Public Protector & Commission on Gender Equality Strategic Plans and Budgets 2006/07

SECURITY AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS SELECT COMMITTEE
29 May 2006
PUBLIC PROTECTOR & COMMISSION ON GENDER EQUALITY STRATEGIC PLANS AND BUDGETS 2006/07

Chairperson: Kgoshi L Mokoena (ANC) [Limpopo]

Documents handed out
Public Protector Presentation on Strategic Plan 2006/7
Commission on Gender Equality Presentation on Strategic Plan 2006/7
Commission on Gender Equality Strategic Plan 2006/7 & Annexure B
Commission on Gender Equality Budget 2006/7
Commission on Gender Equality Annual Report 2004/5 – parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10

SUMMARY
The Office of the Public Protector and the Commission on Gender Equality(CGE) briefed the Committee on their strategic plans and budgets for the current financial year. Members raised concerns around the level of public awareness of the two institutions. The Office of the Public Protector was asked to, amongst others, explain the delays in resolving its cases, its poor representation in provinces as well as its reported unauthorised spending during the 1999/2000 financial year. The Committee was concerned that the CGE focussed on issues related to the discrimination against women, while neglecting discrimination suffered by men. The CGE explained that, with increased awareness, more and more men applied for positions within the CGE. It emphasised however that, across the world, there was a continued drive to give preference to women’s issues precisely because women have been disadvantaged for such a long time. The process did not aim to discriminate against men but to make the relationship between men and women more equitable.

MINUTES
Office of the Public Protector briefing
Adv Lawrence Mushwana, the Public Protector, thanked the Committee for the opportunity to address it on its strategic plan for 2006/7. He welcomed the invitation to address the NCOP for the first time since taking office. He apologised for not providing hard copies of the presentation, as he was only informed of today’s meeting on Friday. He pledged to provide the documentation timeously in future. He stated that his colleagues Ms Ponashego Mogaladi, a Chief Investigator within the OPP, and Mr A Rampasath, Chief Accounting Officer, would conduct the presentation after his introductory remarks. He stated that the Office of the Public Protector (OPP) was growing, and two new office buildings were being launched that week.

Mr Rampasath outlined the figures for the 2004/5 financial year, which had already been audited, the 2005/6 figures which were currently being audited and the strategic plan for the 2006/7 financial year. He explained the structure of the OPP the five-year budget overview, the strategic objectives for the 2004/5 financial year and the OPP’s performance per programme. The strategic objectives per programme for the 2005/6 financial years were outlined, as well as the challenges facing the Office. He indicated the budget allocations and the strategic objectives for the 2006/7 financial year as well as the OPP’s collaboration with other Chapter 9 institutions. He concluded by stating that the OPP was committed to satisfying its Constitutional mandate.

Adv Mushwana wanted to clarify that, if the media were to be believed, the OPP only successfully investigated and concluded cases and issues in which politicians were involved. The reality was that it dealt with bread-and-butter issues. Thus allegations that the Office was biased towards the ruling party was based on a misperception.

The Chair thanked the OPP for the valuable input that was prepared at such short notice.

Discussion
Mr A Moseki (ANC North West) thanked the delegation for the informative and empowering presentation, which the Committee appreciated. He referred to a statement made during the presentation that the OPP had inherited an officer from the North West province, and sought clarity on that statement. It led him to question whether the transformation that was expected to occur actually did occur.

Adv Mushwana reminded the Committee that there was a North West ombudsman’s office in the former Bophutatswana. At the moment the staff were completely new. The officer in question had retired. He admitted that there were still a few individuals who had been part of the former Bophutatswana office, but they had been ‘revolutionised’ and that transformation has taken place. Most of the former Bophutatswana employees formed part of the new office’s cleaning staff and thus had no effect on the activities of the office.

Mr Moseki noted that although there were regional offices in the North West province, they were in areas situated far from Mafikeng. He asked whether the OPP had future plans to establish offices in other remote areas in the province.

Adv Mushwana agreed that the OPP was not that well represented in areas that were very vast. KwaZulu Natal, for example, had only one office that was situated in Durban. The OPP approached National Treasury for funds for regional offices. As part of a standing arrangement two offices would be created annually. Now that there was an office in George, the OPP could move into the Karoo regions next. He explained that the OPP gathered statistics on how many people visited each office, and could thus determine which areas needed more offices. The OPP was guided by statistics gathered during visits to their 78 visiting ports. At the end of each year National Treasury requested visitor figures to see whether opening more such visiting ports would be viable. He admitted that this way of gathering statistics was not working very well since even these ports were not always easily accessible. In the Northern Cape for example people had to travel for three days to get from Kimberley to Upington.

Mr Moseki noted that the outreach programme had resulted in about 17 000 cases being reported. He requested greater clarity on the areas in which the outreach programme was running.

Ms Mogaladi replied that she had a list of all the clinics involved and how often they were visited. Zeerust for example was visited once a month, where investigators worked from morning until evening.

Mr Moseki suggested that in future the OPP should use the political constituency offices in those areas where it had none of its own.

Adv Mushwana said that while the OPP had no problem using those offices, his office took care not to be identified with any particular party. The OPP preferred using their own offices and visiting points.

The OPP did receive cases from constituencies but unfortunately those related more to political bickering than to the OPP’s actual focus, such as grant payouts, etc. He would love to handle cases relating to children being refused access to education due too poverty, which violated the Minister of Education’s directive. He was struggling to reach those people who really needed help. He needed the assistance of the politicians in order to reach the poorest of the poor.

Mr Fielding (DA Northern Cape) sought clarity on why it took so long before reported cases were investigated. He said that at local government levels, especially in the Northern Cape, people ran from one position of employment to the next before they were brought to justice.

Adv Mushwana said that he would need specific details related to each of the cases being referred to. He had explained that a case took two years to finalise. When he took office and tried to establish how long it took to finalise cases, he realised that some had been under investigation for more than two years. He agreed that his office, which was approached by the public as a last resort, could not take two to three years to conclude an investigation. It had to prioritise cases and, if cases were under investigation for more than two years, a warning bell should sound.

The OPP’s 2006/7 strategic plan was aimed at ensuring that cases should be finalised within two years or less. A few of the cases before him now related to prisoners’ appeals for bail. Magistrates’ lost records were critical in those investigations and his office had launched systemic investigations into those cases. The Johannesburg offices specialised in those cases. He admitted that it took much effort to finalise cases as speedily as possible, but added that those cases that took longer than two years were exceptions and not the norm.

Mr Le Roux (DA Eastern Cape) thanked the OPP for the presentation. He felt that the Eastern Cape’s failure to comply with a court order was very serious. He wanted to know how far this matter has progressed.

Adv Mushwana said that the issue concerned Parliament very gravely. He reported that fortunately the OPP had succeeded in ensuring compliance. The OPP had followed up and the Eastern Cape now complied. He said that if the legislators did not implement court decisions, South Africa would become a “banana republic”. The OPP took up cases of non-compliance to ensure that this did not happen.

Mr Le Roux wondered how big a role political interference played in the OPP, and how seriously this interference affected the office’s work.

Adv Mushwana did not think that there was any such interference. He said that it would be difficult for politicians to interfere due to the vastness of the areas of the OPP’s work in question.

Mr Le Roux asked the OPP to explain the statement in the presentation that there was a lack of co-operation from certain municipalities.

Mr N Mack (ANC Western Cape) appreciated the good presentation. His biggest concern related to the outreach programme. He said that he was sure that many people did not know who the public protector was and that the workshops and clinics did not reach the people who needed their help.

Adv Mushwana replied to the two questions by stating that in his opinion democracy was not democracy unless government reached the poorest of the poor. This was a challenge. Sometimes his office did not have the much-needed finances to realise this goal.

He stated that Mr Mack’s statement that people did not know who the Public Protector was, was not only true of people at grassroots level. He said that the Commission on the Protection of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Rights referred to him as the “public prosecutor”

He explained that the OPP’s advocacy programme was aimed at ensuring that all people were reached. He said that some municipalities did not respond the OPP when requested to do so. This failure to respond was in violation of the Public Protector Act, which required them to co-operate with the OPP. Where resources were available the public protector opted for direct visits that would expedite the process. He added that even their investigative techniques needed to be changed. He admitted that sometimes his office had been at fault for not using its powers to ensure co-operation. He added that the Public Protector Act did not allow the OPP to subpoena people and force them to provide information.

Mr Mack, commenting on the opening of an office in George, wondered which area would best serve Beaufort West, which was approximately 300km from there. The poorest of the poor came from the Central Karoo. It appeared as though the OPP would again not be reaching the poor, and not be delivering a service to them.

Adv Mushwana was aware that there were vast distances between offices. He said that in the interim officials could, once a month, visit constituency offices in those under-serviced areas. He assured the Committee that his officials were well-trained lawyers. Government should not look at political interest but should focus on their common goal of service delivery.

Mr Mack noted that the OPP had made their submission in the presence of the CGE, yet the presentation did not mention the OPP’s gender equity programme. He wondered if the office had managed to reach its 2% target as set by national government.

Adv Mushwana responded that the OPP was 100% gender compliant.

Ms Mogaladi pointed out that at management level 66% of officials were black (33% women, 33% men), 5% consisted of Indian men, while white officials made up the remaining 29% (19% men, 10% women). She said that the Public Protector had not met its target as far as disabled people were concerned. At present only 1% of its staff component consisted of disabled people. They were working towards meeting their targets.

Mr Mack noted that R3, 2 million that had been committed to the 2003/2004 financial year and was deferred to the 2004/2005 financial year. He wondered whether this money was actually an amount that was rolled over.

Mr Rampasath confirmed that it was a roll over. He said that there were delays in cementing the CMS (case management system), which resulted in delayed funds. In addition the OPP was in the process of moving to new offices. This move was no complete.

Mr Mack wondered whether the 72% of the OPP budget that went towards compensation included salaries as well as travel and accommodation costs.

Adv Mushwana explained that salaries were now referred to as compensation.

Mr Rampasath confirmed that salaries, benefits (e.g. medical aid), training costs and performance bonuses were included under that item.

Mr Mack said that the statistical overview had caught his eye. He noted that the first slide indicated that in 2002/3 a total of 15 000 cases were received ,yet later the presentation indicated that 200 000 had been finalised. He wondered how this was possible.

Adv Mushwana explained that unresolved cases were carried over to the next year. The OPP did finalise more cases than it received. It could of course also be a typing error; and his office would look into it.

Ms Mogaladi pointed out that the strategic overview for the period from 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005 indicated the number of cases that had been rolled over because the OPP gave priority to older cases. The accurate number was 2 000 and not 20 000.

Mr Mack said that the presentation indicated that the OPP would undertake to reduce the number of cases that were older than two years. He wondered how long it took to resolve cases, and wondered whether lack of evidence perhaps contributed to the lengthy drawn out investigations.

Adv Mushwana explained that as he had indicated he used to monitor cases on a bi-monthly basis. The latest figures indicated that there were about 48 such cases at present. The OPP’s strategic plan indicated that it took approximately 2 years to investigate a case. The ones that took longer than two years were exceptions to the norm.

Mr D Worth (DA Free State) thanked the OPP for the presentation. The presentation indicated that the OPP intended to reduce the number of cases still under investigation by 70%. He wondered how many current cases were older than two years.

Adv Mushwana explained that the OPP had problems with its case management system. The case management system that the State Information Technology Agency (SITA) had been requested to design had failed.

Mr Worth wondered how many OPP investigations ended with no conclusive outcome.

Adv Mushwana said that it was impossible to arrive at no precise outcome. Any complaint that was lodged with the OPP could either be founded or unfounded. When he took office he had found files that had been closed without any reports having been filed. He had corrected this error. He pleaded with members to please alert the OPP of such cases.

Ms F Nyanda (ANC Mpumalanga) thanked the OPP for its presentation and wondered where the two additional offices for which the National Treasury had approved additional funding would be.

Adv Mushwana said that the number might be increased to three in the event that two might prove to be insufficient.

Ms Nyanda wondered whether the 21 officials in the Mpumalanga Department of Finance, who were being investigated, had been suspended.

Adv Mushwana explained that those could only be criminal cases, which could only be responded to by the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) and the Department of Justice and Constitutional Affairs. The OPP dealt with delays and intervened if there were undue delays. In terms of Batho Pele matters had to be finalised as soon as possible. He requested more details regarding those cases.

Ms Nyanda requested clarity on the reported unauthorised expenditure for the 1999/2000 financial year that had been approved by Parliament.

Adv Mushwana took pride in reporting that, since he had been appointed, the Auditor-General had not reported any emphases of matter on the OPP.

In March 1999 the OPP was suddenly asked to take over funding that had originally been controlled by the North West province. Contrary to the OPP’s instruction there had been no consultation. As a result an estimated R4, 7 million was needed to maintain operational costs. The OPP then engaged with the National Treasury via the provincial government of the North West in order to secure the required funding. Unfortunately the OPP was unsuccessful in securing the additional funding and was forced to overspend on their budget by R600 000. This excess spending was motivated to Parliament’s Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA) and was subsequently approved by Parliament. He said that the unauthorised expenditure was not the result of mismanagement but resulted from an action for which the OPP had not been consulted.

Ms Nyanda commented that the cases of the councillors, who had been implicated in corruption charges and were suspended, dragged on because some of them wanted ‘golden handshakes’.

Adv Mushwana said that if the OPP knew of such cases it could gather more information. The OPP had to investigate cases that compromised its mandate.

Mr Ntuli wondered whether the OPP needed people to report when certain public servants failed to attend to the needs of the public, and thus did not adhere to the Batho Pele principles. He asked whether the OPP waited the public to report such cases, or whether the OPP conducted random checks on its own.

Adv Mushwana explained that once the OPP received a report of an irregularity it investigated it. Generally the OPP did not wait on such reports but since the OPP had a staff complement of just over 220 people and could not possibly be aware of all irregularities, it expected the public to alert them of such cases. He again admitted that the OPP has not succeeded in responding to all cases but assured the Committee that it was making inroads in that regard.

Mr Ntuli wondered whether the OPP monitored government departments’ spending patterns.

The Chairperson, aware that it was a sensitive question, asked whether the OPP was sometimes pressurised to finalise cases in a particular way. He thought that this was an important question especially since people thought that the OPP focussed only on politicians. The 17 000 cases that resulted from the awareness campaign indicated that this was obviously not the case. He agreed with the statement made earlier by Mr Mack that the OPP needed to improve its profile.

Adv Mushwana said that he did not know of any political party in South Africa that got involved in corruption; everyone was fighting for the rights of all South Africans. It would be problematic if the OPP, as a Chapter 9 institution, allowed itself to be influenced by politicians. He stressed that individuals, not political parties, were corrupt. All political parties said that they hated corruption. There was no reason for the OPP to protect a person who was alleged to have done a disservice to the country. He said that the OPP welcomed criticism as long as it was not personal. He welcomed the lessons that could be learnt from criticism.

The Chairperson said that when people reported cases to any office of State they expected to get a positive response. He was curious about how the OPP evaluated whether a cases was worth investigating, or whether it would just be a waste of time and the taxpayers’ money.

Adv Mushwana said that sometimes it was very difficult to know, at first glance, whether or not a case would be investigated. The OPP had, for example, received a complaint relating to the Constitution 12^th Amendment Bill regarding alleged non-compliance with voting procedures. The OPP was under tremendous pressure to resolve the matter, especially since some people had a vested interest in the matter. A preliminary investigation was conducted. The OPP did not summarily reject cases and did have an evaluation process that it followed.

Concluding remarks by Public Protector
Adv Mushwana thanked the Committee for its input and said that it was clear that it was important for Members to speak on behalf of their provinces and not their political parties. He said that the OPP would be happy to prepare another presentation that could be interrogated in greater detail.

Mr Worth thanked the OPP delegation on behalf of Committee for their valuable input.

Commission on Gender Equality briefing
Introductory remarks by CGE Chairperson
Ms Joyce Piliko-Seroke, CGE Chairperson, thanked the Committee for the opportunity to address it on its strategic plan and budget. She introduced the delegation: Ms Chana Majake (CEO), Adv S Said (Head Legal Department), Mr Pieter Scholtz (CFO), Dr M Waal (Head of Research), Ms C Williams (PLO), Ms C Du Pont (Provincial Co-ordinator for Western Cape), Mr N Khosa (Legal Officer Western Cape) and Mr Mshanwane (Head PRO). She explained that the CGE did not have any commissioners at the moment. Commissioners’ terms of office expired on 30 April and the process of filling vacancies had been delayed in Parliament. Fortunately the posts were advertised that past weekend. Hopefully the CGE would have its full compliment of commissioners by the end of June.

She pointed out that 2006 marked the tenth anniversary of the CGE’s existence, and represented a clear landmark in the history of the struggle of both women and men for gender equality as well as for women’s rights within the society. She said that the mass mobilisation and mass action taken by both men and women was the cornerstone of South Africa’s liberation struggle.

The year 2006 also saw the 50th anniversary of the Women’s March of 1956, as well as the 10th anniversary of South Africa’s Constitution. The CGE would integrate these milestones in their celebratory activities.

In May 2005 the CGE joined the OPP and the Commission for Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Rights at the Women’s Jail at Constitutional Hill in, Braamfontein, Johannesburg. This was now the site of the CGE’s head office. This move had sentimental value for the woman’s movement in South Africa. It culminated and epitomised the struggle for freedom and liberation of women in the spirit of reconciliation

Input by CEO
Ms Majake briefed the Committee on the CGE’s mandate and the legislation that governed it. The CGE aimed to create a society that was free from gender discrimination and promoted, protected, monitored and evaluated gender equality in all social structures. The presentation detailed the Commission’s strategic objectives, activities, structure and budget. It also gave an outline of the Commission’s legal and public education and information services, its provincial and collaborative work as well as a list of its donor organisations. The CGE was faced with a number of diverse challenges including the gendered nature of HIV/Aids, lack of national infrastructure and an inability to litigate in terms of the CGE Act. The presentation concluded with a summary of the CGE’s achievements and successes such as an improved maintenance system, increased public awareness and the sensitisation of government departments towards gender-related issues.

Discussion
Mr Ntuli thanked the CGE for their presentation. He asked how the CGE interacted with the Standing Committee on Gender Equality in KwaZulu Natal. He also wondered whether other provinces had such committees.

Adv Said reported that one of the points that had been raised during the CEO’s presentation indicated that the CGE very recently employed legal officers in their provincial offices. Prior to this development they only had provincial coordinators. Legal officers were mandated to work with provincial Parliaments or legislatures. Thus far the CGE only had a Parliamentary officer who was tasked with monitoring the national Parliament. The provincial legal officers worked in the provincial legislatures to see how they could make the relationship with standing committees or women caucuses more effective.

This process had just been begun in KwaZulu-Natal and the relationship was at the very early stages. The CGE planned to, in the next year, improve relationships with other provinces to ensure that all the provincial legislatures would have such standing committees. Provincial legislatures had approached the CGE to ensure that their regulations in relation to the Traditional Leadership and Governance Act were gender sensitive.

Mr Ntuli requested the presenters to explain why efforts towards gender equality were always biased towards females.

Ms Nyanda agreed and asked whether men reported cases in which they were abused or harassed sexually, and whether these cases were followed up.

Adv Said answered that the CGE did not receive as many complaints from men as it did from women. It had, for example, received a complaint from a man who had been physically abused at home and had approached the Department of Justice and the Prosecution Services. When he wanted to report the matter officials had laughed at him. There was also a case in which a person’s application for custody was challenged despite him having been the better parent. She said that the CGE did receive complaints from men but they were few and far between. If cases were laughed at, one needed to increase the awareness around abuse.

Ms Nyanda asked whether the CGE had a relationship with non- governmental organisations (NGO) and community based organisations (CBO) and, if so, how it monitored the funds given to those sectors, especially the ones involved in home based care.

Mr Worth wondered how many of the 25% maintenance based complaints the CGE managed to resolve successfully.

Mr Fielding said women complained about receiving their child maintenance money late. This was a common complaint across constituencies. Payouts were done once a week and if they missed the “cut off time” (the they had to return the following week. The women were poor and could not really afford to travel the long distances to the pay points.

Adv Said responded to the three questions by explaining that people did not always understand the Commission’s mandate. Most complaints were maintenance-related. It appeared as though the CGE was seen as an extension of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, which was primarily responsible for dealing with maintenance matters. She emphasised that the CGE’s functions were to monitor whether government systems were working properly and to assist where necessary. The CGE was not an executive arm of government.

The CGE had found that, until recently, there were no officials in the Department of Justice and Constitutional Affairs who dealt with the regional administration of justice. This meant that many complaints fell through the gaps. Now there was a group within the Department of Justice and Constitutional Affairs that dealt with the complaints by vulnerable persons, and the CGE was liasing with them.

The CGE was setting up legal officers with the regional heads of Department of Justice in the provinces. Complaints could now be directed to provincial offices. The officer in the Northern Cape was very new and worked from the offices of the Public Protector. The CGE now had its own fully-fledged office and worked with the OPP as far as fieldwork was concerned.

Ms Piliko-Seroke added that collaboration, not only in sharing resources but also as far as implementation of legislation, etc was very important. In 2005 the CGE had published a report on the lack of implementation of the Maintenance Act, which it shared with the Department of Justice. She was happy to report that since that report was discussed, the Department had a very forceful way of getting maintenance. The roadblocks over the festive season, which were still continuing, had uncovered a large number of people who had been evading their maintenance payments. The drive had resulted in huge sums being paid because “men don’t want to be responsible for their own children”. This was the kind of collaboration that was needed. The need for such extreme measures was a “sad indication that men could only pay towards their families” because they had been locked up.

Mr Worth noted that the financial resources slide showed that from 1998/1999 the CGE’s budget showed a gradual increase of about R2 million per year up until 2004/5. In 2005/06 they requested R44 million, but in 2006/07 there was a decrease to R39, 5 million. He understood that the amounts allocated by National Treasury has also increased, but was curious as to why the CGE’s requested amounts had not increased.

Mr Scholtz explained that the CGE has taken a more conservative approach with regard to its budget. The CGE had realised that as an organisation it could not manage such a significant increase. The CGE first had to have proper systems in place so that they could use the funding effectively. The CGE had thus over a three year period taken a more conservative approach. By the end of the MTEF period the CGE would be better equipped to handle their R45 million budget.

Mr Moseki believed that the CGE was doing very well, especially as its main responsibility was to advocate gender equality within the country. He wondered whether the CGE has developed a plan to address low levels of female representation within the South African National Defence Force (SANDF).

Dr De Waal responded that the CGE monitored Employment Equity plans in the private sector and found that women still did not progress to high levels appointment; large numbers of women were still appointed at lower levels. The CGE monitored gender mainstreaming within government and did not focus on Employment Equity exclusively. It looked at broader gender policies and gendered budgeting amongst other things. This was done over many years and over a range of provincial, national and local government departments.

Mr M Mzizi (IFP) asked whether the CGE interacted with the Women’s Coalition and wondered whether there was any duplication of functions between the two institutions.

Ms Majake said that the Women’s Coalition was like any other NGO. The national gender machinery (NGM) was made up of partners. NGOs and CBOs and the Office on the Status of Women and Parliament’s Joint Monitoring Committee on the Improvement of the Quality of Life and Status of Women were three of these partners. At one time the Women’s Coalition was very active but at the moment it was treated like any other NGO. It was however allowed to participate at NGM level.

The Chairperson asked whether the CGE had a mechanism in place to monitor whether government departments had recruitment policies that discriminated unfairly against women. He added that an equal representation of men and women in politics was important. He wondered how many political parties adhered to the objectives of the campaign to achieve equal representation.

Dr De Waal said that one should make allowance for some grey areas. Some political parties admitted that they did not adhere to the 50/50 Campaign’s requirements as such, but that they did qualify in some other way. So far only two political parties had an equal number of men and women. She said that one could witness the impact of the 50/5 Campaign during the recent local government elections. The CGE was careful not to merely focus on numbers but to also consider the level those women occupied within the political party. The numbers were monitored before elections but there was also a continuous campaign to get political parties to adopt gender mainstreaming. The CGE had meetings with several parties over the past two years. It monitored parties’ documentation and especially their manifestos. Towards the end of 2005 the CGE had met with all nine political parties to ensure that they were aware of gender related issues.

The Chairperson requested then CGE to comment on the difference between sexual harassment and courting. He said that what was considered “courting” in some African cultures was lately referred to as sexual harassment.

Adv Said said that she would not link the two concepts so closely. ‘Courting’ suggested an element of respect while sexual harassment was far removed from that. Sexual harassment, simplistically defined, demeaned people and eroded their dignity and self esteem. She emphasised that she would be cautious in linking the two concepts too closely because they had different underlying motives. She added that as more people learnt that they should not be discriminated against the CGE received more complaints. She felt that there were not enough policies in place that detailed how to manage the problem of sexual harassment in the workplace. There was a lack of sensitivity in dealing with grievances. She added that the CGE was seeking a meeting with the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) because sexual harassment in the workplace was seen as only a gender issue and should thus be addressed by the CGE, as opposed to such complaints going via the CCMA.

Ms Piliko-Seroke said that courting, as it was done in the past, was dignified and respectful and did not have undertones of gender inequality. The treatment of women today aimed to undermine their self-esteem and their dignity. This could not be compared to ‘courting’ as they knew it. The CGE was trying to tackle some of those issues. It encouraged government to entrench sexual harassment policies especially because many women did not understand how it was defined.

Mr Mzizi wondered what had become of the man who had once served on the CGE.

The Chairperson commented on the gap between the age at which men and women could access old age pensions. Men qualified at age 65 while women qualified at 60. He suggested that perhaps the qualification age should be reduced for men. The CGE should campaign for men as well as women.

Adv Said assured the Committee that the CGE campaigned for equality. The CGE had intervened as an amicus in a matter that had appeared before the High Court. A group of men in George in the Western Cape had lodged a complaint against the Department of Social Development because they received their social grants at an older age. There was no scientific support for men receiving their pension grants later than women. The argument was that women suffered greater discrimination. The CGE maintained that one could not cure the discrimination suffered over those 60 years within a five-year period. She pointed out that the impact of HIV/Aids resulted in older people having to head households. This made it more difficult for women. The CGE wanted to see the age equalised at 60.

Ms Piliko-Seroke said that for many years since the inception of the CGE it was perceived as being a women’s movement aimed at empowering women and not men. The CGE’s first gender opinion survey indicated that women themselves had a very low regard of themselves because they had been socialised to believe that they were inferior and subordinate to men. Due to those findings the CGE decided that, despite the fact that they campaigned for the rights of men and women, for the first years it would focus on the empowerment of women primarily. Initially women formed the largest part of the CGE staff because they applied for the position, whereas men did not think they could apply. Today more and more men were applying for positions within the CGE. There had even been two male commissioners. She pointed out that the public was responsible for nominating candidates to the Commission, and they tended to nominate women. Due to the highlighting of CGE programmes targeted at men, more and more men were now being nominated.

Ms Majake added that South Africa was not the only country that continued with the apparent bias towards women. Even the United Nations reported that it would continue its bias in favour of women because women had suffered such disadvantage. She drew a parallel between bias in favour of women and Black Economic Empowerment. Advantaging black people in order to address racial inequalities of the past was aimed at eventually achieving equality and to uplift their status. The same applied to women. She pointed out that one could not speak of fair competition when the competitors were not equal.

The Chairperson wondered what the CGE’s take was on female succession to the throne as far as traditional leadership was concerned. Positions on the debate varied from tribe to tribe.

Adv Said stated that the CGE had also intervened as an amicus in such a matter. The case came before the High Court two years earlier and was now before the Supreme Court of Appeal. She said that whenever it came to chieftainship in which the natural successor was a woman, the birthright was contested. It was also a question of the community saying that it was not ready for a woman chief. She reminded the Committee that the Constitutional framework stated that women were equal to men and as such had an equal right to lead.

The meeting was adjourned.