Deputy Speaker, at the outset in this debate it is important to note that the aims and objectives of the Women Empowerment and Gender Equality Bill, also known as the Wege Bill, are laudable and should be commended.
The Wege Bill enters into a legal landscape abounding with legislation aimed at protecting our women. The primary obstacle to women's empowerment and gender equity is therefore not the absence of legislation, but rather the poor implementation of our legislation. In particular, we must ask the question: Why have existing legislation and existing bodies such as the Commission for Gender Equality not been successful in their aims and objectives?
Putting aside that fundamental question, let us look at the facts. Currently, despite making up 43% of the economically active population, women are still chronically underrepresented in senior positions in the private and public sectors. According to the South African Women in Leadership Census 2012, women in South Africa constitute only 17% of all directors and a mere 3,6% of chief executive officers.
Yet research by Forbes has shown that companies that have women well represented at senior levels perform better than those who do not. This builds the case that women do make a valuable contribution at decision- making levels.
However, despite agreeing wholeheartedly with this notion, the IFP has concerns with aspects of the Bill that make women's empowerment through this legislation potentially unattainable.
The Bill requires designated public bodies and designated private bodies to achieve a minimum of 50% representation of women in decision-making structures. Following the submission by these designated bodies of their plans of action to the Minister, failure to comply with this legislation will have consequences either in the form of a fine or imprisonment.
In the court case, Minister of Finance and Another v Van Heerden, 2004(6) SA 121(CC), the Constitutional Court pointed out that the achievement of equality goes to the bedrock of our constitutional architecture and preoccupies our constitutional thinking. Our courts have emphasised that rigid quotas for head counts and blanket exclusions on the grounds of race and gender are unlikely to withstand constitutional judicial scrutiny.
Also, the Wege Bill does not make provision for the sheer logistics and the added capacity which would be required to implement this law.
It must also be said that the way in which public submissions were largely dismissed by the Department of Women, Children and People with Disabilities is disconcerting. Inputs at committee level met the same fate at times.
But the question remains: Will this Bill translate into greater empowerment and equity for our women? Colleagues, it stands to reason that this legislation will do very well in empowering those lucky few who are already in public and private institutions. Yet we are still to address the root causes of why women are not climbing the career pipeline. The poor quality of our education system for example, which does not empower our young women, remains unaddressed.
Today, as a multiparty democracy representing a multitude of voices, it is imperative that we sing from the same hymn sheet when it comes to critical issues like gender equality. We have done so in our committee, and I would therefore like to thank my colleagues in our committee, especially the hon Helen Lamoela. Despite our differences, we continue to share the dream of improving the lives of ordinary women in our country.
I would also like to thank our committee stalwarts, Crystal Levendale, Kashifa Abrahams, Lorenzo Wakefield, Neliswa Nobatana and our legal guru, Mr Gary Rhoda.
In closing, despite our passing this legislation today, the reality is that for many women in South Africa the constitutional ideals of equality, transformation and empowerment remain a pipedream. I thank you. [Applause.]