere to the timelines, the CGE had to follow up and demand adherence or the submission of information. The presentation on transformation in both the public and private entities contained the findings, recommendations and progress followed up on as of 31 March 2021. She acknowledged that the CGE needed to be stronger in terms of insisting on adherence to the timelines.

On privately owned shelters that engaged in illegal activities and did not adhere to legislation, the CGE had conducted an initial shelter study and produced a follow-up report, triggered by reports from these shelters. The CGE had followed up on these reports and made findings and recommendations which they had further followed up on, having been informed by the initial findings. The CGE was not aware of how prominent these issues were in shelters around the country, as the CGE had not investigated this. The CGE was looking at specific recommendations, but would also look into how prominent the issue was. At this stage, it could only speculate on how to approach the issue, but going forward, they would strategise on how to address it. Upon request by the Chairperson, it was clarified that this follow-up on illegal activities concerned privately-owned shelters, as they were not part of the particular recommendations that they had addressed.

In response to Ms Sharif on the issue of funding and transparency, the presentation had spoken about how the DSD had tried to address the issue of transparency, and one of the things they had said they were doing was publishing information about budgets and funding allocations. They had given the example of 200 social workers who were trained and placed. The situations varied in different provinces, so it was not an umbrella situation. Some provinces did not have the issues they had picked up on, but some did. However, the DSD was working on trying to be transparent around issues involving allocations. 

Concerning the marginalisation of members of the LGBTQIA+ in shelters, the CGE had picked up issues of silence in the policies and programmes provided. This also applied to people with disabilities. In some cases, there were no guidelines on how to treat certain people. She noted the Chairperson’s comment, but in terms of following up on the specific recommendations and what they were finding, their policies treated the issues like the playing field was level, and that was where the danger was when it came to mainstreaming designated groups. The progress report did not address where the NDOH was in terms of the NFP and GBV framework. She did not wish to speculate on progress on the issue.

Ms Robertson noted Ms Sharif’s concern regarding the lack of progress in the collaboration between SAPS and UN Women. In the presentation, certain findings had been highlighted, and these were the areas that the CGE had identified as needing follow-up. She highlighted that entities bore different duties, and when they collaborated, no one entity could hold all the other entities to account. This was where the CGE wanted to explore how they could assist and go beyond their mandate and provide support for these entities to develop sexual harassment policies and be capacitated to address substantive issues of gender. Multi-stakeholder interventions were needed because one entity could not address all these issues. For the CGE, while at some level the picture was gloomy, it was encouraging that at another level the picture looked good, as there had been some initiatives in response to the recommendations.

In response to the Chairperson’s concern about youth in the shelters, when the report was looked at, this particular issue was not evident. The CGE needed to explore these issues they were hearing about from Members who have picked them up during their visits in the communities in order to delve further to explore them. The CGE was not certain as to how prevalent the issues were. They were reluctant to give comments that were not informed by investigations. However they were being noted, as the Commission was at the planning stages, so some of these issues were issues that would be considered and prioritised as they planned towards the future.

Regarding the concern about slow transformation in the public and private sector, the CGE needed to intensify following up on the implementation of their recommendations as they had done with the presented studies and had targeted in their new APPs. The idea of multi-stakeholder interventions consisting of different duty bearers was key to implementing and identifying where the CGE needed to intervene as per their mandate.

Concerning the funding of the DSD, the Commission had talked about the review of the policy being submitted to the CGE, and whether the allocations were actually benefiting the intended beneficiaries. These were some of those issues that the CGE would be delving into further. They would also be monitoring the effectiveness of their recommendations of investigations in the sectors, depending on the responses of the implementation agents.

In addition to the comments by Ms Mathebula made in response to Ms Hlongo’s suggestion, Ms Robertson said she had seen a lot of reports in the CGE concerning the mining sector that also contained a lot of private companies and other public sector entities. What had come to a head were FNB and The Document Warehouse. The CGE had not covered each and every sector, but the idea was that one day they would cover all sectors and diversify, particularly because some of their investigations were informed by complaints that came from those sectors. She was glad that most of the CGE’s reports were on their website, including the mining investigation report.

Ms Mathebula apologised to the Committee for her internet connectivity issues.

Ms Masondo repeated her questions for Ms Robertson.

Ms Robertson said that the current progress report included follow-ups that had been done up to March 2021, and that the new reports that the CGE was releasing for 2021/22 would be comprehensive. For progress purposes, they had included them in this presentation, because the initial report had been done in 2019/20. As usual, final reports would be printed at the end of the year.

On the issue of COGTA, concerning the challenges the CGE had experienced with the implementation of their recommendations, the response from COGTA had been one of the classic challenges they encountered. When the CGE looked at the COGTA report, of the four entities in the report, three had responded fairly well except for COGTA. They had presented this report to the Portfolio Committee on Employment and Labour, and they had had their own recommendations, but the CGE acknowledged that COGTA needed some form of support. She acknowledged that the budget was not accommodative, but the CGE had seen that there were departments that had achieved more with a smaller budget.

As they researched and investigated, the CGE needed to ensure that their research findings were valid, particularly as they faced a situation where some shelter reports contained untruths. That was one of the challenges where they had to interrogate issues based on their initial questions to try and get to the truth. Although 100% of the truth could never be guaranteed, they could manage to get a picture of what was happening. She said that when she presented, she sometimes cited findings from 20 years ago just to show that the information was valid because the findings were still the same today. She acknowledged that obtaining valid information was a recurring challenge for the CGE as they conducted their investigations.

Regarding Vodacom’s gender policy interventions, the entity had been the most responsive in these investigations and their interventions were innovative. They had slogans and used all kinds of platforms to respond to the CGE’s recommendations. When it came to policy content, Woolworths had said they had got an expert to come and assist, and maybe that was one of the recommendations that the CGE needed to give to Vodacom if they had not already employed an expert. The CGE was unfortunately unable to provide the technical support to entities they were monitoring.

The Chairperson reminded Ms Robertson about Ms Masondo’s question regarding BEE compliance and what COGTA’s compliance had been insofar as BEE was concerned when it came to the issuing of tenders and outsourcing of work.

Ms Robertson responded that what remained to be done was to verify that what had been said was indeed happening, because the area of procurement and reaching remote areas instead of them having to settle for the R50 000 as far as procurement was concerned, was the nerve of economic transformation. There was a statement in the presentation that to ensure reaching the people in rural communities and enabling the local sourcing of services, this would be achieved through the decentralisation of procurement processes. This was a difficult area for the CGE to deliberately target the people who really need these services. Comments had been made inflating the competence of white industries and males over minority groups. Women, especially in rural areas, were restricted to catering for instance. The question, therefore, was what was going to be done about it? Were they going to allow for the status quo to prevail, or were things going to change? She asked this question to all duty bearers in the country. The response had not been satisfactory in this regard.

Ms Mathebula reiterated that the DSD guidelines would be shared with the Committee. The implementation of those guidelines in all the DSD-funded and partially funded shelters had not been the same. The CGE had conducted investigations into the mining sector insofar as gender transformation was concerned and would expand their scope to include other industries in the next financial year.

If any more questions were left unanswered, the CGE would look into following up via a written submission to the Committee. As they continued to engage the SAPS, the CGE would raise the concerns raised by the Committee. She expressed excitement that the Commission and the Committee would be going out to observe and do site visits with the SAPS, and that the concerns raised by Members would be raised together. On behalf of the Commission, she thanked the Committee for inviting the CGE to present the two most important reports.

The Chairperson thanked the members of the CGE for presenting to the Committee. It would provide follow-ups when it did its oversight visits on issues the CGE had raised and see whether the recommendations that had been made were being implemented. The Committee would provide the CGE with feedback. When the Committee was preparing their documents for their oversight visits, they would also include the feedback in the package.

On the issue of the private sector, it was an issue that had to be taken very seriously, and the CGE must not be afraid to go to other companies. She emphasised that when the private sector was not transformed, the people would not benefit, especially women and people with disabilities. The Committee was looking forward to other reports from the CGE and the legislation spoken about in previous meetings. This term must not end before they concluded on this. If there were any changes concerning the next meeting, she requested that the Committee be informed. She noted the three outstanding reports. Her network bandwidth was low so her final comments were unclear.

She thanked the Members and the CGE and apologised to those who were experiencing network issues.

The meeting was adjourned.