Deputy Minister defends Employment Equity Act
Deputy Minister of Employment and Labour, Judith Nemadzinga-Tshabalala.
Image: GCIS
THE Employment Equity Act (EEA) was not introduced to create racial divides or quotas as alleged, and these narratives, which have been mainly driven by the DA, cannot go unchallenged, says Employment and Labour Deputy Minister Judith Nemadzinga-Tshabalala.
Among the reasons government had to intervene was because of the slow pace of transformation, particularly in the private sector, which may be attributed to self-regulation by employers.
'It is acknowledged that the slow pace of transformation is attributed to self-regulation of EE targets by the designated employers. As a result of self-regulation, the employers had all the powers in the 27 years of the EEA to set low meaningless EE targets, which they were able to recycle from one year to another or change at their discretion with no will and commitment to transform their workplaces,' said Nemadzinga-Tshabalala.
The deputy minister this week led a delegation from the department to brief the Portfolio Committee on the advancement of Employment Equity in South Africa.
The department explained the amendments of the EEA, draw their genesis in 2019, when the Department and Commission for Employment Equity (CEE) initiated sector engagements with the intention of the setting of sector EE targets to give impetus to workplace transformation. The Employment Equity Amendment Act No. 4 of 2022, came into effect on 1 January 2025.
The department said employers should be reviewing their reports for submissions and must therefore use the Amended EEA legislation to comply with the reporting requirements.
Last week, the DA argued before the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, that amendments to the EEA were replacing a context-sensitive approach where employers set their numerical targets for employment equity, with a rigid, one-size-fits-all system of minister-determined targets.
The DA said this violates Section 9 of the Constitution, which governs equality and affirmative action. While Section 9(2) permits affirmative action, it must be approached cautiously and not unduly infringe on dignity or establish absolute barriers, the party said.
The deputy minister outlined the importance of understanding that the EEA was not introduced to create racial divides or quotas as alleged - the purpose of the EEA is to achieve equality and equity in the workplace by promoting equal opportunities and fair treatment in employment through the elimination of unfair discrimination.
In addition, the EEA aims to implement affirmative action measures to redress the disadvantages in employment experienced by designated groups (black people; women; and persons with disabilities) to ensure equitable representation in all occupational levels in the workforce.
'The false narrative that the Government wants to take away jobs from the coloured and Indian population is a falsehood that must not go unchallenged. This is deliberately designed to create division within the country,' said Nemadzinga-Tshabalala.
Committee chairperson, Boyce Maneli emphasised the importance of redress to address the imbalances of the past, which were legislated and continue to linger, despite Government's efforts aimed at transformation.
'If you do not use the tools available at the disposal of the state to implement transformation, you will have a situation where people take matters into their own hands. Discrimination was legislated; therefore, you cannot leave the laws without redressing them,' said Maneli.
Nemadzinga-Tshabalala emphasised the need of the government to work with great speed to monitor the implementation of the various legislation.
'In light of all these challenges, Government cannot be expected to fold hands and allow the situation to be 'business as usual' when majority of our people are still being unfairly discriminated against and denied access to equal opportunities of employment due to their race, gender or their disability,' said Nemadzinga-Tshabalala.
Cape Times
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
an hour ago
- Daily Maverick
Judgment against Hlophe is an important step to protect the integrity of SA's legal system
You simply cannot keep Dr John Hlophe out of the news. This time he is at the receiving end of a judgment of a full bench of the Western Cape Division of the High Court which upheld applications by the Democratic Alliance, Freedom Under Law and Corruption Watch that the National Assembly had incorrectly appointed Hlophe as one of the six members of Parliament to serve on the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) in terms of section 178 (1) (h) of the Constitution. The judgment was penned by Judge Nobulawo Mbhele from the Free State, and judges Annali Basson and TP Mudau from the Gauteng Division of the High Court, all of whom were designated to hear this case given Hlophe's previous position as Judge President of the Western Cape Division of the High Court. The reader is reminded that after a 16-year protracted legal process costing the taxpayer approximately R10-million, the President removed Hlophe from office as a judge in terms of section 177 of the Constitution. The question, therefore, given his impeachment as a judge, arose as to whether the National Assembly (NA) could legally designate Hlophe as a member of the JSC. The first question of importance was whether the dispute was moot, as Hlophe had resigned from the JSC before this dispute was heard by the court. The court, however, held that the dispute remained live because 'any further designation process by the NA must take place with this court's guidance on whether the NA had a discretion to consider the fitness of the nominee for designation to the JSC in terms of s 178 (1) (h) of the Constitution' and whether it had acted lawfully when it designated Hlophe for appointment to the JSC. Hlophe had raised the argument, supported by the MK and EFF parties, that he was eminently qualified to serve on the JSC because he has a doctorate in law and had served as a judge and because the Constitution had not provided specific qualifications or criteria for a person designated to the JSC. The court accepted that section 178 (1) (h) of the Constitution does not specifically constrain the power of the National Assembly to designate a member to the JSC, other than to require that half of the designated members must be from opposition parties. However, that on its own did not suffice to give definitive content to the appointment process. As the court pointed out, the National Assembly must act rationally, meaning that its action must be rationally connected to the purpose for which a power is exercised. Further, section 165 (4) of the Constitution requires that the National Assembly must assist and protect the courts to ensure their independence and impartiality, dignity, accessibility and effectiveness. The judgment noted that public confidence in the judiciary's composition and its role in the administration of justice is vital. While the test of 'fit and proper' was not expressly included for appointing someone to the JSC, the court referred to a judgment by the Constitutional Court, Helen Suzman Foundation v the Judicial Service Commission (2018). In that judgment, the Constitutional Court placed considerable importance on ensuring that those entrusted with the responsibility of nominating and designating lawyers for membership of the judiciary must be suitably qualified to do so. The court warned that a rule that threatened the ability to appoint the best candidates for the judiciary 'would have serious consequences for the judiciary and consequently our constitutional democracy as a whole'. To have an impeached judge as a member of the JSC effectively means that the National Assembly had appointed someone who might have been formally eligible, but 'was not substantially suited for appointment to the JSC'. Improper exercise In appointing Hlophe to the JSC, the Western Cape Division of the High Court said, the National Assembly was 'required to consider whether [he was] suitable for appointment'. The NA did not exercise such discretion, and indeed mistakenly laboured under the impression that it did not even have such discretion. As a result, the designation of Hlophe without any proper consideration of his suitability was an improper exercise of a discretion possessed by the National Assembly to ensure that a designee to the JSC was 'fit and proper for the purpose of nominating judges'. What is also significant was the manner in which the full bench treated the reaction of Hlophe and his MK party to a previous order in which a full bench had granted an interim interdict restraining Hlophe from participating as a member of the JSC. The MK party had reacted by referring to the 'incompetent, irrational, absurd and blatantly political judgment of the Western Cape High Court, which is regrettable but not surprising'. Neither the MK party leader, Jacob Zuma, nor Hlophe, nor the MK party had publicly distanced themselves from the scandalising of the court. Accordingly, having found that the presence of an impeached judge prejudiced the JSC's ability to discharge its constitutional function, the full bench held that derogatory statements Hlophe made about the retired judge Azhar Cachalia, representing Freedom Under Law, justified a punitive cost order. Both Hlophe and the MK party were ordered to pay the applicants' costs on an attorney and client scale. The judgment is of extreme importance. It asserts the centrality of the JSC to the integrity and legitimacy of the judiciary and the need to ensure that members of the JSC are suitably qualified for purpose. The National Assembly is not there to act as a rubber stamp confirming a political party's wish. That an impeached judge could be held up as a person who could sit on the JSC and contribute to the appointment of judges only has to be stated to confirm the irrationality of the National Assembly's initial decision. The judgment also represents an important step by the judiciary to protect the integrity of the legal system against the kind of flagrant abuse which has characterised this sad Hlophe saga. Is it too much to hope that in the future, courts will protect the integrity and reputation of the judicial institution by ordering punitive costs when litigants or their legal representatives engage in flagrant contempt for the judiciary and its process? DM
Daily Maverick
an hour ago
- Daily Maverick
Mixed news at the pump: fuel levy rises while prices drop
The Western Cape High Court has dismissed the EFF's urgent bid to block a controversial fuel levy hike—just as fuel prices dip. From midnight, levies rise by 16c (petrol) and 15c (diesel), despite constitutional questions. It's a pump paradox: taxpayers pay more, but pump prices briefly fall. In a ruling handed down yesterday, Judge Nathan Erasmus found that the EFF's application lacked urgency and did not meet the legal threshold for interim relief. The court did not engage with the broader constitutional challenge itself, which the EFF had previously framed in its initial filing as a possible Part B of its legal strategy. A tax fight rooted in Budget 3.0 The levy increase was announced in Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana's revised Budget 3.0, tabled in May following the political fallout and eventual withdrawal of VAT hikes in earlier budget versions. Treasury estimates the fuel levy will raise about R4-billion in the 2025/26 fiscal year. The EFF has argued that the use of Section 48(1) of the Customs and Excise Act to implement the fuel levy increase amounts to an unconstitutional bypassing of Parliament. Section 77 of the Constitution requires that all new taxes be passed via a money Bill through the National Assembly. Arguments on constitutional compliance Representing the EFF, Advocate Mfesane Ka-Siboto told the court: 'The fact that this has happened before does not make it lawful. Past practice is not a substitute for constitutional compliance.' He described the move as a case of 'taxation without representation.' The Treasury, represented by Advocate Kameel Premhid, countered that Section 48(1) had long been used lawfully to adjust fuel levy schedules. He argued the measure was an administrative amendment within an existing framework, not the introduction of a new tax requiring legislative approval. What this means for you For consumers, the fuel levy increase translates into higher petrol and diesel prices at the pump, effective immediately. This could lead to broader knock-on effects on transport costs, food prices and inflation, particularly for lower-income households who spend a greater share of their income on fuel-linked expenses. Treasury maintains the hike is necessary to address fiscal gaps left by the abandoned VAT proposal. The fuel levy increase will be offset by a decrease in fuel prices – which also kicks in on Wednesday, 4 June. The Department of Minerals and Petroleum Resources (DMPR) announced the following price decreases yesterday: Petrol 93 (ULP & LRP): ⬇️5cents/litre. Petrol 95 (ULP & LRP): ⬇️5 cents/litre. Diesel (0.05% sulphur): ⬇️ 36.9 cents/litre. Diesel (0.005% sulphur): ⬇️36.9 cents/litre. Commenting on the changes, the DMPR noted that over the last month, there has been a decrease in the average Brent Crude oil price from US$66.40 to US$63.95, largely on the back of continued global trade uncertainty, Parliament distances itself from the damage Parliament, which was cited in the court papers, but not the target of any relief, issued a brief statement after the judgment: 'Although cited in the application, no relief was sought against Parliament. Parliament's position throughout the proceedings was to abide by the outcome of the court process. Accordingly, Parliament will comply with the court's ruling.' Oversight loophole or legal mechanism? In its legal representations, Treasury has argued that Section 48(6) of the Act ensures Parliamentary oversight by requiring the amended tariff to be tabled after the fact. The EFF, however, contends this form of post-implementation tabling falls short of the constitutional threshold for public finance legislation. EFF's Part B remains unclear In a short statement on X after the ruling, the EFF said: 'We are committed to fighting the fuel levy increase in court and in Parliament.' However, the party did not explicitly confirm that it would pursue the Part B constitutional review. Whether the EFF returns to court or not, the broader legal and political debate over fiscal authority, oversight and the democratic control of taxation is likely to persist. DM
IOL News
10 hours ago
- IOL News
‘You call this leadership?': DA's Liam Jacobs grills SAFA president Danny Jordaan over travel expenses
Democratic Alliance's (DA) member of the portfolio committee on Department of Sports, Arts and Culture, has grilled SAFA president Danny Jordaan on whether he is a responsible leader, over costly travel expenses. Image: Facebook/Liam Jacobs Democratic Alliance (DA) MP and member of the portfolio committee on Sports, Arts and Culture, Liam Jacobs, who's known for his tough line of questioning, grilled SAFA President Danny Jordaan over his leadership and travel expenses. The clash occurred during a briefing on SAFA's 2023/24 annual report, which included audited financial statements and governance issues. Jacobs began his questioning by asking Jordaan, 'Do you believe in the concept of democracy? Can you please put your microphone on when you respond?' Jordaan replied, 'I'm a product of a struggle for democracy...' Jacobs continued, asking whether Jordaan respected the concept of democracy and if he understood the importance of term limits. Jordaan, who appeared caught off guard, said, 'You're asking me a question that is self-evident,' He added, 'I understand it. I was here as a member of Parliament.' Jacobs then pressed Jordaan on his long tenure as SAFA president. 'Are you aware that you are one of the longest-serving presidents of any football association on the planet?' Jordaan responded, 'It's not true,' prompting Jacobs to fire back, 'Twelve years, almost...' As tensions rose, Jordaan interjected, 'I'm still busy with my interrogation here... They must ask the questions and answer. Just order. Now he's engaging me now.' Committee Chairperson Joe McGluva intervened, urging members to allow questions to be asked and responses to follow in an orderly manner. Fellow committee member PA Marlon Daniels objected to Jacobs' conduct, particularly pointing his finger at Jordaan. 'What I witnessed here is not right. It is absolutely rude for a child to have that kind of conduct toward someone old enough to be his father,' Daniels said. McGluva then asked Jacobs to apologise for the gesture if it had occurred. 'I apologise for that,' Jacobs said. Daniels also withdrew the remark calling Jacobs a 'child.' 'I'm terribly sorry. I forgot I'm not at home where I deal with my children like that. So I withdrew...' Meanwhile, Jacobs continued with his line of questioning. 'Do you consider yourself a responsible leader?' Jordaan initially appeared hesitant but ultimately responded, 'The response was yes, Honourable Jacobs.' Jacobs then raised concerns over Jordaan's travel expenses, saying, 'In my hands, as I sit here, I have got something I know you don't think I have.' He mentioned trips, including a R131,000 trip to Ivory Coast and London, two visits to Qatar costing R56,000 and R31,000, and a trip to Vietnam for the Oceania Congress from September 29 to October 3, 2023.' 'What are we as South Africans doing in Vietnam at an Oceania Congress of an organisation that only has 13 members thousands of kilometres away?' Jacobs asked. He also mentioned trips to Cameroon for R105,574 and Morocco for R82,833, questioning the value of such spending amid SAFA's financial strain. However, Jordaan defended the Vietnam trip, saying it was related to South Africa's bid to host the FIFA Women's World Cup. 'You may know, or you may not know, that South Africa made a bid for hosting the Women's World Cup. The CEO was with me. Tumi Tlamini was with me,' Jordaan said. 'Do you have their costs there? Do you have their flight tickets there? This is a campaign.'
