Commission on Gender Equality and SA Human Rights Commission: Strategic Plan and Budgets 20008/9

Meeting report

Commission on Gender Equality (CGE) Strategic Plan and budget 2008/9
Ms Nomboniso Gasa, Chairperson: Commission on Gender Equality,  began by apologising that documents were not given to the Committee before the meeting. She added that the Commission was faced with many challenges at the moment. She also requested that the Committee consider setting another date for an additional meeting.

She outlined that the CGE was moving towards integration. The Ad hoc Committee on the review of the Chapter 9 institutions had identified institutional weakness and it had suggested that if these weaknesses could not be resolved then CGE might have to consider an amalgamation with the SA Human Rights Commission (SAHRC). If the CGE had had the opportunity to respond to the report, it would have been explained that the new commissioners themselves had already identified the weaknesses. The team represented deliberate attempts to integrate and improve.

The vision and mission of the Commission was outlined. Ms Gasa said that it was important that CGE try to link the different components of society. The key areas of the strategic plan focussed on an interdepartmental and cross-cutting approach, strengthening capacity for policy, legislative initiative and litigation, building people and organisational capacity and investing in human capacity and resources. In South Africa CGE was dealing with a conceptual framework. It could not speak to gender equality without dealing with poverty and other social issues.

Ms Janine Hicks, Commissioner: CGE, gave an outline of the thematic areas and programmes – including gender equality and poverty, gender based violence, democracy and good governance, gender, culture, religion and tradition and HIV/AIDS and the National Gender Machinery (NGM).. Each programme set out an objective, methodology and key performance areas. CGE had undertaken a completely different approach to the strategic plan. She focussed on case studies that the CGE had undertaken. All the work in the CGE had to be connected to the thematic areas. The format the strategic plan had taken had addressed several shortcomings that had been identified such as working in silos, not understanding the mandate and not making sufficient use of the substantive powers, and inadequate use of partnerships.

Rev Bafana Khumalo, Part-time Commissioner: CGE, gave a broad view of the budget. CGE continuously engaged with National Treasury, and had argued that in order to make a real impact in its work, the Commission had to have resources. CGE prioritised the budget with issues that could be pursued with the given allocations as well as engaging in an aggressive fundraising process. There were many funders that were willing to partner with CGE. The 2008/09 budget came to a total of R82 million across the six thematic areas. There were allocations given to provinces but head office was seen as a support to provinces.

Ms Gasa added that the Committee was aware that the Commission was graded below that of other commissions and they were in contact with the National Treasury to correct this discrepancy.

Adv Nomazotsho Memani-Balani, Part-time Commissioner: and Chairperson of Legal Committee, CGE,  gave a report on the suspension of the Chief Executive Officer. On 21 April 2008 the Chairperson of the CGE received a memorandum entitled: “A vote of no confidence on the CEO and senior management”. The content of the memorandum brought serious allegations against the CEO. The plenary of the commissioners took a decision to suspend the CEO. The commissioners decided to appoint an investigating team, which had then in turn appointed an independent commission composed of three lawyers. In the process they had written a letter to the Speaker of Parliament, the Chairperson of the Joint Monitoring Committee and the Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Justice to keep them advised.

Discussion
Mr A Moseki (ANC; North West) noted that the Commission had changed their position from fighting discrimination to fighting all forms of oppression and wanted to know why the radical change.

Ms Gasa replied that CGE had inherited an organisation that was incredibly weak and dysfunctional. Its finance management systems and control were poorly managed. She illustrated that last year in August, when the new commissioners came into the organisation, they believed that they had to declare that the organisation was in crisis. This was based on the fact that three heads of department and other incumbents had all resigned within the space of three months. They considered the option of approaching the Public Service Commission to advise of the crisis, and for the commissioners themselves to take over administrative duties. There were attempts to second some commissioners to assist as heads of departments and to work with management. Some commissioners declined the offers and the CEO claimed there was no crisis. The Chairperson argued that if there was no crisis then this did not explain why was there a problem of documentation management, so many people resigning, and numerous other problems.

The new commissioners had looked at the exit interviews of the CFO and he had said that in the September strategic plan he had already realised that there were unfair labour practices taking place. When such issues were raised, there was a problem, since management refused to accept that this was so, and the commissioners withdrew the offer to assist. It was important that the context be understood.

Another example of systematic problems was given. At the beginning of the year CGE had given a tender to an audit company without going through procurement processes. The commissioners had  asked the CEO if there was a contract with the audit company, and the CEO said there was not. Due process should have been followed. However, the matter was still outstanding, and the commissioners still had not been able to ascertain the extent of their obligations to the company. When the new commissioners entered the organisation they were paid above the limit of R494 000 per annum. The former Chairperson called the new commissioners and informed them that the Department of Justice (DoJ) had advised of the over payment. There was a suggestion then made that the money be returned to the DoJ and National Treasury. Furthermore the commissioners had discovered that the CEO had adjusted her salary and that of the former chairperson. All of  this led to an independent investigation process.

Mr Moseki asked what was envisioned in order that CGE make a maximum impact when working with the private sector. This seemed to be a difficult area. He asked if the CGE thought they could establish a multi-stakeholder forum that would assist in fighting all forms and levels of oppression.

Ms Hicks replied that their interest was in compliance with the equality legislative and policy framework. This was not something they could do on their own. However, CGE had a very particular mandate relating to Gender Equity compliance. Their starting point was that they wanted to engage thoroughly with employment equity reports, as they did not believe that companies were reporting accurately. In was only in the past year that the gender component was introduced to the reporting by companies. The multi-stakeholder approach was envisaged, as CGE wanted to work with  the Department of Labour in terms of looking at compliance. They began by looking at a sample of companies to address the gender compliance and systems in place, and the reporting, and would take the findings and bring in diverse stakeholders.

Ms Keketso Maema, Legal Researcher: CGE, replied that in terms of the Act CGE were empowered to monitor, to investigate and to promote gender equity. Their mandate was not restricted to the public sector but it included the private sector. This was the reason why dealing with the private sector was a priority.

Mr Khumalo added that it was becoming apparent that companies would prefer to pay a fine rather than comply with the Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) requirements. The CGE may need to look at more punitive measures.

Mr Moseki acknowledged the work done by the Commission. They were operating in a complex situation in terms of culture and traditions. There were values that were considered gender discriminatory and were found primarily in the rural areas. He wanted some information regarding the challenges CGE was encountering in dealing with traditional culture, particularly in the rural areas.

Mr Khumalo replied that the approach of the CGE was not one that stated that African culture was wrong. Their approach was to allow their cultures to grow and become part of the larger unity. In their orientation they worked on how best to approach traditional leaders. He added that Dr Abrahams in the Western Cape was in contact with the majority of the traditional leaders and worked closely with the Commission the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic communities (CRCRL).

Mr N Mack (ANC; Western Cape) noted that the challenge regarding gender was essentially based around the thinking of males. In this country there was a distinct social structure. In the presentation he had not seen any reference to a programme where the male social structure was addressed. Without this, he did not see the Commission going to the root of the problem.

Mr Khumalo replied that part of the issue was to create several platforms. There were a series of patriarchal practices in the country that seriously affected the power balance. The CGE had done work with men because they thought that it was imperative. It had to be seen in a broader context that aimed to create a community that treated both men and women with dignity. CGE did involve men in the programmes. CGE also had experienced some problems, for instance many men had complained that when they were abused and reported the matter to the police stations the police would find the situation humorous. The issue was to discover how to train the police to be totally gender-sensitive. It should also be noted that usually men did not go to the institutions that were intended to provide protection.

Mr Mack remarked that there was no information in the rural constituency offices to empower rural women. He wanted to know how their outreach campaigns were operated.

Ms Gasa replied that CGE had serious capacity issues. They only had one hundred staff members yet there were nine provinces. This affected their outreach programmes. They believed in both inter-dependence and independence and had no problem with commissioners assisting with management. Part of their outreach campaigns did work with communities. Some of their strategic plan would be reinforced as part of the organisational diagnosis.

Mr Mack was concerned by the amount allocated to provinces. He noted that the head office controlled the IT and salaries. He asked to what extent did the head office want to run all the procedures. Each province’s mandate would differ and their requirements would also be different.

Ms Memani-Balani replied that the CGE could not have an IT structure at all offices and therefore it was controlled at head office. They had an IT unit that provided maintenance, and service providers were sub-contracted to assist in provinces.

Ms Gasa added that the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) discouraged a centralised system that relied on one person who controlled everything. Since the new commissioners had arrived at the organisation in May 2007 they had raised issues of delegated authority and non-compliance with the PFMA. They were the first to suggest that control measures be put in place and that people were given authority. The situation was that the CFO was not a signatory. The commissioners were trying to deal with several issues simultaneously. Two weeks ago they discovered that Ms Du Pont, who had left Western Cape two years ago, was still a signatory in the Western Cape.

Mr Mack asked for clarification on the item of the budget that was allocated for entertainment.

Dr Yvette Abrahams, Commissioner, CGE, replied that as commissioner she was not aware that there was such a thing as an entertainment allowance.

Mr Mack noted that there were new commissioners and that the CEO had been suspended. He asked if the management systems were functioning. Furthermore he asked if there were investigations into other staff members as well as the CEO.

The Chairperson wanted to know if the CEO was the only person suspended or if there were others.

Ms Gasa replied that the CEO was the only person suspended. The level of instability had been such that there was only one senior level manager responsible, which was the CEO. The Chairperson had resigned. Ordinarily the commissioners would not have wanted to raise these issues at Parliament as they were in middle of their investigative process. The commissioners did not agree on what steps had to be taken, until they received a staff memorandum. It reflected poorly that there had been a need to suspend the CEO on the basis of a staff memorandum.

Mr M Mzizi (IFP; Gauteng) spoke of a joint monitoring committee on the improvement of life and status of women, and agreed with them and the parliamentary women’s caucus. They supported the women councillors to support them in doing their job and asked why were they singled out as they moved up to the executive level.

Mr Mzizi referred to their interdepartmental and cross cutting approach. The issues where men were being abused were ignored. He felt that the focus should be on both men and women so that they could build families with better values.

Mr Mzizi noted that the CGE was quite vocal about circumcision as well as virginity testing and yet it seemed as if there were not programmes in place.

Mr Khumalo replied that the section on Gender, Health and Religion had both male circumcision and female genital mutilation as a focus area. It was not true that the CGE was unbalanced in its approach.

Mr Mzizi asked if the Commission was aware of the Sexual Offences Act that spoke of enticement and the differences in the Western version of enticement versus the traditional dress. 

Mr Z Ntuli (ANC; Kwazulu-Natal) remarked that it was a double standard to say that enticement was different when it was done in the Western way. He asked how the CGE would differentiate between what was a cultural practice, and what was not.

The Chairperson commented that society had to undergo a mental mind shift in relation to the recent responses to the issues around how women behaved and dressed.

Mr Khumalo replied that it should be noted that during a case in the Equality Court one of the requirements was that the perpetrators had to apologise to the victim in open court. The challenge was really whether the police would be able to enforce the judgement.

Mr Mzizi referred to the key activities, which stated that the Commission had conducted a search around black economic empowerment (BEE) for black women, and gender equality, and had developed a gender code. He asked for evidence of this and what was envisioned by CGE to empower women.

Ms Hicks replied that the concern was just how broad was the base, what type of systems were in place, and whether these included black women-owned companies benefiting from the assistance. The CGE had to collect data.

Mr Ntuli asked about the compliance with judgements. He gave the example of the decision made in the T-Section case, with regard to women being able to wear trousers when they chose to, and men in the area openly declaring that they would defy the ruling. He asked what avenues did the CGE use when faced with this type of defiance.

Ms Hicks replied that the court order placed an obligation on the police and the municipality to ensure that the judgements were respected. The police had worked hard to ensure that the leadership of T-section had been informed of the court order. The policemen with whom the CGE was working with had set in place a men-for-change forum and was already working with the hostile leaders within that area on issues of gender equality. The police were obliged, in terms of the court order, to report to the CGE if they were aware of any discriminatory acts against women because of their attire in the area. 

Mr A Manyosi (ANC; Eastern Cape) started with the controversial doctrine of separation of power, saying that he believed a workshop should be held. He thought there was a vulgarisation of the notion of the independence of the Chapter Nine institutions. He wanted to know the extent of the prevalence of the notion of independence.

Mr Ntuli asked for specifics of offices in the provinces and how many offices there were.

Mr Manyosi thought that women in urban areas were relatively liberated and that the bulk of the work of the CGE was in the rural areas. He wanted to know the strategy to reach the majority of the people in the rural areas.

Ms Hicks replied that there were six staff members in the provincial offices. In every province there was a CGE office, with a provincial coordinator, a researcher, an educator, and a legal officer. There was one person tasked with education, another tasked with receiving complaints of discrimination, and finally one who was supposed to implement the research leg of their policy. An administrator supported the team. Their response was that they had strong networks within the provinces such as the civil society and government structures. Their approach was one of collaboration. CGE had to be strategic in terms of getting people informed. Technology was a useful tool in terms of making radio and television advertisements.

Dr Yvette Abrahams, National Commissioner: Poverty Committee: policy in Western Cape. CGE added that within the CGE there were representatives that came from backgrounds in the men's movement, gender separatist movement and the extreme womanist movement, and others. They resolved the contestation with a dual focus. CGE worked to strengthen women who were oppressed by their gender, race or class. They particularly focussed on black women from rural areas because of the number of disadvantages that they suffered. Their strategic plan for gender based violence included forming partnerships with civil societies, which had both women and mens’ organisations. In the Western Cape there was a programme that was run in the women's prison in Beaufort West that provided vital information by way of a programme. The provincial offices were considering continuing the programme in the new strategic plan. Unfortunately, given the staff of only six members, some areas would be missed.  In Khayelitsha there was hate crime against gays and lesbians. The CGE were part of the Triple Seven Alliance that strove to end violence against gays and lesbians. Through this alliance they were also monitoring two cases of gay murder in Vredendal and Muizenberg, and in neither case was had a suspect been apprehended. Part of their responsibility was to simply put pressure on the police to ensure that such crimes were not ignored.

Ms Tasneem Du Pont, Acting National Coordinator: CGE, replied that CGE was addressing the issues from provinces and was trying to collate those issues into a strategy that would hopefully be ready by 2 June. CGE wanted to roll out a new strategy that focussed on training people who could take that training further into the communities.

Ms Joan De Klerk, Commissioner, CGE, added that the focus would be on dialogue and training instead of workshops.

Ms Patricia Whittle, Committee researcher,  wanted to know if the CGE was considering the option of amalgamation with the Commission on Human Rights.

Ms Gasa replied that the CGE had serious problems with the report from the Ad hoc Committee and that she had not said that they were considering the amalgamation. The new commissioners had themselves identified the institutional weaknesses that the Ad hoc Committee report had identified. They had a situation where they had finally confirmed that two fraudulent cheques were signed against the CGE accounts. Given all the problems it was important to emphasise that the diagnostic process was an initiative of the new commissioners that was set up last year to try and help identify these issues.

Mr Abrahams added that the commissioners had prepared a response to the report from the Ad hoc committee. They were awaiting a date when they could present it to national Parliament.

Mr Mzizi noted that it seemed as if the Commission only litigated when it was necessary, and asked why was that so.

Ms Whittle wanted to know more about the powers that the CGE had in monitoring compliance.

Ms Maema replied that the CGE did have some litigation ongoing in Kwazulu-Natal, Western Cape and now recently in the Northern Province. CGE was always acting as a support system for the legal counsel. The CGE was also watching the Shia Moya case, and would provide a comment at the end of this case. In the Shilibane case CGE was not a party to the litigation. The CGE was glad that the Commission had litigation status and she added that this was a reason why CGE should be not be subsumed under any of the other Chapter 9 institutions.

Ms Whittle wanted to know what type of assistance was being given by the CGE to the victims of the xenophobic attacks and what type of assistance would be given at the CGE’s provincial offices.

Ms Gasa replied that in situations such as the recent xenophobic attacks it was impossible to begin to discuss gender equality or the promotion thereof. They did have a rapid response in Alexandria. They found that, although the police had tried, within the constraints of their resources, together with other law enforcement agencies, to quell the problem, they were overwhelmed. The CGE had attended along with the Human Rights Commission. The CGE was particularly interested in the situation of women in distress. They had found in Alexandria that there were several pregnant women and four women who were expecting to give birth very soon.. They had to enquire about the minimum standards that were part of normal humanitarian aid, such as hygiene issues. They were pleased to note that the men and women were separated because the women were truly distressed. When asked if the women wanted to continue being separated the women had stated that it was easier.

The CGE was in the process of developing a fact sheet that spoke to a whole range of issues, both humanitarian issues and children’s issues,  some of which went a little beyond their mandate. These matters were urgent. It was important to talk about the trauma that people were facing and to try and resolve it, while also trying to control a situation that seemed out of control.
She noted that there were many women who had witnessed their husband or close male relatives being bludgeoned. There were multiple traumas that people were facing. Women's bodies also continued to be the site of battle. Women were more exposed, and there were cases of women that had been raped. CGE had tried, with other partners, to report cases and requested that the Department of Justice and the Judiciary must find a way to ensure that these crimes were brought to trial soon. It was her belief that once people began to see the consequences of their actions it might assist in stopping the violence. There was a suggestion that special courts be set up to expedite the process. This was not a new idea, as there was already an arrangement in the country that if a tourist was mugged his or her case would be fast tracked. There was a challenge as some people suffered multiple traumas. The CGE was very active in the area.

Ms Whittle noted the view that staff had left because of the leadership and asked if the resignations that the CGE had experienced were because of this, and how soon it would be resolved.

Ms Hicks replied that vacancies below the level of senior management were to be filled immediately. The human resources manager had embarked upon a recruitment strategy and process to fill those vacancies. Through their organisational diagnostic process the commissioners had called for a halt in the filling of the senior management level positions. There was the assumption that the CEO might return to the organisation after the investigation, and that was indeed a possibility. However while she was out of office the commissioners could not fill the senior management structures. If a new CEO were appointed it would be the prerogative of that CEO to fill the senior management structures. The organisational diagnostic process needed to be completed to address issues of why there were people leaving the CGE. In the interim the commissioners had structured the management committee. They ensured that none of the portfolios were neglected.

The Chairperson informed the Committee that, to show how seriously the CGE was taking the xenophobic attacks, the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) had nominated Honourable Moseki to represent Parliament in Alexandria to speak to people in the affected areas.

The Chairperson asked how the CGE marketed themselves.

Ms Memani-Balani replied that CGE was moving to an integrated organisational model. There were many reviews on the CGE that showed that they were reactive. Based on those reviews the commissioners had embarked on a re-branding issue as well as the organisational diagnostic process. They were currently busy with policy models so that they could proactively engage media at both provincial and national levels. Their reports had been said to be of a quantitative nature.

Ms Malebo Boikanyo, Communications Officer: CGE, added that the media did not really engage with CGE because they did not have a full commission. The CGE Chairperson was more involved and the media statements were now made more readily available to the media. The CGE was revamping the website as a form of information.

The Chairperson noted that the CGE had raised a serious issue of human trafficking and asked what motivated people to perform this crime. Furthermore he asked what could be done to stop such behaviour.

Mr Khumalo replied that human trafficking was a challenging matter. He suggested that when they began their workshop the Committee should also attend. The International Organisation for Migration had given the CGE some chilling reports. They did know that 2010 FIFA World Cup had the potential to escalate human trafficking, as people would use the fact that there would be many people coming in and out of the country. The country needed to be ready and put mechanisms in place to ensure that this did not happen. In Cape Town the CGE had learned that people were travelling overseas to participate in such activities related to human trafficking.

The Chairperson asked what was the “secret account” and who authorised it. He suspected that the money was not used.

The Chairperson also asked how many stages did a cheque have to go through for full authorisation and signature.

Ms Gasa replied that the commissioners did not know about the secret account. They were not aware of the account since there was an issue of the separation of powers. She had to call a junior official from the finance department to obtain information. She also mentioned that the former Chairperson had not given a handover report of the eight years that she was in the CGE. The new commissioners had discovered three weeks ago that the former Chairperson was still a signatory to some of the CGE accounts. The CGE had a separate account. The finance department informed them that the separate account was opened as a back-up account to the main account. There were three accounts and one was closed because the internal auditors stated that having so many accounts was a risk to the organisation. The Commissioners were not saying that the matters was out of control but the time had come for them to become more in control.

The Chairperson thanked Ms Gasa for being frank and forthright. The Committee was very concerned since many people had the perception that this commission was failing.  

Mr Mack noted that the efficiency savings strategy was not part of the budget and furthermore asked how would the fuel increase affect their work.

Mr Ntuli asked if the CGE had the capacity to detect such laws that were discriminatory and prevent actions that were criminal. He asked if the Commission was reactionary or undertook education as a proactive measure.

Mr Manyosi mentioned the question of gender equality. He presented a hypothetical situation that if the President were to decide to release detainees with children, would this apply to mothers only, or would it be taken to include fathers, who were also responsible for children. This would illustrate whether there would truly be equality between the sexes.

Ms Whittle asked if the CGE thought that, with the restructuring of the Department of Justice, access for women to justice would be improved. She also asked about the relationship between CGE and Department of Justice. 

The Chairperson suggested that they should look into the arrangement of all the funds concentrated at the head office.

The Chairperson wanted the CGE’s spending trends per month.

The Chairperson asked how accurate was the asset register.

The Chairperson asked that those questions not answered here, as well as a full report on the measure planned to improve the systems, should be sent in writing to the Committee before 4 June. He also felt that it would be useful to have another meeting where they could also look at the Ad hoc review report.

South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC)  Strategic Plan briefing
Mr Jody Kollapen, Chairperson , SAHRC, gave an overview of the policy and commitment of the SAHRC and a brief introduction to the work.

Ms Judith Cohen, Parliamentary Officer: SAHRC, detailed the mission, objectives, outcomes and values of the Commission. She also outlined the legislative mandate, and tabled full details of the service delivery environment and improvement programme. She noted that the organisation was employee-based, and detailed the job evaluation systems, employment equity programmes and wellness plans, and human resource administration.

Ms Cohen then tabled the resource plan, containing the budget and projections. The budget for 2008/09 was a total of R60,6 million,

Section 2 of the document outlined the programmes, setting out the roles and functions of the commissioners and the Chief Executive Officer, the financial management, internal audit and monitoring and evaluation, corporate services, which included training programmes, legal services and research. The focus in programmes was further divided up in to economic and social rights, library and documentation, and equality. The interventions in parliamentary liaison and monitoring, and the SAHRC role in international and regional institutions and bodies was also outlined. It was noted that community outreach and advocacy formed a major part of the programme. Full details were contained in the written document placed before the Committee. 

Discussion
Mr Moseki commented on the small size of the organisation. Their work required them to be mobile. He asked if there was a plan in place to decentralise the Commission, and expand to provinces in order to reach the most vulnerable and disadvantaged. This would be largely in rural areas, and he feared that many of the abuses might not presently be brought to the Commission’s attention.

Mr Kollapen replied that SAHRC had not complained about the number of commissioners because they did not want to develop a reputation of being a “complaining commission”. When the Commission was started there were eleven commissioners, eight full-time and three part-time. The SAHRC was now down to four commissioners and one part-time commissioner. The Ad hoc Committee report attempted to deal with that. They did have offices in all the provinces. They had spoken to South African Local Government Association (SALGA), who had offered their offices as a visiting point. On the one hand it was a good suggestion, whilst on the other hand SAHRC might have to investigate complaints against the local authority themselves, and they did not wish the proximity of offices to discourage people from lodging complaints. Their proposal suggested that when a Commissioner was interviewed the interviewee should indicate which province they would be willing to invest in.

Mr Mack asked about the equality courts and the lack of cases, enquiring whether there were any people coming forward.

Mr Ntuli asked how many equality courts there were around the country.

Mr Kollapen agreed that there were serious problems in the equality courts. There were about 232 courts across the country. The Equality Act was probably the most important piece of legislation after 1994, but the number of cases had been very disappointing. The SAHRC had met with the lower court management committee, which consisted of chief magistrates of Randburg, Nelspruit, Mafikeng and Kokstad. The intervention would be at various levels. They would have to work more closely with DOJ to raise awareness of the courts, and the attitude of court personnel had to be adjusted. A challenge was that people were trained long ago and had now left because the period between the training and the Act being enforced was too long. In addition, transformation was sometimes not seen as an equality issue. It was a major challenge to make people familiar with their rights.

Mr Ntuli asked for an elaboration on the rights of the community to access the basic services, and the government's ability to provide these.

Mr Ntuli asked what the causes for the xenophobic attacks were, and why had these been sparked at this particular time.

Mr Kollapen replied that since 1994 the country had not sufficiently dealt with certain issues, including the influx of people other than South Africans. They had not questioned the treatment of the foreigners. There had also been a failure with the policy implementation of refugee law and asylum seekers. There was a blurring of the distinction between those who were illegal migrants, and those who were legal. There was not a positive reinforcement of those who contributed to the economic welfare of the country.

Mr Manyosi had observed that some of the staff were leaving the Commission. He asked about the recruitment and retention strategy and asked if the remuneration offered to staff compared favourably with other institutions or organs of state.

Mr Kollapen replied that a small institution should have to plan for staff losses, rather than try to avoid them. There were ceilings in such a small organisation. The SAHRC would have to recognise movement and make sure that there was a proper succession plan in place. The government departments recruited many people away from the Commission.

Ms Whittle asked if there was anything the Commission could do regarding the price fixing, and to ensure that benefits did reach the poor.

Mr Kollapen replied that when a fine was imposed for price fixing, it would be paid into the coffers of the State. There was no power to redistribute to the poor. After the fine was levied, the practical effect would be that the company fined would merely increase their prices to cover the loss. There was a need to discuss whether the market-led approach was the best course to follow. He thought the country simply allowed big businesses to do as they pleased and this led to further disillusionment of the poor.

Mr Manyosi concluded that the presentation proved that the Commission was committed to their work.

The Chairperson mentioned that any additional questions would be sent to the SAHRC for responses in writing.

The meeting was adj