Public Protector & Commission on Gender Equality Strategic Plans and Budgets 2006/07
NCOP Security and Justice
29 May 2006
Meeting Summary
A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.
Meeting report
SECURITY AND
CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS SELECT COMMITTEE
29 May 2006
PUBLIC PROTECTOR & COMMISSION ON GENDER EQUALITY STRATEGIC PLANS AND
BUDGETS 2006/07
Chairperson: Kgoshi L Mokoena (ANC) [Limpopo]
Documents handed out
Public Protector
Presentation on Strategic Plan 2006/7
Commission
on Gender Equality Presentation on Strategic Plan 2006/7
Commission on Gender
Equality Strategic Plan 2006/7 & Annexure
B
Commission on
Gender Equality Budget 2006/7
Commission on Gender Equality
Annual Report 2004/5 – parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10
SUMMARY
The Office of the Public Protector
and the Commission on Gender Equality(CGE) briefed the Committee on their
strategic plans and budgets for the current financial year. Members raised
concerns around the level of public awareness of the two institutions. The
Office of the Public Protector was asked to, amongst others,
explain the delays in resolving its cases, its poor representation in provinces
as well as its reported unauthorised spending during the 1999/2000 financial
year. The Committee was concerned that the CGE focussed on issues related to
the discrimination against women, while neglecting discrimination suffered by men.
The CGE explained that, with increased awareness, more and more men applied for
positions within the CGE. It emphasised however that, across the world, there
was a continued drive to give preference to women’s issues precisely because
women have been disadvantaged for such a long time. The process did not aim to
discriminate against men but to make the relationship between men and women
more equitable.
MINUTES
Office of the Public Protector briefing
Adv Lawrence Mushwana, the Public Protector, thanked
the Committee for the opportunity to address it on its strategic plan for
2006/7. He welcomed the invitation to address the NCOP for the first time since
taking office. He apologised for not providing hard copies of the presentation,
as he was only informed of today’s meeting on Friday. He pledged to provide the
documentation timeously in future. He stated that his
colleagues Ms Ponashego Mogaladi,
a Chief Investigator within the OPP, and Mr A Rampasath,
Chief Accounting Officer, would conduct the presentation after his introductory
remarks. He stated that the Office of the Public Protector (OPP) was growing,
and two new office buildings were being launched that week.
Mr Rampasath outlined the figures for the 2004/5
financial year, which had already been audited, the
2005/6 figures which were currently being audited and the strategic plan for
the 2006/7 financial year. He explained the structure of the OPP the five-year
budget overview, the strategic objectives for the 2004/5 financial year and the
OPP’s performance per programme. The strategic
objectives per programme for the 2005/6 financial years were outlined, as well
as the challenges facing the Office. He indicated the budget allocations and
the strategic objectives for the 2006/7 financial year as well as the OPP’s collaboration with other Chapter 9 institutions. He
concluded by stating that the OPP was committed to satisfying its
Constitutional mandate.
Adv Mushwana wanted to clarify that, if the media
were to be believed, the OPP only successfully investigated and concluded cases
and issues in which politicians were involved. The reality was that it dealt
with bread-and-butter issues. Thus allegations that the
Office was biased towards the ruling party was based on a misperception.
The Chair thanked the OPP for the valuable input that was prepared at such
short notice.
Discussion
Mr A Moseki (ANC North West) thanked the
delegation for the informative and empowering presentation, which the Committee
appreciated. He referred to a statement made during the presentation that the
OPP had inherited an officer from the North
West province, and sought clarity on that statement.
It led him to question whether the transformation that was expected to occur
actually did occur.
Adv Mushwana reminded the Committee that there was a North West ombudsman’s
office in the former Bophutatswana. At the moment the
staff were completely new. The officer in question had
retired. He admitted that there were still a few individuals who had been part
of the former Bophutatswana office, but they had been
‘revolutionised’ and that transformation has taken place. Most of the former Bophutatswana employees formed part of the new office’s
cleaning staff and thus had no effect on the activities of the office.
Mr Moseki noted that although there were regional
offices in the North West province, they were
in areas situated far from Mafikeng. He asked
whether the OPP had future plans to establish offices in other remote areas in
the province.
Adv Mushwana agreed that the OPP was not that well
represented in areas that were very vast. KwaZulu
Natal, for example, had only one office that was situated in Durban. The OPP approached National Treasury
for funds for regional offices. As part of a standing arrangement two offices
would be created annually. Now that there was an office in George, the OPP
could move into the Karoo regions next. He
explained that the OPP gathered statistics on how many people visited each
office, and could thus determine which areas needed more offices. The OPP was guided
by statistics gathered during visits to their 78 visiting ports. At the end of
each year National Treasury requested visitor figures to see whether opening
more such visiting ports would be viable. He admitted that this way of
gathering statistics was not working very well since even these ports were not
always easily accessible. In the Northern Cape
for example people had to travel for three days to get from Kimberley to Upington.
Mr Moseki noted that the outreach programme had
resulted in about 17 000 cases being reported. He requested greater clarity on
the areas in which the outreach programme was running.
Ms Mogaladi replied that she had a list of all the
clinics involved and how often they were visited. Zeerust
for example was visited once a month, where investigators worked from morning
until evening.
Mr Moseki suggested that in future the OPP should use
the political constituency offices in those areas where it had none of its own.
Adv Mushwana said that while the OPP had no problem
using those offices, his office took care not to be identified with any
particular party. The OPP preferred using their own offices and visiting
points.
The OPP did receive cases from constituencies but unfortunately those related
more to political bickering than to the OPP’s actual
focus, such as grant payouts, etc. He would love to handle cases relating to
children being refused access to education due too poverty, which violated the
Minister of Education’s directive. He was struggling to reach those people who really
needed help. He needed the assistance of the politicians in order to reach the
poorest of the poor.
Mr Fielding (DA Northern Cape) sought clarity on why it took so long before
reported cases were investigated. He said that at local government levels,
especially in the Northern Cape,
people ran from one position of employment to the next before they were brought
to justice.
Adv Mushwana said that he would need specific details
related to each of the cases being referred to. He had explained that a case
took two years to finalise. When he took office and tried to establish how long
it took to finalise cases, he realised that some had been under investigation
for more than two years. He agreed that his office, which was approached by the
public as a last resort, could not take two to three years to conclude an
investigation. It had to prioritise cases and, if cases were under
investigation for more than two years, a warning bell should sound.
The OPP’s 2006/7 strategic plan was aimed at ensuring
that cases should be finalised within two years or less. A few of the cases
before him now related to prisoners’ appeals for bail. Magistrates’ lost
records were critical in those investigations and his office had launched
systemic investigations into those cases. The Johannesburg offices specialised in those
cases. He admitted that it took much effort to finalise cases as speedily as
possible, but added that those cases that took longer than two years were
exceptions and not the norm.
Mr Le Roux (DA Eastern Cape) thanked the OPP for the presentation. He felt that
the Eastern Cape’s
failure to comply with a court order was very serious. He wanted to know how
far this matter has progressed.
Adv Mushwana said that the issue concerned Parliament
very gravely. He reported that fortunately the OPP had succeeded in ensuring
compliance. The OPP had followed up and the Eastern Cape now complied. He said that if
the legislators did not implement court decisions, South Africa would become a “banana
republic”. The OPP took up cases of non-compliance to ensure that this did not
happen.
Mr Le Roux wondered how big a role political interference played in the OPP,
and how seriously this interference affected the office’s work.
Adv Mushwana did not think that there was any such
interference. He said that it would be difficult for politicians to interfere
due to the vastness of the areas of the OPP’s work in
question.
Mr Le Roux asked the OPP to explain the statement in the presentation that
there was a lack of co-operation from certain municipalities.
Mr N Mack (ANC Western Cape) appreciated the good presentation. His biggest
concern related to the outreach programme. He said that he was sure that many
people did not know who the public protector was and that the workshops and clinics
did not reach the people who needed their help.
Adv Mushwana replied to the two questions by stating
that in his opinion democracy was not democracy unless government reached the
poorest of the poor. This was a challenge. Sometimes his office did not have
the much-needed finances to realise this goal.
He stated that Mr Mack’s statement that people did not know who the Public
Protector was, was not only true of people at
grassroots level. He said that the Commission on the Protection of Cultural, Religious
and Linguistic Rights referred to him as the “public prosecutor”
He explained that the OPP’s advocacy programme was
aimed at ensuring that all people were reached. He said that some
municipalities did not respond the OPP when requested to do so. This failure to
respond was in violation of the Public Protector Act, which required them to
co-operate with the OPP. Where resources were available the public protector
opted for direct visits that would expedite the process. He added that even
their investigative techniques needed to be changed. He admitted that sometimes
his office had been at fault for not using its powers to ensure co-operation.
He added that the Public Protector Act did not allow the OPP to subpoena people
and force them to provide information.
Mr Mack, commenting on the opening of an office in George, wondered which area
would best serve Beaufort West, which was approximately 300km from there. The
poorest of the poor came from the Central Karoo.
It appeared as though the OPP would again not be reaching the poor, and not be
delivering a service to them.
Adv Mushwana was aware that there were vast distances
between offices. He said that in the interim officials could, once a month,
visit constituency offices in those under-serviced areas. He assured the
Committee that his officials were well-trained lawyers. Government should not
look at political interest but should focus on their common goal of service
delivery.
Mr Mack noted that the OPP had made their submission in the presence of the
CGE, yet the presentation did not mention the OPP’s
gender equity programme. He wondered if the office had managed to reach its 2%
target as set by national government.
Adv Mushwana responded that the OPP was 100% gender
compliant.
Ms Mogaladi pointed out that at management level 66%
of officials were black (33% women, 33% men), 5% consisted of Indian men, while
white officials made up the remaining 29% (19% men, 10% women). She said that
the Public Protector had not met its target as far as disabled people were
concerned. At present only 1% of its staff component consisted of disabled
people. They were working towards meeting their targets.
Mr Mack noted that R3, 2 million that had been committed to the 2003/2004
financial year and was deferred to the 2004/2005 financial year. He wondered
whether this money was actually an amount that was rolled over.
Mr Rampasath confirmed that it was a roll over. He
said that there were delays in cementing the CMS (case management system),
which resulted in delayed funds. In addition the OPP was in the process of
moving to new offices. This move was no complete.
Mr Mack wondered whether the 72% of the OPP budget that went towards
compensation included salaries as well as travel and accommodation costs.
Adv Mushwana explained that salaries were now
referred to as compensation.
Mr Rampasath confirmed that salaries, benefits (e.g.
medical aid), training costs and performance bonuses were included under that
item.
Mr Mack said that the statistical overview had caught his eye. He noted that
the first slide indicated that in 2002/3 a total of 15 000 cases were received ,yet later the presentation indicated that 200 000
had been finalised. He wondered how this was possible.
Adv Mushwana explained that unresolved cases were
carried over to the next year. The OPP did finalise more cases than it
received. It could of course also be a typing error; and his office would look
into it.
Ms Mogaladi pointed out that the strategic overview
for the period from 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005 indicated the number of cases
that had been rolled over because the OPP gave priority to older cases. The
accurate number was 2 000 and not 20 000.
Mr Mack said that the presentation indicated that the OPP would undertake to
reduce the number of cases that were older than two years. He wondered how long
it took to resolve cases, and wondered whether lack of evidence perhaps
contributed to the lengthy drawn out investigations.
Adv Mushwana explained that as he had indicated he
used to monitor cases on a bi-monthly basis. The latest figures indicated that
there were about 48 such cases at present. The OPP’s
strategic plan indicated that it took approximately 2 years to investigate a
case. The ones that took longer than two years were exceptions to the norm.
Mr D Worth (DA Free State) thanked the OPP for the presentation. The
presentation indicated that the OPP intended to reduce the number of cases
still under investigation by 70%. He wondered how many current cases were older
than two years.
Adv Mushwana explained that the OPP had problems with
its case management system. The case management system that the State
Information Technology Agency (SITA) had been requested to design had failed.
Mr Worth wondered how many OPP investigations ended with no conclusive outcome.
Adv Mushwana said that it was impossible to arrive at
no precise outcome. Any complaint that was lodged with the OPP could either be
founded or unfounded. When he took office he had found files that had been
closed without any reports having been filed. He had corrected this error. He
pleaded with members to please alert the OPP of such cases.
Ms F Nyanda (ANC Mpumalanga) thanked the OPP for its
presentation and wondered where the two additional offices for which the
National Treasury had approved additional funding would be.
Adv Mushwana said that the number might be increased
to three in the event that two might prove to be insufficient.
Ms Nyanda wondered whether the 21 officials in the
Mpumalanga Department of Finance, who were being investigated, had been
suspended.
Adv Mushwana explained that those could only be
criminal cases, which could only be responded to by the National Prosecuting
Authority (NPA) and the Department of Justice and Constitutional Affairs. The
OPP dealt with delays and intervened if there were undue delays. In terms of Batho Pele matters had to be finalised as
soon as possible. He requested more details regarding those cases.
Ms Nyanda requested clarity on the reported
unauthorised expenditure for the 1999/2000 financial year that had been
approved by Parliament.
Adv Mushwana took pride in reporting that, since he
had been appointed, the Auditor-General had not reported any emphases of matter
on the OPP.
In March 1999 the OPP was suddenly asked to take over funding that had
originally been controlled by the North
West province. Contrary to the OPP’s
instruction there had been no consultation. As a result an estimated R4, 7
million was needed to maintain operational costs. The OPP then engaged with the
National Treasury via the provincial government of the North West in order to secure the
required funding. Unfortunately the OPP was unsuccessful in securing the
additional funding and was forced to overspend on their budget by R600 000.
This excess spending was motivated to Parliament’s Standing Committee on Public
Accounts (SCOPA) and was subsequently approved by Parliament. He said that the
unauthorised expenditure was not the result of mismanagement but resulted from
an action for which the OPP had not been consulted.
Ms Nyanda commented that the cases of the
councillors, who had been implicated in corruption charges and were suspended,
dragged on because some of them wanted ‘golden handshakes’.
Adv Mushwana said that if the OPP knew of such cases
it could gather more information. The OPP had to investigate cases that
compromised its mandate.
Mr Ntuli wondered whether the OPP needed people to
report when certain public servants failed to attend to the needs of the
public, and thus did not adhere to the Batho
Pele principles. He asked whether the OPP waited the public to report such
cases, or whether the OPP conducted random checks on its own.
Adv Mushwana explained that once the OPP received a
report of an irregularity it investigated it. Generally the OPP did not wait on
such reports but since the OPP had a staff complement of just over 220 people
and could not possibly be aware of all irregularities, it expected the public
to alert them of such cases. He again admitted that the OPP has not succeeded in
responding to all cases but assured the Committee that it was making inroads in
that regard.
Mr Ntuli wondered whether the OPP monitored
government departments’ spending patterns.
The Chairperson, aware that it was a sensitive question, asked whether the OPP
was sometimes pressurised to finalise cases in a particular way. He thought
that this was an important question especially since people thought that the
OPP focussed only on politicians. The 17 000 cases that resulted from the
awareness campaign indicated that this was obviously not the case. He agreed
with the statement made earlier by Mr Mack that the OPP needed to improve its
profile.
Adv Mushwana said that he did not know of any
political party in South
Africa that got involved in corruption; everyone
was fighting for the rights of all South Africans. It would be problematic if
the OPP, as a Chapter 9 institution, allowed itself to be influenced by
politicians. He stressed that individuals, not political parties, were corrupt.
All political parties said that they hated corruption. There was no reason for
the OPP to protect a person who was alleged to have done a disservice to the
country. He said that the OPP welcomed criticism as long as it was not
personal. He welcomed the lessons that could be learnt from criticism.
The Chairperson said that when people reported cases to any office of State
they expected to get a positive response. He was curious about how the OPP
evaluated whether a cases was worth investigating, or whether it would just be
a waste of time and the taxpayers’ money.
Adv Mushwana said that sometimes it was very
difficult to know, at first glance, whether or not a case would be
investigated. The OPP had, for example, received a complaint relating to the
Constitution 12th Amendment Bill regarding alleged non-compliance
with voting procedures. The OPP was under tremendous pressure to resolve the
matter, especially since some people had a vested interest in the matter. A
preliminary investigation was conducted. The OPP did not summarily reject cases
and did have an evaluation process that it followed.
Concluding remarks by Public Protector
Adv Mushwana thanked the Committee for its input and
said that it was clear that it was important for Members to speak on behalf of
their provinces and not their political parties. He said that the OPP would be
happy to prepare another presentation that could be interrogated in greater
detail.
Mr Worth thanked the OPP delegation on behalf of Committee for their valuable
input.
Commission on Gender Equality briefing
Introductory remarks by CGE Chairperson
Ms Joyce Piliko-Seroke, CGE Chairperson, thanked the
Committee for the opportunity to address it on its strategic plan and budget.
She introduced the delegation: Ms Chana Majake (CEO), Adv S Said (Head Legal Department), Mr Pieter
Scholtz (CFO), Dr M Waal (Head of Research), Ms C
Williams (PLO), Ms C Du Pont (Provincial Co-ordinator for Western Cape), Mr N Khosa (Legal Officer Western Cape) and Mr Mshanwane (Head PRO). She explained that the CGE did not
have any commissioners at the moment. Commissioners’ terms of office expired on
30 April and the process of filling vacancies had been delayed in Parliament.
Fortunately the posts were advertised that past weekend. Hopefully the
CGE would have its full compliment of commissioners by the end of June.
She pointed out that 2006 marked
the tenth anniversary of the CGE’s existence, and
represented a clear landmark in the history of the struggle of both women and
men for gender equality as well as for women’s rights within the society. She
said that the mass mobilisation and mass action taken by both men and women was
the cornerstone of South
Africa’s liberation struggle.
The year 2006 also saw the 50th anniversary of the Women’s March of 1956, as
well as the 10th anniversary of South
Africa’s Constitution. The CGE would
integrate these milestones in their celebratory activities.
In May 2005 the CGE joined the OPP and the Commission for Cultural, Religious
and Linguistic Rights at the Women’s Jail at Constitutional Hill in, Braamfontein, Johannesburg.
This was now the site of the CGE’s head office. This
move had sentimental value for the woman’s movement in South Africa.
It culminated and epitomised the struggle for freedom and liberation of women
in the spirit of reconciliation
Input by CEO
Ms Majake briefed the Committee on the CGE’s mandate and the legislation that governed it. The CGE
aimed to create a society that was free from gender discrimination and
promoted, protected, monitored and evaluated gender equality in all social
structures. The presentation detailed the Commission’s strategic objectives,
activities, structure and budget. It also gave an outline of the Commission’s
legal and public education and information services, its provincial and collaborative
work as well as a list of its donor organisations. The CGE was faced with a
number of diverse challenges including the gendered nature of HIV/Aids, lack of
national infrastructure and an inability to litigate in terms of the CGE Act.
The presentation concluded with a summary of the CGE’s
achievements and successes such as an improved maintenance system, increased
public awareness and the sensitisation of government departments towards
gender-related issues.
Discussion
Mr Ntuli thanked the CGE for their presentation. He
asked how the CGE interacted with the Standing Committee on Gender Equality in KwaZulu Natal. He also wondered whether other provinces had
such committees.
Adv Said reported that one of the points that had been raised during the CEO’s presentation indicated that the CGE very recently
employed legal officers in their provincial offices. Prior to this development
they only had provincial coordinators. Legal officers were mandated to work
with provincial Parliaments or legislatures. Thus far the CGE only had a
Parliamentary officer who was tasked with monitoring the national Parliament.
The provincial legal officers worked in the provincial legislatures to see how
they could make the relationship with standing committees or women caucuses
more effective.
This process had just been begun in KwaZulu-Natal
and the relationship was at the very early stages. The CGE planned to, in the
next year, improve relationships with other provinces
to ensure that all the provincial legislatures would have such standing
committees. Provincial legislatures had approached the CGE to ensure that their
regulations in relation to the Traditional Leadership and Governance Act were
gender sensitive.
Mr Ntuli requested the presenters to explain why
efforts towards gender equality were always biased towards females.
Ms Nyanda agreed and asked whether men reported cases
in which they were abused or harassed sexually, and whether these cases were
followed up.
Adv Said answered that the CGE did not receive as many complaints from men as
it did from women. It had, for example, received a complaint from a man who had
been physically abused at home and had approached the Department of Justice and
the Prosecution Services. When he wanted to report the matter officials had
laughed at him. There was also a case in which a person’s application for
custody was challenged despite him having been the better parent. She said that
the CGE did receive complaints from men but they were few and far between. If
cases were laughed at, one needed to increase the awareness around abuse.
Ms Nyanda asked whether the CGE had a relationship
with non- governmental organisations (NGO) and community based organisations
(CBO) and, if so, how it monitored the funds given to those sectors, especially
the ones involved in home based care.
Mr Worth wondered how many of the 25% maintenance based complaints the CGE
managed to resolve successfully.
Mr Fielding said women complained about receiving their child maintenance money
late. This was a common complaint across constituencies. Payouts were done once
a week and if they missed the “cut off time” (the they
had to return the following week. The women were poor and could not really
afford to travel the long distances to the pay points.
Adv Said responded to the three questions by explaining that people did not
always understand the Commission’s mandate. Most complaints were
maintenance-related. It appeared as though the CGE was seen as an extension of
the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, which was primarily
responsible for dealing with maintenance matters. She emphasised that the CGE’s functions were to monitor whether government systems
were working properly and to assist where necessary. The CGE was not an
executive arm of government.
The CGE had found that, until recently, there were no officials in the
Department of Justice and Constitutional Affairs who dealt with the regional
administration of justice. This meant that many complaints fell through the
gaps. Now there was a group within the Department of Justice and Constitutional
Affairs that dealt with the complaints by vulnerable persons, and the CGE was liasing with them.
The CGE was setting up legal officers with the regional heads of Department of
Justice in the provinces. Complaints could now be directed to provincial
offices. The officer in the Northern
Cape was very new and worked from the offices of the
Public Protector. The CGE now had its own fully-fledged office and worked with
the OPP as far as fieldwork was concerned.
Ms Piliko-Seroke added that collaboration, not only
in sharing resources but also as far as implementation of legislation, etc was
very important. In 2005 the CGE had published a report on the lack of
implementation of the Maintenance Act, which it shared with the Department of
Justice. She was happy to report that since that report was discussed, the
Department had a very forceful way of getting maintenance. The roadblocks over
the festive season, which were still continuing, had uncovered a large number
of people who had been evading their maintenance payments. The drive had
resulted in huge sums being paid because “men don’t want to be responsible for
their own children”. This was the kind of collaboration that was needed. The
need for such extreme measures was a “sad indication that men could only pay
towards their families” because they had been locked up.
Mr Worth noted that the financial resources slide showed that from 1998/1999
the CGE’s budget showed a gradual increase of about
R2 million per year up until 2004/5. In 2005/06 they requested R44 million, but
in 2006/07 there was a decrease to R39, 5 million. He understood that the
amounts allocated by National Treasury has also increased, but was curious as
to why the CGE’s requested amounts had not increased.
Mr Scholtz explained that the CGE has taken a more
conservative approach with regard to its budget. The CGE had realised that as
an organisation it could not manage such a significant increase. The CGE first
had to have proper systems in place so that they could use the funding
effectively. The CGE had thus over a three year period taken a more
conservative approach. By the end of the MTEF period the CGE would be better
equipped to handle their R45 million budget.
Mr Moseki believed that the CGE was doing very well,
especially as its main responsibility was to advocate gender equality within
the country. He wondered whether the CGE has developed a plan to address low
levels of female representation within the South African National Defence Force
(SANDF).
Dr De Waal responded that the CGE monitored Employment Equity plans in the
private sector and found that women still did not progress to high levels
appointment; large numbers of women were still appointed at lower levels. The
CGE monitored gender mainstreaming within government and did not focus on
Employment Equity exclusively. It looked at broader gender policies and
gendered budgeting amongst other things. This was done over many years and over
a range of provincial, national and local government departments.
Mr M Mzizi (IFP) asked whether the CGE interacted
with the Women’s Coalition and wondered whether there was any duplication of
functions between the two institutions.
Ms Majake said that the Women’s Coalition was like
any other NGO. The national gender machinery (NGM) was made up of partners.
NGOs and CBOs and the Office on the Status of Women
and Parliament’s Joint Monitoring Committee on the Improvement of the Quality
of Life and Status of Women were three of these partners. At one time the
Women’s Coalition was very active but at the moment it was treated like any
other NGO. It was however allowed to participate at NGM level.
The Chairperson asked whether the CGE had a mechanism in place to monitor
whether government departments had recruitment policies that discriminated
unfairly against women. He added that an equal representation of men and women
in politics was important. He wondered how many political parties adhered to
the objectives of the campaign to achieve equal representation.
Dr De Waal said that one should make allowance for some grey areas. Some
political parties admitted that they did not adhere to the 50/50 Campaign’s
requirements as such, but that they did qualify in some other way. So far only
two political parties had an equal number of men and women. She said that one
could witness the impact of the 50/5 Campaign during the recent local
government elections. The CGE was careful not to merely focus on numbers but to
also consider the level those women occupied within the political party. The
numbers were monitored before elections but there was also a continuous
campaign to get political parties to adopt gender mainstreaming. The CGE had
meetings with several parties over the past two years. It monitored parties’
documentation and especially their manifestos. Towards the end of 2005 the CGE
had met with all nine political parties to ensure that they were aware of
gender related issues.
The Chairperson requested then CGE to comment on the difference between sexual
harassment and courting. He said that what was considered “courting” in some
African cultures was lately referred to as sexual harassment.
Adv Said said that she would not link the two
concepts so closely. ‘Courting’ suggested an element of respect while sexual
harassment was far removed from that. Sexual harassment, simplistically
defined, demeaned people and eroded their dignity and self esteem. She
emphasised that she would be cautious in linking the two concepts too closely
because they had different underlying motives. She added that as more people
learnt that they should not be discriminated against the CGE received more
complaints. She felt that there were not enough policies in place that detailed
how to manage the problem of sexual harassment in the workplace. There was a
lack of sensitivity in dealing with grievances. She added that the CGE was
seeking a meeting with the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and
Arbitration (CCMA) because sexual harassment in the workplace was seen as only
a gender issue and should thus be addressed by the CGE, as opposed to such
complaints going via the CCMA.
Ms Piliko-Seroke said that courting, as it was done
in the past, was dignified and respectful and did not have undertones of gender
inequality. The treatment of women today aimed to undermine their self-esteem
and their dignity. This could not be compared to ‘courting’ as they knew it.
The CGE was trying to tackle some of those issues. It encouraged government to
entrench sexual harassment policies especially because many women did not
understand how it was defined.
Mr Mzizi wondered what had become of the man who had
once served on the CGE.
The Chairperson commented on the gap between the age at which men and women
could access old age pensions. Men qualified at age 65 while women qualified at
60. He suggested that perhaps the qualification age should be reduced for men.
The CGE should campaign for men as well as women.
Adv Said assured the Committee that the CGE campaigned for equality. The CGE
had intervened as an amicus in a matter that had appeared before the
High Court. A group of men in George in the Western Cape had lodged a complaint against
the Department of Social Development because they received their social grants
at an older age. There was no scientific support for men receiving their
pension grants later than women. The argument was that women suffered greater
discrimination. The CGE maintained that one could not cure the discrimination
suffered over those 60 years within a five-year period. She pointed out that
the impact of HIV/Aids resulted in older people having to head households. This
made it more difficult for women. The CGE wanted to see the age equalised at
60.
Ms Piliko-Seroke said that for many years since the
inception of the CGE it was perceived as being a women’s movement aimed at
empowering women and not men. The CGE’s first gender
opinion survey indicated that women themselves had a very low regard of
themselves because they had been socialised to believe that they were inferior
and subordinate to men. Due to those findings the CGE decided that, despite the
fact that they campaigned for the rights of men and women, for the first years
it would focus on the empowerment of women primarily. Initially women formed
the largest part of the CGE staff because they applied for the position,
whereas men did not think they could apply. Today more and more men were
applying for positions within the CGE. There had even been two male
commissioners. She pointed out that the public was responsible for nominating
candidates to the Commission, and they tended to nominate women. Due to the
highlighting of CGE programmes targeted at men, more and more men were now
being nominated.
Ms Majake added that South Africa was not the only
country that continued with the apparent bias towards women. Even the United
Nations reported that it would continue its bias in favour of women because
women had suffered such disadvantage. She drew a parallel between bias in
favour of women and Black Economic Empowerment. Advantaging black people in
order to address racial inequalities of the past was aimed at eventually
achieving equality and to uplift their status. The same applied to women. She
pointed out that one could not speak of fair competition when the competitors
were not equal.
The Chairperson wondered what the CGE’s take was on
female succession to the throne as far as traditional leadership was concerned.
Positions on the debate varied from tribe to tribe.
Adv Said stated that the CGE had also intervened as an amicus in such a
matter. The case came before the High Court two years earlier and was now
before the Supreme Court of Appeal. She said that whenever it came to
chieftainship in which the natural successor was a woman, the birthright was
contested. It was also a question of the community saying that it was not ready
for a woman chief. She reminded the Committee that the Constitutional framework
stated that women were equal to men and as such had an equal right to lead.
The meeting was adjourned.
Audio
No related
Documents
No related documents
Present
- We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting
Download as PDF
You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.
See detailed instructions for your browser here.