Gender Transformation in Tertiary institutions; Sex workers wellbeing: CGE briefing; BRRR

Meeting report

The Chairperson welcomed members and immediately requested the researcher to take the Committee through the draft Budgetary Review and Recommendations Report (BRRR).

Women in the Presidency Budgetary Review and Recommendations Report (BRRR)
Ms Crystal Levendale, Committee researcher said she would only focus on the observations and recommendations.

Ms G Tseke (ANC) requested that the Committee’s view on the Department of Women (DoW) sanitary dignity framework versus the sanitary dignity policy be added.

She asked whether reasons for performance bonus payments for senior members of staff (SMS) had been omitted in the Annual Report (AR) of DoW or the draft BRRR of the Committee.

Ms Levendale replied that it was the AR.

Ms Tseke proposed that be noted under the recommendations.

She requested that an elaboration on the vacancy of the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) for a full financial year, be added to the draft BRRR as one of the causes of the underperformance by DoW.

She wanted to know what legislation the CGE had given input on.

Ms Levendale that the CGE AR had a list of laws it had given input on. The draft BRRR could include the list if the Committee so wanted.

Ms Tseke said she preferred that specification.

Ms D Robinson (DA) noted a grammatical error for correction.

She was further concerned that the Committee had been raising concerns through its recommendations consistently over the years and proposed that stronger language had to be used to give emphasis to the frustration the Committee had over the DoW’s underperformance and lack of direction.

Ms Levendale proposed that perhaps in the draft BRRR ‘requested’ could be substituted with ‘must’ in the recommendations.

Ms Robinson said the report backs from the DoW were quite vague and could be long winded and proposed that the Committee’s BRRR had to request point form reporting. 
She questioned the recommendation that the DoW had to use its top heavy structure more optimally; specifically on the basis that the sentence implied that the Committee legitimated the top heavy structure and that it could continue when in fact the structure had to be reworked.

Ms Tseke said the heaviness of the DoW structure was in programme 1: administration as programmes 2& 3 were the core mandates of the DoW and had no senior staff and therefore she wondered whether the entire structure was heavy or just programme one. The Monitoring and Evaluation (M& E) consultants had informed the Committee that post-skills audit that programme ,1 remained unchanged and the actual skills at DoW would not assist that Department achieve is targets as the skills match was misaligned 

Ms Robinson asked if one programme was top heavy, could the senior staff not be transferred to the other programmes to even out the whole structure.

Ms M Chueu (ANC) reminded the Committee that it had resolved to sit down with DoW to develop an appropriate strategy which would lead to an effective organogram.

Ms Tseke said the Committee had to recommend that it be invited to such a strategy by DoW to give input.

Ms P Bhengu-Kombe (ANC) proposed that the sentence include that not only was DoW to effectively use its top heavy structure but that had to be done exclusive of using consultants to achieve its goals as historically the Committee had found that some of the achievements had come about through contracting of consultants.

Ms Levendale responded that upon inquiry about the top heaviness of the structure the DoW had replied that its structure was similar to all other national departments. The challenge was not over saturation of programme 1 but that the other programmes had not been resourced adequately. The recommendation could be about programmes 2& 3 having to be strengthened by better capacity allocation.

Ms Robinson, although agreeing with the recommendation and sentiments of the Committee, asked whether strengthening of capacity through adding more people to the two core programmes of DoW would not increase the DoW’s salary bill. It seemed there would be too much money spent on people and little spent on work and output.

The Chairperson said the issue of the salary bill was a non-starter because the DoW seemed to have been uncertain about its own programmes, and the Committee was uncertain whether the DoW wanted to actually perform.

Ms Tseke said the Committee had to recommend that DoW had to develop a best practise policy to utilise resources with the office of the premiers in all provinces as it had no real footprint in provincial Governments.

Ms Chueu recalled that the Committee had resolved and recommended that the gender focal points by the Department of Public Services and Administration (DPSA) had to be in positions of power within all government departments such as, the offices of the Director’ General (DGs) and be linked to the DGs performance contract.

She recommended that the Committee request that 4 weeks before going for international forums to present reports on gender issues and after they had consulted with relevant stakeholders; the DoW had to report to Parliament.

Ms Tseke asked on outstanding responses and reports from DoW to the Committee, whether the Committee would table all its outstanding questions related to the Annual performance Plan (APP) and reports it remained awaiting from DoW or whether that had already been covered within the draft BRRR.

Ms Levendale replied that Ms Tseke’s concerns had been addressed.

Ms Robinson reminded the researcher that in all instances where ‘requests’ had been used, that had to be substituted with ‘must” in the draft BRRR.

Ms Tseke asked what could be recommended on ‘erratum’.

Ms Robinson replied that indeed ‘erratum’ had been used wrongly by the DoW because essentially DoW amended its APPs. The Committee could recommend use of ‘amendment’ when changes had been made.

Ms Tseke said possibly the Committee had to reject presentations of amended DoW plans without first consulting Parliament.

Ms Levendale read a recommendation already in the draft BRRR and proposed an extension to it seeking input from the Committee.

Ms Chueu recalled that at some stage the Committee had sought a joint meeting with Standing Committee on Appropriations and the Committee maintained that the strategy informed the APP and that the APP could not be changed without the Committee’s input. Therefore the Committee had to be resolute about refusing to allocate budgets to DoW if it maintained the trend of amending its plans without consulting the Committee.

Ms Tseke recalled that DoW had amended its implementation protocol for the Governments nine point plan to date and reduced targets to four instead of the whole nine targets.

Ms Levendale proposed that under unmet targets, the concerns around the nine point plan could be listed there.

The Chairperson recalled that the DoW to date had never told here when it would stop using consultants.

Ms Chueu said that DoW had been using consultants since its inception and the reasons given had been that the Department remained understaffed and without capacity.

Ms Robinson recalled the question the Committee had asked had related to monitoring and evaluation (M& E) where the DoW had replied that it did not have the requisite skills in-house hence it had to outsource the M& E function.

Ms Tseke said there already was a recommendation in the draft BRRR that spoke to use of consultants by the DoW. Additionally the Minister had been specific about permanence awards and salary bands where she had noted that awards had been given to staff that had been seconded from other Departments.

Ms Bhengu-Kombe moved for the adoption of the draft BRRR with the amendments.

The draft BRRR was adopted with amendments.  

Briefing by CGE
Ms Lulama Nare, Chairperson, CGE, greeted the Committee noting that CGE had been monitoring the Pastor Timothy Omotoso case as that the Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities (CRL) commercialisation of religion and abuse of
people’s belief systems in South Africa Report had involved pastor Omotoso in the previous 12 months. The legal representative of Pastor Omotoso had prompted the CGE to react and it had lodged a complaint with the General Council of the Bar of South Africa on the line of questioning Counsel Peter Daubermann had used when asking a witness how many centimetres she had been penetrated by the alleged rapist. Counsel Daubermann had applied for the judge to be removed from the litigation on the basis of bias. CGE had also written to the Chief Justice and Magistrates Commission on that issue as it had found that magistrate’s courts were not consistent in how they processed particular cases. An example was a case where the CGE was supporting the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) to finalise an old case where the defence attorney had asked a nine year old that during the rape event, when said nine year old had been five years at the time; whether the five year had been ‘wet’. The magistrate presiding over that case had not intervened as had occurred in the Pastor Omotoso case. That spoke to the inconsistency and prevalence of intrusive questions asked by defence attorneys, where some magistrates gave too much leeway during rape trials. The Gauteng Division Appeals Court had found that the line of questioning which had been allowed by that magistrate had amounted to secondary victimisation by the defence attorney. The Magistrates Commission had also been saying repeatedly to CGE that; as the CGE was reporting lenient magistrates towards lawyers, the CGE had to also contest the conduct of a particular magistrate at the court where that magistrate presided over cases. The Magistrates Commission could only intervene after the complainant had complained to the divisional court as well.

Discussion
Ms Chueu interjected that she was challenging lawyers to regulate themselves on the basis of human rights.

Mr M Dirks (ANC) was concerned that supporters of Pastor Omotoso, during the rape trial, were mostly women.

Ms C Majeke (UDM) asked if there was no way of changing the criminal procedure laws such that the perpetrator of an alleged crime had to prove his innocence instead of the victim being the one interrogated.

The Chairperson reminded the Committee that the Minister of Women, Ms Bathabile Dlamini, had addressed the issue raised by Ms Majeke that legislators had to delve deep into what gaps there were in the criminal justice system.

She felt that Counsel Dauberman’s conduct towards the judge in the Omotoso case had been quite racial. She was not surprised by the response from the Magistrates Commission as its apex leader Judge President Malesela Legodi had shown a dislike for women becoming senior magistrates.

Ms Chueu said in the church, because congregants were made up of women, when the authority of the church was questioned it would be women who would want to defend that authority, whilst there would be women questioning the same authority. That did not make the Omotoso’s defence legitimate because at the end of the day he had raped and he had to prove to the country, that he had not raped. Omotoso’s church actually was a cult more than a church.

Ms Nare submitted an apology for the absence of the CGE CEO at the meeting. During the 16 days of activism against women and child abuse, the CGE would be calling out patriarchy. The #TheTotalShutdown: Intersectional Women’s March against Gender Based Violence (GBV) that had taken place on 1 August 2018 had culminated in a gender summit from 1-2 November 2018 where the President of the Republic would be speaking, but the CGE had wished to engage the South African Police Services (SAPS) at that summit as well as it was the SAPS at the coal face and sometimes turned women away when they reported domestic abuse.

The CGE also had a challenge of commissioner terms ending and it was appealing that possibly the ad hoc Committee could start advertising those vacancies as commissioners would not be exiting the CGE at the same times.

The Chairperson asked Ms Bhengu-Kombe to update the Committee on the status of the Commissioners’ terms and the filling of the vacancies which would arise.

Ms Bhengu-Kombe said the management Committee (MANCO) had met with the chief whip of the ruling party where the contracts of the commissioners had been discussed. It had been raised that terms ending in the middle of an administration period of Parliament created problems and that had to be raised with the Speaker of Parliament.

Ms Tseke added that the Adhoc Committee on the Appointment of the CGE had already been established where she and Ms Chueu had been assigned and it would be electing its Chairperson soon where the process to deal with the issues raised by CGE. She requested that the issue be raised there as well.

The Chairperson said that the chief whip of the ruling party was to have met with President Cyril Ramaphosa around the final decision on closure of terms, as it affected the communities that were served by the commissioners.  There was a need for continuity and there had to be a standardised date and the Committee would be awaiting a report back on that meeting.

Ms Bhengu-Kombe added that it had also been raised that when a commissioner was willing to work another term, that be considered by the ad hoc Committee.

Ms Nare said the clarification from the Presidency would help as the Minister had written different letter from the Presidential minute which could result in irregular expenditure in future as some commissioners sat with a different note from the Presidential minute.

She said CGE would talk to decriminalisation of sex work and gender transformation at institutions of higher learning where CGE had held hearings with universities. Some of the universities had taken some of the recommendations from the CGE and effected them.

CGE briefing continued..
Ms Marissa Van Niekerk, Director: Legal, CGE, greeted the Committee and read through the presentation with the Committee.

CGE’s Position
The Commission’s position was that “adult prostitution” which was referred to as sex work” was not to be treated as criminal activity. That meant that no statute had to make sex work and related conduct such as providing premises to allow sex workers an opportunity to conduct their work as criminal. The CGE Position Paper (2013) had provided a comprehensive explanation for its recommendation on decriminalisation of sex work. The position had been based on a Human rights Approach which was in agreement with International Law.

Investigative report
The Women’s Legal Centre (WLC) had  lodged a complaint with the Commission on behalf of the Sex Worker Education and Advocacy Taskforce (SWEAT) regarding the dire need for the decriminalisation of sex work and in turn the release of the report by the SA Law Reform Commission (SALRC).
In the current antagonist legal framework, the CGE had been limited in its ambit to provide solution to the current violation of sex workers rights.
Albeit, CGE recommended the following:-
-SAPS convene sex work sensitisation workshops with the assistance from NGO’s to train its Station Commanders on the rights of sex workers and to refrain from human rights violations.
-The National Commissioner of SAPS to instruct all members to immediately  cease in arresting or following outreach workers for carrying out their work and to cease the harassment of outreach workers. This also extends to the confiscation of condoms from sex workers.

The CGE had been receiving calls from individual police stations that apart from the national roll-out plan of the sensitisation workshops and standard operating procedure (SOP) particular station commander required further support from CGE. The police station were in Sunnyside, Tshwane were CGE would participate as well.

Discussion
The Chairperson asked whether the Committee wanted to engage on the presentation before continuing onto the next one. 

Ms Chueu recalled that the Committee had resolved on the decriminalisation of sex work.

Ms Tseke interjected that the resolution had been at the multiparty women’s caucus rather than portfolio Committee as the CGE was presenting its report for the first time to the portfolio Committee.

Ms Chueu continued that the multiparty women’s caucus had resolved to support decriminalisation of sex work although the SALRC had had reservations about decriminalisation whilst SALRC were responsible for formulating the law on decriminalisation. The women’s caucus had allowed the SALRC to canvass and engage stakeholders further on its position to decriminalise or not. The Committee or the portfolio Committee on justice was amongst the Committees that had to table the law on decriminalization to the National Assembly.

The CGE had to present to the justice portfolio Committee the same presentation and note the support it had from the multiparty women’s caucus as well as the Committee to decriminalise sex work.

She asked whether the CGE could approach the Constitutional Court (ConCourt) to force Parliament to prioritise a law on decriminalisation of sex work.

Ms Nare replied that CGE could consider that as there was precedence where the ConCourt had assisted chapter 9 institutions although there was a monetary implication for that.

The Chairperson then requested CGE to present its second report.

Gender Transformation hearings at Institutions of Higher Learning report 2017/2018
Ms van Niekerk read with the Committee through the report.

Transformation Hearings
The CGE had conducted transformation hearings at institutions of higher learning since 2011. A total of 13 Universities had been called to appear before the Commission and account on compliance with the Employment Equality Act (EEA) and other gender related legislations. The universities were requested to complete a questionnaire and the responses were analysed and interrogated by the Commission. Both qualitative and quantitative research methodologies were applied during the assessment of information.

The CGE was concerned with the lack of a proper understanding of gender dynamics in the workplace accompanied by a slow pace of transformation. The aforementioned was symptomic of the low level of compliance with relevant labour legislation aimed at transformation more especially, the Employment Equity Act (EEA), Basic Condition of Employment Act (BCEA), Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (PEPUDA) and also applicable common law developments.

Purpose of the Hearings
The primary objectives of the hearings were to assess the impact of the employment equity legislation and to hold institutions of higher learning accountable for non-compliance and  to probe current internal policies, systems, programmes and relevant strategies put in place by the selected institutions to ensure effective gender transformation, including the challenges faced in achieving the transformation goals.
Furthermore the hearings had been used as a platform to bring to light the discrimination and risks experienced by women, people with disabilities and LGBTI persons across various sectors; and levels in the workplace as well as students.

Findings at UFS:
-Staff in management, academia and support services; revealed a picture of white males dominating the upper echelons, whilst African females are predominantly found in the lower and or administrative positions.
-Insufficient recruitment efforts to target under-represented designated groups;
-Minimal use of academic networks to identify new and established scholars from under-represented designated groups, both locally and internationally;
-Institutional culture of exclusion and intolerance that leads to high staff turnover in designated groups; Limited knowledge and skills in managing diversity

The Commission recommended:
-An increase in human and financial resources budgeted towards gender transformation, women’s issues and Persons with Disabilities (PWDs);
-Gender sensitization training, including Security Guards, must be rolled out across the 3 campuses;
-The UFS 101 programme must be reviewed so that gender, gender equality and gender transformation are integral parts thereof;
-UFS should utilise targeted recruitment pertaining to employing PWDs. 7% of employees at UFS should be PWDs; and
-The racial and gender composition of the Senate must be reviewed urgently as it may be one of the biggest hindrances to transformation.

Findings at UJ
-Safety on campus was a concerning issue, especially for students that resided off-campus because they were victims of robberies and sexual assaults.
-In creating a safe environment, the university has initiated the following measures to prevent and also deal with incidents of sexual violence on campus:
-Report Rape Campaign is communicated on a continuous basis via social media;
-Sexual assault victims are referred to local NetCare for anti-retrovirals, STDs, prevention for pregnancy medication;
-Counseling is provided through a 24-hour crisis line support;
-Cases involving students are being investigated via the student disciplinary division in Student Affairs. Workshops and specific programs aired on Campus radio are conducted to create awareness about rape culture, consent, drugs and alcohol usage

The Commission recommended:
- Introducing Key Performance Areas (KPA) targets for Departmental heads in recruiting PWDs.
-Addressing the wage gap in terms of gender and race.
-Initiate measures to address the need for a Childcare Facility.
-Introduce a plan to integrate Gender Focal Persons in the mentorship programmes for junior academics

 Findings of Stellenbosch University (SU)
-Top and senior management at SU was made up of 22 individuals; 73% of which were male; 77% are white. Of the six females in this tier, five are white females. The race and gender composition improved in levels lower than the professoriate.
-Management and academia was still dominated by one particular race, both male and female white persons; however, overall 56% of its staff members are women.
-The University placed various measures to address transformation and this included the SU Rector’s Strategic Personnel Fund and the NGAP of the Department of Higher Education and Training through which fourteen female staff members were appointed or promoted at SU. The Commission commended the establishment of the Task Team on Career Advancement of Women and the multipronged approached of programmes aimed at further training and mentoring of female academics.
-The University’s Equality Unit was well-funded and resourced to handle its mandate;
-Staff turnover has been linked to the institutional culture of the university, with new staff members finding the university unwelcoming and not accommodative to diverse cultures, religions and backgrounds

The Commission recommended:
-That a Culture Survey be conducted to better understand the prevailing environment in all faculties.
-To assist students by accrediting external residences for the purpose of National Student Financial Aid Scheme funding. It was noted that the availability, conditions and safety in residences are a contributory factor to sexual violence on campus.
-The University Equality Unit must be independent from the University when matters are reported

Discussion
The Chairperson asked whether the Committee had any points of clarity they required a response to.

Ms Tseke commended the CGE noting that the DoW could through sitting in on the hearings that the CGE had conducted to date learn quite a lot from it. What had been the role of the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) in terms of gender transformation at institutions of higher learning?

The Chairperson asked whether CGE would also give attention to basic education learners that were being victims of GBV.

Dr Wallace Mgoqi, Commissioner, CGE, replied that in all hearings CGE had had with universities DHET officials had been present at the insistence of CGE as DHET was a critical stakeholder. CGE certainly could investigate what DHET had done regarding gender transformation.

Ms Majeke asked whether the CGE had imposed a timeframe by when its recommendations to Stellenbosch University had to have been implemented by. Had the University of the Free State (UFS) produced a plan to address the recommendations made by CGE?

Ms Chueu had read a report that universities in the country had a high first year female intake where most dropped out. What were the statistics of those that proceeded to postgraduate studies? How many young women actually proceeded passed PhD level?

Ms Bhengu-Kombe asked whether as part of the hearings the CGE had found whether universities that had appeared before it had in-sourced housekeeping staff as that had been a burning issue during the fees must fall campaign. Had the hearings been across the board, including student leadership, senior and junior staff including those with disabilities?

Dr Mgoqi said originally the CGE had engaged the management of the universities only but the methodology changed when it became apparent how lacking the information would be. CGE had then engage first the other stakeholders, including works and students before engaging the management of the universities reported on.  

Ms Nare said an underlying common thread in the lack of transformation in universities was non-adherence or minimal adherence to employment equity (EE) policy. When CGE had inquired on this, the response was that universities would apply the policy as and when vacancies arose through retirement, passing on of senior staff members meaning that the recommendations of CGE would probably take time to bear fruit.

The CGE had also lobbied universities to have a key performance indicator (KPI) for the principal of a university on transformation as that would be measurable for CGE as well.

She said that CGE had not asked about in-sourcing of staff but the stakeholders engaged had elaborated on that issue to the extent that where university councils already had a contract in place, in-sourcing would be phased in towards the expiry of that contract.

The CGE also had heard that professorship depended on an independent Committee at universities which decided on the professoriate.

The DHET had an under capacitated transformation unit. Additionally CGE had found that Human Resources (HR) units sat quite far from the decision making structure in universities such that as HR being mandated to deal with the EE act could be overridden by the leadership of universities on EE. The CGE had also found juniorisation of the gender focal and transformation units even in the public sector to be a challenge.

Ms van Niekerk added that annually the CGE invited the DHET transformation unit to observe the transformation hearings that CGE conducted to enable DHET to get direct information. Some of the DHET employees had complained about challenges as Ms Nare had outlined above. In 2011 DHET had been the first Department that had been invited by CGE to the transformation hearings and DHET was one of the Departments CGE struggled to get to implement CGE recommendations.

Ms Nthabiseng Moleko, Commissioner, CGE, said from an educational perspective transformation for universities seemed to be focused on throughput mostly where the critical issue for CGE was that a lot of support mechanisms had to be in place for a student that entered as a first year to finish and exit by third year. In terms of attrition, entry numbers favoured women at universities but when looking at throughput, women dropped out even when they were absorbed in the labour practise. Because of discriminatory practises where she had written a chapter on women in science and technology in CGE’s report on women in blue collar work; there were far lower and disproportionate numbers of representativity in manufacturing, utilities, science and engineering related fields. The reason seemed to be that the work was not seem as women friendly such that no support was given even within faculties of universities where women’s capabilities were doubted. Across the universities that CGE had held hearings with; seeing women professor role models who taught and were of colour was rare and the response given was as Ms Nare had narrated above that universities used independent Committees to bestow professorship and the criteria used did not enable transformation.

Indeed next for the CGE was how to force the DHET to enforce its recommendations and how CGE would monitor implementation of said recommendations and what punitive mechanisms would be needed when there was no compliance with recommendations.
Requirements for professorships seemed to change depending on the individual and which university professoriate was deciding. Probably there had to be a standardisation of the PhD supervisor criteria because currently no one supervised the supervisor, if a supervisor was discriminatory and wanted to delay a student’s prospects of a doctorate that happened frequently with no consequences.

Ms Nare listed the universities whose transformation hearings were still to be reported on noting that CGE did do follow ups and probably with a stronger DHET transformation unit; that would help universities transform.

The CGE would be able to report on its work with the Department Basic Education (DBE) in its quarterly report to the Committee as CGE did have special projects with the Special Investigative Unit (SIU) which particular commissioners did. CGE had a report on its engagement with DBE and the South African Council of Educators (SACE). CGE were also investigating the SIU.

The CGE said that adherence with the EE Act was inbuilt but the Department of Labour (DoL) had to monitor how government was complying so that when departments were non-compliant they could be placed under the Directors-General (DG) review. If Departments failed to comply even under the review then the DoL had to litigate against non-compliant Departments. Currently the DoL was also failing to monitor effectively what was happening with implementation of the EE Act.  
 
Ms Nare reported that some of the CGE leadership were attending a forum in Bangui, Central African Republic (CAR) of the African Union (AU).

The Chairperson thanked CGE for briefing the Committee and applauded its work noting that it had to continue.

The meeting was adjourned.