Commission on Gender Equality briefing
Monitoring Improvement of Quality of Life and Status of Women
14 September 2007
Meeting Summary
A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.
Meeting report
JOINT
MONITORING COMMITTEE ON THE IMPROVEMENT OF QUALITY OF LIFE AND THE STATUS OF
WOMEN
14 September
COMMISSION ON GENDER EQUALITY BRIEFING
Chairperson: Ms M
Morutoa (ANC)
Documents handed out:
No documents were handed out
Audio recording
of meeting
SUMMARY
The Commission on Gender Equality had asked for a meeting with the
Committee, so that the Commission could forge stronger links with the
Committee, and try to use combined efforts to enhance strategic interventions.
The five focal points were outlined, and it was noted that a primary mandate
was to monitor legislation and check its impact on gender equality and the
status of women. Problems in this mandate arose since the Commission was not
informed in advance of legislation being drafted, was unable to make input at
the drafting stage, and found itself short of time to compile a full public
submission, as it needed to consult with other civil society groups and
individuals. It would like to be warned of forthcoming legislation in advance.
The second mandate involved ensuring that departments were streamlining gender
in their policies, but the problems here lay in departments inadequately
performing this function. The Commission was already investigating some of the
review indicators from the recent Review of the Chapter 9 institutions, and
would report back to this Committee. Members commented that this Committee also
was not advised of pending legislation in advance of its publication, cautioned
that the Committee and the Commission should not duplicate efforts nor overlap
functions, but agreed that monitoring was vital. Members asked what methods of
research were being used, the problems hampering its effective fulfillment of
mandate, how outreach was done, and how report-back to departments was made.
Members commented that it would be useful for the Commission to check whether
sufficient advocacy work was being done, and to look at training. It was
pointed out that the mandate already gave the Commission power to demand
information. Members suggested that a further workshop should also address
possible areas of overlap between the component parts of the gender machinery,
and seek to establish the precise role and function of the Commission and other
bodies. The question was posed whether oversight of the Commission belonged
more properly to this Committee or the Justice Portfolio Committee and it was
noted that this issue would be debated on 17 September.
MINUTES
Commission on Gender Equality (CGE) Briefing
The Chairperson began the meeting by apologizing on behalf of the members
who could not make it to the meeting due to the various reasons ranging from
being on sick leave, being sick and attending other committees.
Ms Joyce Piliso- Seroke, Chairperson, Commission on Gender Equality (CGE),
thanked the Committee for agreeing to meet with the Commission, and said that
the purpose of this meeting was to forge stronger links with the Joint
Monitoring Committee (JMC) to try to achieve combined efforts in strategic
interventions. She wished formally to introduce the two new Commissioners, Ms
Roshieda Shabodien and Ms Janine Hicks,
and the new Provincial Coordinator, Ms Nolitha Mazwai.
Ms Piliso-Seroke informed the Committee that the CGE had five focal points to
help it fulfill the mandate, being Gender and Poverty, Democracy and Good
Governance, Gender and HIV/AIDS, Culture and Tradition and Religion and Gender
based violence.
Ms Janine Hicks, Commissioner, CGE could not emphasize enough the importance of
this meeting, and the need to begin a process of dialogue between the Committee
and Commission.
Ms Hicks noted that one of the mandates under Section 11 of the CGE Act was to
monitor legislation before parliament, to check its impact upon gender equality
and the status of woman. A major concern was that the CGE would normally learn
of pending legislation only after it had been published and the three-week
cycle for comment was often too short for the CGE to have effective influence.
The influence would be far better used in the formative period of the
legislation. It would be useful if CGE could be warned by the JMC of any
legislation in the loop, so that CGE could make a head start and engage with
the limitations of the legislation in its drafting stage.
The second monitoring mandate was around ensuring that departments were
streamlining gender in their policies. This was being inadequately pursued. CGE
wished to share their findings and the obstacles in order to be able to bring
about joint strategies to address the issue.
Discussion
The Chairperson commented that even though the Committee was part of
the gender machinery she was of the opinion that the Executive was the arm of
government that could most effectively help the CGE. The Committee had its own
mandate, and she was not sure how the JMC could assist the CGE in getting a
head-start on legislation when the Committee itself did not have a legislation
monitor. She cautioned that the two bodies should not allow their mandates to overlap.
Ms Piliso-Seroke replied, on the point of duplication, that such meetings were
crucial in that they could identify what were possible areas of duplication,
and what were areas of collaboration. This would in turn assist the CGE in
envisaging its mandate.
Ms S Rajbally (MF) commented that their issue about monitoring was crucial.
Several departments were sitting on monies allocated instead of using it
properly to bring about gender equality. She wholeheartedly agreed that in this
area there must be collaboration between the JMC and the CGE.
Mr F Maserumule (ANC) applauded their initiative to come and interact with the
Committee. He then asked what methods of research CGE was using and what was
the main focus area of the research.
Ms Hicks replied that on the point of methodology CGE conceded that the
starting point should be the departments themselves. She wanted to inform the
Committee of the combination of policies CGE wanted to use. In its democracy
and good governance committee CGE had created a sample of departments and
municipalities and had monitored how they implemented gender equality and
improvement of women policies and legislation. Data collection was ongoing. The
other strategy CGE was looking to use was to monitor the impact of the legislation
on women by going directly to the women, in collaboration with the civil and
church societies. On the one hand CGE was concerned with policy input, and on
the other measuring the impact of the legislation and initiatives on the target
audience. Part of the advocacy work was bringing these pieces together.
Ms F Maserumule asked what problems CGE was encountering that hampered the
effective implementation of its mandate
Ms Piliso-Seroke replied that CGE was firstly concerned that it would receive
legislation only once it had been drafted, because before a proper CGE
submission could be put together, information was needed from the various civil
societies and the communities. Sometimes by the time this process was done it
would be too late to influence the legislation effectively. If the JMC was
unable to inform CGE of the proposed legislation, then the gender focal points
could perhaps advise the Office on the Status of Women (OSW), which in turn
could inform the CGE.
Ms D Morobi (ANC) asked how CGE was conducting its outreach to provinces,
especially to the rural woman.
Ms Piliso-Seroke replied that CGE had embarked on an exciting Civil Society
Advocacy Programme, where it was working into reaching the rural areas. The
programme was initiated by the European Union and it identified three areas to
begin the outreach work, in Limpopo, Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal. The
outreach would not only encompass establishing offices in the area, but also
reaching the heart of the rural areas by using mobile centres. She said that in
the next meeting she would fully divulge the plans for this programme.
Ms B Ntuli (ANC) said that she wanted to reiterate Mr Maserumule’s question,
asking at which stage the Commission went back to the departments to ensure
that they were implementing the legislation and policies.
Ms Hicks replied that after looking at the policy implementation and noting its
impact on women, CGE would go back to
the departments and point out the shortfalls in their legislation and policies.
The Chairperson told the CGE that they were free to submit any research to the
Committee.
The Chairperson remarked that it would be useful to hold a large workshop and
look at whether CGE was doing enough advocacy work. Additionally it should look
at how it was training the gender focal point personnel, and if the Executive perceived their task
with sufficient seriousness.
Ms M Meruti commented that this Committee was not part of the drafting of
legislation, and reiterated that the Committee was in the same situation as the
CGE. This Committee was further advocating for establishment of the OSW in
other provinces.
The Chairperson remarked that it was necessary to exercise caution over the
veracity of some information. She further commented that perhaps the name of
the Chairperson of a Committee should not be used to describe the report of
that Committee.
Ms Piliso-Seroke apologised for the reference to the ad hoc Committee
established to review the Chapter 9 institutions by the name of its Chairperson,
Prof Asmal. It had been customary in the past to refer to committees by the
name of the Chairperson.
Mr D Mabena (ANC) asked if CGE faced any challenges when they interacted with
previously disadvantaged people, who were mainly blacks, and if they had any
challenges especially in the rural areas.
The Chairperson asked if CGE was operating in all the provinces.
Ms Piliso-Seroke replied that she was happy to inform the Committee that the
CGE was fully operational in all the provinces, with the last two offices in
Mpumalanga and Gauteng opening last year. Currently it was working on filling
all the posts in these two provinces.
Mr Maserumule commented that CGE’s mandate gave it power to go and demand any
information it needed to carry out their work and he recommended that they
start doing this emphatically.
Ms Hicks replied that it had come out in the review process that the CGE was
not making full use of its powers. This was something the Commission was
presently dealing with, and would make use of in future. Its approach to the JMC was to explore
collaboration, realising that the two
bodies were seeking similar information in some respects. CGE could certainly
acquire the information they needed from the departments but enjoyed a
collaborative approach with their sisters in the gender machinery.
Ms Hicks added that the CGE had been conducting dialogue with the civil
societies but these plans were new interventions. She stressed that research
would encompass more than sending someone from the national office to go and
interact with the people. That was why she had said that CGE needed to work
with civil societies that already had knowledge, and were part and parcel of
the community. CGE also had provincial officers who knew the local culture and
people.
Ms Hicks then moved to a second short presentation, to bring the
Committee up to date on the review process. In 2006 there was a review process
conducted on the CGE by civil society. Recently there had been a review of all
Chapter 9 institutions by an ad hoc Committee appointed for this purpose. She
wanted to point out that CGE welcomed the reviews and had already established a
committee that was analysing all the review reports and assimilating some of
the recommendations made. At the moment CGE was synthesising the reviews and
would report back to the JMC on how CGE had tackled the weaknesses highlighted
in the review process, and the results. She also enquired when the JMC was
going to hand over the finalised report of the CGE assessments, so that CGE
could just make a single response to all the review comments.
Discussion
The Chairperson replied that this Committee was conducting any CGE
assessment.
Ms Piliso-Seroke formally introduced the Deputy Chairperson of the CGE, Dr
Tebogo Maitse, who would take over from Ms Piliso Seroke when she left the CGE
at the end of the month.
Ms Ntuli remarked that CGE needed to measure their work in terms of their
objectives, which were to make a better
life for women in South Africa. CGE must ask itself if it was meeting the aims.
Ms Hicks replied that CGE welcomed this suggestion of measuring the outcome
against objectives, as this showed CGE that it had a long way to go. However
she wanted to point out that it was unfair to put the weight of achieving
gender equality solely in the hands of the CGE. It was in fact only a part of
the gender machinery, and it had its own particular role and function to
fulfill.
Ms X Makasi (ANC) and Ms M Nxumalo (ANC) remarked that a workshop that detailed
how the gender machinery was going to work together, and clear up objectives so
as not to have overlaps, would be useful. Members agreed with this suggestion.
Ms Hicks replied that CGE welcomed the suggestion of a workshop and thought
that the starting point should be clarification of roles between the various
parts of the gender machinery, and joint reflection on the duplication and
collaborations of the respective roles.
The Chairperson remarked that CGE’s stance was giving the Committee great
hope.
Dr Tebogo Maitse commented that although the CGE welcomed the reviews, as these
gave an indication of what needed to be overhauled in the structure, the
measuring tools used were, in her opinion, questionable. It was impossible to
measure something without being able to compare it with anything else. The
suggestion had been made that the CGE should be subsumed in the South African
Human Rights Commission. Human Rights commissions were common to many countries
but the CGE was unique to South Africa. If a workshop was to be held, the CGE
would like to engage with this the JMC before any engagement with any other
stakeholder.
The Chairperson remarked that this was the reason why the JMC had decided not
to go into recommendations, as the Committee had its own views as to how the
reviews were conducted. She hoped that there would not be a retrograde move to
subsume the CGE into another body, especially in view of the fight people had
put up to ensure that gender equality became a reality.
Ms S Camerer (DA) asked if ever the CGE felt that that oversight should come
from this Committee, as opposed to the Justice Portfolio Committee.
Ms Piliso-Seroke replied that this was going to be deliberated at the plenary
sitting on 17 September. She did not wish to pre-empt the report, but stated
that the CGE would report to this Committee.
Ms Camerer remarked that the Justice Committee was partly responsible for the
late appointment of commissioners.
The Chairperson agreed with Ms Camerer. She added that it was unfair that the
CGE should be criticised for some of its work when for part of the time it had
not enjoyed a full complement of Commissioners to do the required work.
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.