Commission on Gender Equality: hearing
Meeting Summary
A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.
Meeting report
AD HOC COMMITTEE ON THE REVIEW OF STATE INSTITUTIONS
SUPPORTING CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY
2 March 2007
COMMISSION ON GENDER EQUALITY: HEARING
Chairperson: Prof A K Asmal (ANC)
Documents Handed Out:
Commission on Gender
Equality Response to the Ad Hoc Committee Review of Chapter 9 and Associated
Institutions
SUMMARY
The Committee posed a number of questions to the Commission on Gender Equality,
based on the submissions made in response to Committee questions. The
Chairperson expressed concern that the submissions lacked substance, and
particularly made no reference to the 2000 equality legislation. Further
concern was expressed over the seemingly limited interactions with other
institutions. The committee was also concerned that although CGE had raised a
number of problems it was experiencing, it did not appear to have fully utilised all its options, such as the sections of the
enabling legislation that gave it the right to approach Parliament or the
President to iron out any problems. CGE seemed not to fully comprehend its
mandate because it had not performed some of their functions that were clearly
outlined, such as instituting litigation on behalf of the public, and seemed to
be content with acting as amicus curiae.
Other questions related to the functioning of the CGE, the terms and conditions
on which the Commissioners acted, low staff morale, whether there was proper
financial management, the need to go on overseas conference, the effectiveness
and efficiency since it was trying to act without a full complement of
Commissioners, the adequacy of the research undertaken, the figures in the
financial statements for research and the mandate and role in legal
proceedings. Further questions addressed the value for money received from
staff, access to documents, whether any further powers were needed by way of
other legislation, the work done with NGOs, and the relationship with the House
of Traditional Leaders. The overlapping functions of the Office on the Status
of Women were outlined..An
explanation was given of the complaints process and monitoring, and the concept
of “advancing the rights of women” was discussed. CGE’s
view that there needed to be a separate Portfolio Committee for Chapter 9
institutions was debated. The declaration of interests and employment contracts
were questioned and the functioning of the equality courts was discussed.
Members expressed concern that the increased allocations would be lost in
administrative issues.
MINUTES
Commission on Gender Equality (CGE) : Submission
Ms Joyce Piliso Seroke,
Commissioner, CGE tabled a submission in which the CGE sought to respond to
specific questions asked by the Committee about the role and functioning of the
CGE. These questions had ranged from the vision and mission through to the
financial functioning. Although a 32 page document had been submitted, the
Chairperson was of the opinion that the submission was too general and noted
that the Committee would also be looking to the Annual Report and other
relevant documents.
Discussion
The Chairperson asked why some essential matters relating to the CGE
seemed not to have been referred to. For instance it referred briefly to the 1996
legislation but there was no reference to the 2000 equality legislation nor to the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair
Discrimination (PEPUDA) projects in their report. The legislation conferred
considerable power that included locus standi to
bring an action before the equality courts and to seek review
.
Ms Piliso-Seroke replied that the constitutional
mandate was guided by the CGE Act 39 of 1996. This provided their principle
guidelines and it spelt out their mandate, which was to promote, respect, protect
and develop gender equality. The Act also provided requirements as to how the
mandate must be carried out, which included monitoring, evaluation and
developing conduct .
The Chairperson asked why there was no reference to the Equality Act.
Ms Chana Majake CEO, CGE
replied that CGE was mindful of the Act and was working on how to make people
understand how the function of CGE was related to the Equality Act. She further
said that when the Act was introduced much of the work was the monitoring of
equality courts, checking if these were ready and well equipped.
The Chairperson remarked that when noting the mandate of the CGE, then the Equality Act was more significant than the 1996
legislation because it supplemented the 1996 Act and gave CGE the power to go
to court. This had not been mentioned.
Ms Majake replied that the basic premise for such
institutions as the CGE was the equality Clause 9 of the Constitution, since
equality was central to the CGE. In the response CGE focused on discrimination between
men and women, perhaps not mentioning equality specifically. However CGE would
of course see this legislation in the manner that the rest of the report had
been answered.
The Chairperson asked who was going to the New York convention, and why they
had to go to New York for something that was specific to South Africa.
Ms Piliso-Seroke replied that CGE had received an
invitation from the United Nations. Some of the issues that were going to be
dealt with included the girl child and the participation of men in gender
issues. The CGE, as part of the gender machinery, felt that together with the
other members, Office on the Status of Women (OSW) and the Joint Monitoring
Committee (JMC) it was useful to have a special workshop that was going to
outline and strengthen these bodies.
The Chairperson asked why the conference or workshop could not be held in KwaZulu – Natal or Kimberley.
Ms Piliso -Seroke replied
that this was for the benefit of the other mechanisms because South Africa was
regarded as an example of these mechanisms working in practice. Delegates would
primarily be going there to show case studies, what was being done and how
their work had been effected, and this could be seen as strengthening the CGE.
The Chairperson asked how the CGE was operating. The biggest problem was that
there were meetings with a structure that did not really exist. He asked then
asked how CGE was operating in practice, especially fulfilling the specific
requirements of the Act.
Ms Piliso-Seroke replied that the Chairperson was
correct that the terms of the previous commissioners had concluded last April.
She continued that the process of appointing new commissioners, with the
assistance of the National Assembly, was at an advanced stage. CGE had had nominations
sent out to parliament by the Department of Justice and interviews were
conducted. Since that process in parliament there was not a new crop of
commissioners. Despite this, business has been going on as usual. The CGE Act,
in section 4 (2), said that any vacancy in the Commission shall not affect the
validity or the proceedings or decisions of the Commission. Guided by this work
had continued, but additional work had been given to the CEO, Chairperson and
the team of senior management.
The Chairperson remarked that vacancy did not mean the total absence of a
Commission.
Ms Piliso-Seroke agreed that there were no
Commissioners. CGE had written to the President and asked why they still had no
Commissioners, noting that while they were waiting for the process to be finalised they would continue doing the work. This section
of the Act was also supported by the PMFA.
Ms M Monana, Legal Officer, CGE stated that the
President, in terms of section 5 of the CGE Act, had the prerogative, in
consultation with the commissioners, to appoint the part time commissioners.
One of the definitions in the PMFA Act defined executive authority, in relation
to a constitutional institution consisting of a body of persons, as the
Chairperson of the constitutional institutional, and the reference to a
constitutional institution with the same office bearer meant the incumbent of
the particular office. CGE understood the regulation to mean that the
Chairperson on her own, as the office bearer, would be
able to continue and exercise her discretion and decision-making as an office
bearer.
The Chairperson remarked that lawyers were inclined to give their own meaning.
He wondered how efficient a commission could be when effectively it was the
Chairperson. Moreover, there was a public statement to the effect that there
should have been an appointment in April last year. He asked if the Chairperson
or the CEO had publicly announced that this situation was not right.
Ms Piliso-Seroke replied that CGE was aware of the
fact that it was not efficient for any body to operate without the full body of
commissioners. CGE had written to the Speaker, the President and to the
Minister himself and had been referred to the Department of Justice but there
had been no response.
The Chairperson remarked that he was not aware that they had made any public
announcements to this effect and the Committee had to report back to the
parliament that there was an absence of commissioners.
Ms C Johnson (ANC) referred CGE to page 3 of the submissions. She informed CGE
that an article had been written that stated that the research the CGE
conducted was never backed up by substantial evidence or clear-cut policies.
The quality of the work was weak as it evidenced simplistic understanding of
gender and there was a lack of depth. She asked if their research was adequate.
Ms Piliso-Seroke replied that CGE had come a long way
from where they began with a staff of four people only to its present
complement of 90. Moreover, after the report on how it should operate the CGE
went though a restructuring process. Previously there was confusion because
research was under policy and research, which meant that CGE was not able to do
justice to research. Now there was a fully fledged research unit with an HOD
and a legal officer in all the nine provinces
The Chairperson asked what the R2 million for research was spent on.
Ms Majake replied that CGE utilised
research to get information on what was happening in terms of gender. This was
then used as a monitoring tool, helping CGE to deal with South Africans and
understand where they were in terms of their rights and their understanding.
The Chairperson then asked what CGE meant by research as he thought that this
was rather systematic enquiry.
Ms Majake replied that the kind of research CGE had
carried out had not amounted to R2 million, unless this included personnel. She
would have to check the books.
The Chairperson remarked that the report had referred to 17% research.
Ms Majake replied that the percentage was the
breakdown of expenditure by department, not as one specific research project.
The figure would also involve personnel and administrative costs.
Ms Johnson remarked that the Committee had received a submission from the
gender equity unit of the University of the Western Cape, which suggested that
the CGE had a vital role to play, but it only became involved in court
proceedings as an amicus curiae. It was argued that the CGE should
become more involved in litigation or even instigate litigation on behalf of
others in the equality courts. She asked if CGE viewed its mandate and role in
legal proceedings as a limited one.
Ms Piliso-Seroke replied that she did so.
Ms Monana added that in terms of Section 20 of PEPUDA
CGE had the ability to act, and Section 25 allowed CGE to litigate on behalf of
members of the public. This area was being looked into. There had never been a stage when CGE
actually litigated because most of the cases were either mediated or
conciliated, and CGE was looking forward to training legal personnel in that
respect.
Ms Majake added that the legal office was a new
office of slightly over a year's work in the CGE and this was because of their
budget constraints.
The Chairperson remarked that CGE could not hide behind this as it spent about
58% on personnel, and 55% on commissioners. His major question was whether CGE
had value for money when they spent so much on personnel.
Ms Majake replied that the issue of commissioners and
their salaries was one of the few matters that CGE did not decide internally.
The salary and the numbers were informed by the Act, and regardless of the
number CGE had to pay. This was one of the questions addressed during the
restructuring, with consideration given as to what could be done to put
resources to more use. One suggestions was to cut down
on the number of commissioners.
The Chairperson commented that 12 were too many for the kind of work CGE was
doing. He added that the most important power was the power to monitor
compliance with international conventions. However there was no evidence that
CGE had tried to intervene in parliament concerning compliance with
international law.
Ms Majake replied that CGE had made a number of
submissions on various conventions such as children, communal land rights, and
domestic violence. The biggest frustration, despite the fact that CGE had this
power, was that it had no access to documents and information and in some cases
attended meetings where it was told that documents were still being embargoed.
The Chairperson commented that he was talking about compliance in South Africa.
CGE had been in existence for more than 10 years. The conventions were
available over the internet, and in books, but there was still no evidence of
monitoring.
Ms Piliso-Seroke replied that there was need for
legislation that would formally give CGE the power to monitor and even report
to parliament so that it legitimately became part of the process and had easier
access to the information. The general feeling seemed to be that monitoring compliance
was not in the CGE's power. Information that came
into the country through the foreign affairs department would then be
forwarded. Nevertheless CGE was still working on the problem.
The Chairperson remarked that it was clear from section 11(1)(h)
that CGE had this power to monitor and he had to conclude that it was not
carrying out the statutory mandate
Ms Majake replied that CGE needed an enabling
legislation so that the institutions would be able to interact with each other
in the system.
The Chairperson remarked that the law should be consistent with the
international conventions, and since the NGO’s had the same power he suggested
that CGE work with them. He felt that CGE had so far not fulfilled its mandate.
Section 11(1)(c) clearly outlined that CGE had the power to evaluate acts of
parliament, family law or any other law that affected gender equality and make
recommendations to parliament. With the exception of the Children’s Bill it did
not seem CGE had evaluated any law, researched it, published it and shared it
Ms Piliso-Seroke replied that CGE had evaluated some
acts of parliament; for example the Maintenance Act and had produced a report
on it. It also had evaluated the Domestic Violence Act and the implementation
of the Act and they had similarly produced reports and they had meaningful
discussions with the House of Traditional Leaders on communal land rights and
the traditional leader’s framework and had made suggestions
The Chairperson requested a copy of the suggestions and told CGE that this
should have come out of the report submitted.
Ms D Smuts (DA) began by remarking that she had an interest in the CGE because
she was heavily involved with the equality of women and was part of the women’s
coalition. She
recognized that the CGE was not always considered highly. She
then asked if CGE was embedded in the vast machinery of the government as it
seemed it was lax to confront the government if they backslid on gender issues.
Ms Piliso-Seroke replied that CGE was not embedded but they had constraints
because the roles of the OSW and CGE overlapped. Although CGE was supposed to
be the major monitoring body for the public and private sector, it realised that other bodies had the machinery to monitor,
and this caused confusion. CGE had tried to rectify this by handing over the
function to facilitate gender in all departments to the OSW. This had focal
points that saw that the departments were mainstreamed and when CGE detected a
problem they would go to OSW. In most cases problems arose because the focal
points had no resources.
Mr J Van Der Merwe (IFP) began by acknowledging that the statement he
was about to make was not his opinion. He was asked to enquire if there was
room for gender equality, and if this could not be embedded in the Human Rights
Commission.
The Chairperson remarked that the question was a bit premature. He asked
however if there was a need for other bodies if there was a strong Commission
on Gender Equality. Having other bodies seemed to confuse people.
Ms Majake replied that this was an important question
when it came to the three gender machineries, being CGE, OSW and the Joint
Committee on gender equality. In addition the gender framework should not
exclude the civil society. They had together tried to identify the areas that
were crippling them and they agreed that there was need to reorganise
the bodies. A review was currently under way.
The Chairperson commented that he hoped the review would be done by June.
Adv C Burgess (ANC) asked whether CGE selected the cases it monitored as there
were thousands of cases that were instigated.
Ms Majake replied that they indeed selected the cases
they monitored.
Ms Moname added that CGE would get an indicator from
one of the complainants, for example the trusts that were being set up, and
would then check at whether women were being unwittingly divested of their
rights, and would gather the information on the issue.
The Chairperson requested that the cases be submitted to the committee in
writing.
Ms Johnson referred to page 5 and remarked that there seemed to be overlap
between the CGE and the other bodies where gender equality was a vital issue.
For instance there seemed to be little or no liaison between the CGE and the
Public Service Commission (PSC).
Ms Majake admitted that there had not been much
collaboration with this body but CGE had used its findings to confront
government departments, for instance, telling them what the public service had said about your
department. Currently CGE was dealing with the defense department, which was
apparently not complying with the requirements of employing women and promoting
women. Moreover, this body was not in their forum that included bodies like
Human Rights Commission (HRC), Public Protector and the independent Electoral
Commission (IEC).
The Chairperson added even after 10 years still the government did not take the
issue of gender seriously and he asked if CGE would work with the PSC which produced a lot of gender statistics,
particularly to find out if they had carried out research over the entire 26
departments, parastatal bodies and made assessments
on gender mainstreaming.
Ms Majake replied that interaction with the public
service commission was minimal because the gender issues they focused on were covered
by the gender focal point.
The Chairperson asked what focal point was
Ms Majake replied that this was a post created in
order to mainstream and sensitize the executive of gender. However, CGE was not
happy with the levels the focal points were given. In most case they were so
low that they could not even participate in decision making thereby making
their impact minimal. Gender mainstreaming issues had been addressed through
the OSW.
The Chairperson commented that the annual reports were getting slimmer.
Ms Majake replied this was so, because Parliament
complained that the reports were too bulky and CGE discovered that most of
their reports ended up in the recycling bin.
Ms Johnson asked if CGE was aware that its role might overlap with the Human
Rights Commission (HRC) as this dealt with issues such as socio-economic human
rights.
Ms Majake replied that there were some areas where
they had worked jointly in socio-economic rights, such as the poverty hearings,
and once CGE had the information from the hearings it would focus on poverty
with a bias towards women.
Ms M Matsomela (ANC) asked if there was no way that
the CGE role could complement the Youth Commission. especially
on educational programmes or joint campaigns as the youth should be the
target group to be sensitised to gender and
equality.
Ms Majake replied that anything about human rights
would be complementary with CGE work and if they looked closely they would find
a component that would complement.
Mr S Dithebe (ANC) asked what
the gender commission was doing to advance the cause of women
Ms Smuts asked what their relationship was with institutions like the IEC and
the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA).
Ms Piliso –Seroke replied
that the relationship with the IEC was centered on the elections. Whenever
there were elections the CGE monitored the elections with a gender perspective.
It would then report its findings to the IEC and was happy to say that the
recommendations were acted upon and every election there were improvements on
issues such as pregnant women not having to queue. CGE also monitored the
manifesto of political parties, and for women it did a lot of voter education.
She added that interactions with ICASA centred on
their adverts, especially if CGE received complaints that the advertisements
were derogatory, in which case they would be removed. CGE had never had a
personal involvement with ICASA.
The Chairperson asked if CGE could provide a list of the number of bodies they
liaised with and the frequency they came into contact with other institutions.
Mr L Malane, Chief
Operations Coordinator, CGE replied that there was frequency of collaboration
and intervention in the provinces and CGE had made reports which they had sent
to the Committee about the interventions and the involvement of stake holders
and collaborative efforts.
Ms S Rajbally (MF) commented that it was very
encouraging to know that CGE had offices in each of the nine provinces. She
asked how well known CGE was in the provinces.
Ms Piliso-Seroke said that CGE did operate in all the
nine provinces, the last offices being established in Gauteng
and Mpumalanga in 2006. It believed it was well known
in the provinces and the current offices established they were making inroads
and outreach programmes.
Ms Rajbally asked whether the personnel of the
different provinces came from the provinces themselves, and asked and how often
did the nine offices come together to exchange views and problems.
Ms Piliso-Seroke replied that some of the staff came
from the provinces themselves but when CGE advertised it did so nationally, and
in the end picked the best person for the job irrespective of whether the
person came from the province. CGE had team building exercises where the staff
came together. Moreover, it had strategic planning in the year
, when all the provinces came and identified the plan of action. It had
also introduced video conferencing to keep in touch with the provinces that
were far from the head office and also to reduce the cost of traveling.
The Chairperson remarked that in 2003 there seemed to be some lack of
understanding between the Commissioners allocated to a certain province and the
provincial office, and hence they could not focus on their primary function.
Ms Piliso-Seroke replied that there was an
understanding that no Commissioner was going to represent a province because
their function was holistic. However, there was a problem with the relocation
when the Commissioners came from their respective provinces to the head office.
As a result a decision was made that a Commissioner in, for example KwaZulu-Natal would be housed at the provincial house in KwaZulu Natal and would come to Johannesburg when CGE had
plenary meetings and strategic planning. What CGE did not expect was the
confusion between the provincial co-coordinators and the Commissioners. There
appeared to be interference and the provincial coordinators felt that they
should do their work in the way it was prescribed, so there had been confusion
and tension.
Ms Johnson asked about the relationship with parliament. CGE had stated on page
12 that its
relationship with the Department of Justice had not been ideal,
and had proposed a parliamentary committee be put in place. She asked how this
would help.
The Chairperson asked for the cost of the provincial offices.
Mr G Kruger Chief Financial Officer, CGE, replied
that the provinces cost about R1.5 million per office and the office had about
six people.
The Chairperson asked how often CGE appeared before the Justice and
Constitutional Committees of Parliament.
Ms Majake replied that they met once a year and
considering the number of units that had to report to the committee they waited
in line. In most cases the Committee Members would leave because of other
commitments and although CGE had believed that they would be able to debate
fully, by the time it was called there were few members left and proper
attention was not given to the submissions. Moreover CGE had no assurance that
the recommendations made were passed on to the relevant body. Hence their suggestion that there be a separate Standing Committee
for Chapter 9 institutions.
Adv Burgess
remarked that Ms Piliso-Seroke had hit a sore point
and that there was need for the Committee to give due weight to the CGE and
make sure that their reports did not end up in the recycling bin.
Mr Dithebe noted that
Section 16 of the Act governing CGE was specific about its privileges and
ability to approach the President and Parliament in respect of its roles. He
asked if CGE had done so in respect of the current problems they were faced.
Ms Majake replied that CGE was aware of the privilege
and had tried to use it
The Chairperson amplified that CGE had a right to appear before Parliament and
ask them to discuss a certain matter, and he asked if CGE had utilized this
power.
Ms Majake replied that CGE had never specifically
asked Parliament to discuss certain issues. It would normally approached the Speaker if there were any problems.
The Chairperson remarked that if CGE was unhappy it could inform Parliament of its dissatisfaction
with the development of a certain issue, and could publicly denounce it. It was unfortunate that in the 10 years CGE
had been in operation it had not utilised some of the
facilities available.
Ms Johnson asked about the relationship with other Chapter 9 institutions, as
they were supposed to keep liaising with each other.
Ms Piliso-Seroke replied that the relationship had
still to develop to a point where it was satisfactory. Most of the times the
forums were between the Chairpersons of the Chapter 9s and some issues they
dealt with were administrative. They had drawn a memorandum of understanding that was
supposed to include the CEOs and the CFOs and they had sent a copy to the
Speaker and Department of Justice. The relationship with the other Chapter 9
institutions was one of identifying the areas where they needed to work jointly
and then drawing a memorandum of understanding
The Chairperson asked if they had a special relationship with the HRC as it
seemed that if HRC made a report on
equality they would also report to the CGE.
Ms Majake replied that the relationship with the HRC
was based on the fact that they shared some concerns, and made referrals to
each other. They were working on having a better information system so that
they would be aware of the issues the other was working on. They also worked together on the Equality
Review Board.
Mr Malane added that CGE
and HRC would jointly run campaigns on Human Rights day, the Women’s Day and
the sixteen days of activism and they even alternated the Chairperson on some
of their campaigns.
The Chairperson asked if there were any formal arrangements with the Commission
as most of the
arrangements seemed informal.
Ms Majake replied that for now CGE did not have any
formal arrangements other than the memorandums of understanding.
The Chairperson commented that if CGE should have joint work with other
institutions in order to boost its power and presence.
Ms Majake replied that although there was not a
formal relationship the kind of work they had done together was very useful.
This included the issue of AIDS, where CGE concentrated on the gender aspect. In addition they realised that there were some areas that need to be organised regionally and nationally.
The Chairperson commented that section 11(1) set out obligations. He wondered
if CGE was fulfilling
the primary objective.
Ms Johnson asked if CGE could assure the Committee that everyone was now aware
of their roles.
Ms Piliso-Seroke replied that the tension between the
staff arose because Commissioners did not have terms of service. Although there
were general guidelines for everyone else, these were silent on Commissioners
and the Commissioners did not think that they were governed by the Act. In
cases where there was a problem, CGE would refer the issue to the Speaker who
would refer it to the Directorate. CGE was then informed that the matter was
being looked into by the Treasury. While this was being done CGE took it upon
itself to include a provision in the Act that would cover Commissioners and set
out their accountability as well.
The Chairperson remarked that the Commission has been plagued by a string of
problems since its inception. Some of the differences of opinion even went to
the philosophical question of the mandate of the CGE, and this even
caused the Chairperson to resign in 1997.
Ms Piliso-Seroke replied that CGE had gone through a
lot of evaluation and it had received recommendations that were followed.
CGE was told to restructure. In the past when there was insufficient staff there were poor
human resources problems. was now looking forward to having a system that would guide
the Commissioners. They now had a code of conduct and they would go through an
induction process.
Ms Smuts asked whether the role was now clear, especially on whether CGE was
doing developmental work or whether it was taking the feminist approach to
further the advancement of women's rights.
Ms Majake replied that CGE had had philosophical
problems as to how to interpret the CGE mandate. The feminist approach had been
advocated and debates had been held on this issue. The answer lay in the CGE
Act where the CGE's function was set out and this was
used as a guideline.
Ms Matsimola asked whether the CEO or the Chairperson
were required to disclose their financial interests
Ms Majake replied that this actually happened and CGE
had a form that everyone was required to complete.
The Chairpersons asked where the forms were kept.
Ms Majake replied that these forms were facilitated
by the human resources management and they were kept in the personal files,
which were locked away.
The Chairperson asked if there were any outside interests that might include
directorships or shareholdings as the CGE Commissioners entered into a lot of
transactions. He wanted to know if CGE kept a register of disclosure of
interests. .
Mr G Kruger replied that the form included
information on the number of shares or directorship held in various organisations but he was not aware that CGE had to keep a
separate register.
The Chairperson asked for a copy of the blank form. He asked about gifts.
Mr Kruger replied that there were limitations and any
gift above R500 had to be declared.
Mr van der Merwe remarked that his major concern was the uncertainty
on the conditions of employment and appointment of CEOs, Commissioners and
others. He compared this to what happened in the business world, where
employees signed a contract with specific provisions. It seemed there was
uncertainty about the employment provisions. If so, then the issue should be
addressed.
Ms Majake replied that all personnel signed an
employment contract that articulated the terms of employment and the terms of
office. CGE had not in the past done this with the Commissioners but was now
engaging with the office of the Speaker and hoped to introduce a similar
arrangement.
The Chairperson remarked that he was not aware that the office of the Speaker
was involved in this. He was of the opinion that this was a matter for the
National Treasury and he was inclined to agree with Mr
van der Merwe that there
was uncertainty. Moreover, he was shocked that CGE had been in existence for 10
years and their Act had still not been updated whilst that of the Public
Protector had been amended about five times.
Ms Piliso-Seroke replied that CGE made submissions
and recommendations on proposed changes every year.
The Chairperson remarked that this Committee would then ask the Chairperson of the Justice
Committee to speak to this issue. However, he asked why CGE did not write to
the President or the Speaker and make their recommendations public.
Ms Majake replied that was the reason why CGE had
requested that a standing committee be set up to deal with Chapter 9
institutions, because it had tried the various other channels.
The Chairperson commented that CGE should have written to the Minister if it
was having problems and this was exactly what led him to believe that the
problems were self-inflicted.
The Chairperson asked what mechanisms CGE had put in place to rectify the low
levels of morale and high staff turnover.
Ms Majake replied that previously CGE had high staff
turnover and had lost most of the staff to government departments and to other
institutions. To some extent this was related to the salaries of the
Commissions in comparison with other Departments.
The Chairperson remarked that maybe staff had left due to the low morale rather
than the salaries.
Ms Majake replied that CGE had indeed received
complaints on staff morale, and these seemed to be based on the fact that there
was little upward mobility. CGE took the matter seriously and they based some
of the restructuring on the complaints that caused low morale. It also came up
with a proper management system that offered incentives.
The Chairperson remarked that this related to the current year.
Ms Majake replied that whilst the report did date
back to last November the February team building exercise had indicated that although
CGE might not have achieved everything it was at least moving in the right
direction.
The Chairperson asked if the low morale was not also the result of other
problems such as structure and bureaucratic problems.
Mr Malane said that the
restructuring was effective and CGE was trying to foster a culture that would
promote teamwork through quality management systems as well as contribute to the management
performance systems. CGE had looked at rewards for performers and the penalties
for non-performers and any CGE member could be called upon to justify
performance.
Ms Johnson remarked that the CGE had an important role to fill but if the
public were of the opinion that it was irrelevant then something was seriously
wrong and had to be corrected. She then asked how it was going to prove to the
public that it was relevant.
Ms Majake replied that this was a serious perception
problem. It was unfortunate that these views were taken to other forums without
being forwarded to the CGE. Up to now no organ of civil society had come up and
asked how CGE should deal with a particular problem .
CGE continued to be open but if there was no one who would approach it this was
going to be difficult.
The Chairperson remarked that it was the CGE who should foster relationships
with the various organs under their mandate.
Ms Majake replied that the civil society organs did
not approach CGE with their problems but from their side they had gender
machinery that tried to foster relations with the civil society and linkages
with other government departments as well.
Ms Piliso-Seroke added that the Committee should also
appreciate the dilemma that every society had an opinion on how the CGE should
be operating, but at the end of the day CGE was directed by its mandate. There was a
misunderstanding amongst males as to the functions of the CGE, and uncertainty
whether society expected CGE to deal with women only, or to deal with gender
issues.
The Chairperson agreed that there was always the politics of gender, and where
there was a disputed area CGE should have debates and come up with an answer.
The Chairperson remarked that in 2003/ 04 financial year CGE had referred to
2137 cases, which they systematically broke down. Similar information was not
in the 2005/06 reports. Since CGE dealt with thousands of cases he would like
to know, between 2002 and 2005, how many were successfully concluded and if
there had ever been an evaluation of the success.
Ms Monana replied that from the complaints received
CGE would compile statistics. Although it had not really determined the success
rate it was putting in place a structure that would measure the success rate.
It had also put in place statistics on the website but empirical studies were
not included.
The Chairperson then asked if CGE had the actual number.
Ms Monana replied that the exact numerical data was
not available.
The Chairperson asked what was the procedure if
someone had a complaint.
Ms Monana replied that CGE had to first check if the
issue fell into its jurisdiction. If not, then it would be sent to the relevant
forum.
The Chairperson then asked whether CGE would follow up on all the issues they
referred elsewhere.
Ms Monana replied that it did follow the outcome
reports of the matter.
The Chairperson asked what would happen if the matter was within the CGE's jurisdiction.
Ms Monana replied that in this event CGE took the
complaint, drew up a summary of the issue, and forwarded it to the respondent,
who would then respond to the summary. There would then be an assessment of the
situation to decide whether CGE should conciliate or mediate the matter.
The Chairperson asked if CGE had concluded all the cases.
Ms Monana replied that CGE had successfully concluded
all matters, including the referrals.
The Chairperson asked about the number of complaints had received since 2004,
how many were received in the first two years and how many were carried over.
Ms Monana replied that this was an omission and CGE
was going to make the report available as soon as possible.
Ms M Matsomela asked whether CGE had actually
contacted other forums such as the House of Traditional Leaders and if so, had
there been any problems emanating from this.
Ms Piliso-Seroke replied that CGE had contacted the
House of Traditional Leaders (HTL) in the past and were their partners when
they dealt with the communal land rights (CLR) issues. CGE also monitored their
framework and here had suggested that there be at least at 3% women's
participation. However, the House informed CGE that non compliance was due to
the fact that the women did not want to get involved. The relationship with the
HTL was not ideal
as CGE was constantly told that some matters should be left alone as they were
culture-related and the women were so steeped in culture that it was difficult
to monitor. CGE had continued to teach and welcomed the introduction of the
land rights. There was some joint working despite the fact they might clash
over their protection of culture and the CGE' s
insistence on eradication of culture that might hamper equality. The
relationship was constructive.
The Chairperson asked how many requests CGE had lodged under section 25 to the
Equality Courts.
Ms Majake replied that CGE had not sent any case to
the Equality Court. Many of the Courts had not even been set up, and people
found it far too inconvenient to try to take matters to the courts.
The Chairperson asked what CGE had done about the matter.
Ms Majake replied that CGE had monitored the
establishment of courts and how they should operate. This was a system that was
evolving. There were no cases reported that CGE could allude to.
Ms Monana added that in the last part of CGE's submission there were tables of complaints that were
submitted and monitored in the equality courts, but the major issue was that in
some of the towns the courts had not been established.
The Chairperson remarked that CGE had three grounds on which the Court could be
approached. He felt that CGE should have a higher degree of professionalism.
The Chairperson remarked that in the last five years the budget had gone up by
R26 million. He asked
what deliverables CGE was working on.
Ms Majake replied that the CGE started its work in
1997 with a R1 million budget, which was not bench
marked, and for a very long time CGE dealt with a small budget that was not
conducive to its broad mandate. A mechanism was then put in place to address
this and hence the budget had shifted from R14 million to R26 million.
The Chairperson asked again what variables CGE intended to address with the
substantial increase
Ms Majake replied that there were some areas that
were not properly capacitated, such as research and the legal office, but now
the increase in budget had allowed CGE to have a legal officer researcher,
which would improve the work of the CGE. In addition the higher budgets would
allow for raising of the programmes.
There could be visible interaction of the CGE with the South African
population, and its impact would increase.
The Chairperson was worried that the increase was going to be spent on
administrative issues rather than real projects, and CGE should be aware that
South Africa was a poor country spending enormous amounts of money on these
bodies. He was concerned that there was repetition in the provincial offices
and enquired if there was value for money or if CGE should have field officers
instead. He remarked that they all had to come to some ethical understanding.
The Chairperson remarked that the Committee was committed to guardians of the
people. Although there were still a number of other questions, time was at a
premium.
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.