Parliament’s Portfolio Committee is carefully reviewing the National Council on Gender-Based Violence and Femicide Act to make sure it truly protects women, girls, and gender-diverse people. They want to create a strong, efficient Council that can act quickly and include voices from civil society without getting bogged down in bureaucracy. The Committee is focused on clear timelines and real accountability, determined to turn promises into real safety and justice. This careful work shows South Africa’s deep commitment to fighting gender-based violence now and for the future.
What is the Parliament’s role in reviewing the National Council on Gender-Based Violence and Femicide (NCGBVF) Act?
Parliament’s Portfolio Committee is reviewing the NCGBVF Act to ensure it effectively combats gender-based violence and femicide. Key focuses include streamlining the Council’s structure, incorporating civil society input, setting clear timelines for amendments, and enhancing accountability to protect women, girls, and gender-diverse people.
A New Dawn for Accountability
On a chilly July morning in Cape Town, members of Parliament’s Portfolio Committee on Women, Youth and Persons with Disabilities gathered with solemn focus. Sunlight spilled through tall windows, illuminating determined faces intent on charting a new course for gender justice in South Africa. The Committee met not just to review legislation but to consider vital amendments to the National Council on Gender-Based Violence and Femicide (NCGBVF) Act. Their goal: to make certain that this law would not merely exist in theory, but truly protect and uplift women, girls, and gender-diverse people across the nation.
Chairperson Ms. Liezl van der Merwe set a tone reminiscent of early trailblazers who demanded both change and genuine empowerment. She made it clear that the NCGBVF would not become another hollow bureaucracy. “We cannot move forward if the Council lacks the tools to operate effectively,” she insisted, highlighting the Committee’s commitment to substance over symbolism. The session was neither perfunctory nor symbolic—it embodied the Parliament’s responsibility to ensure laws translate into real-world safety and justice.
The Committee room buzzed with a blend of urgency and careful deliberation, as members weighed every detail of the Council’s design. Legal advisors from Parliament’s own team joined the discussion, tasked with evaluating whether a committee-driven bill could revise the Act. Their mandate reflected the Committee’s belief that effective oversight and innovation must begin at home, with lawmakers actively shaping solutions rather than merely reacting to crises.
Structural Scrutiny and Legislative Innovation
As the session progressed, Committee members turned a critical eye to the proposed structure of the Council. They questioned key aspects, such as the scale of the planned secretariat and the participation of civil society representatives who might receive compensation for their work. Ms. van der Merwe and her colleagues voiced concerns that a 24-member secretariat could create bureaucratic delays, hampering the Council’s ability to respond quickly and decisively to urgent issues.
These concerns are not new in the world of governance. Throughout history, from the Roman Senate to modern public institutions, the challenge has always been to balance broad representation with operational agility. The Committee’s discussions echoed this tension, reflecting a drive for both inclusivity and efficiency. Their focus remained clear: the NCGBVF should lead by example, showing how a streamlined, accountable institution can make real progress in tackling gender-based violence and femicide.
Advocate Charmaine van der Merwe, a senior legal advisor to Parliament, addressed the Committee’s questions with clarity and precision. She explained that most proposed changes to the Act would be technical rather than fundamental. Unlike some major reform bills—such as the National Health Insurance legislation—these adjustments were unlikely to spark widespread public controversy. However, she acknowledged that even technical amendments deserve careful scrutiny to prevent unintended consequences.
The Committee’s instructions to the legal team were comprehensive and pragmatic. They asked for advice on whether the Act could be amended through a committee bill, requested a thorough review of specific provisions, sought comparative insights from bodies like the South African National AIDS Council, and called for guidance on both the size of the secretariat and the question of compensating civil society members. They concluded by asking for a clear timeline for introducing these crucial amendments, underlining the urgency of their mission.
Learning from History and Comparative Models
South Africa’s history offers many lessons about the power and pitfalls of commissions and councils created to address deep-rooted social challenges. Reminiscent of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which once struggled to define its scope and effectiveness, the NCGBVF now faces similar questions. Its potential to drive significant change depends on building a structure that is both robust and adaptable.
The Committee approached its task with a sense of responsibility shaped by past parliamentary experiences. Lawmakers recalled the drafting of the Children’s Act, a process marked by heated debates and competing interests. That law only succeeded through patient negotiation and a willingness to adjust course in response to new information. The current review of the NCGBVF Act reflects the same spirit of constructive tension and openness to improvement—a recognition that the best policies emerge from rigorous dialogue rather than hasty agreement.
In considering how to structure the Council, the Committee looked to successful models such as the South African National AIDS Council. These bodies have shown that clear mandates and operational efficiency can amplify their impact. By studying their approaches, the Committee hopes to avoid the pitfalls of unfocused mandates or excessive bureaucracy. Their aim is to create a Council that commands public trust, delivers tangible results, and remains accountable in both design and practice.
Remuneration for civil society representatives emerged as a focal point of debate. Compensating individuals for their expertise acknowledges the value of their contributions, yet limited public resources demand careful stewardship. This delicate balance—between recognizing professional input and managing fiscal constraints—echoes negotiations from the Renaissance era, where artists and thinkers sought support while navigating the expectations of their patrons. The Committee signaled its intent to explore creative solutions, ensuring civil society participation without overburdening the state’s budget.
Driving Change Through Urgency and Precision
Amidst these deliberations, the Committee stressed the necessity of clear timelines. Gender-based violence and femicide are not challenges for tomorrow; they are current, persistent crises that devastate lives daily. The Committee insisted on a structured timeline for introducing amendments, signaling that delay would be unacceptable. By demanding specific deadlines, Parliament aims to ensure that legislative action keeps pace with the urgent need for protection and justice on the ground.
Parliament’s role in shaping the NCGBVF underscores its broader responsibility as both a guardian of democracy and a catalyst for change. The careful scrutiny and willingness to adapt the Act reflect a mature, evolving legislative culture—one that values both efficiency and participation, tradition and innovation. Every debate, every revision, and every vote draws on South Africa’s long legacy of struggle and aspiration.
The stakes extend beyond national borders. As South Africa takes on leadership roles in global forums, such as the G20, the effectiveness of its efforts to combat gender-based violence will influence its international standing. The Committee’s work serves as a reminder that national priorities and global commitments are deeply intertwined, and that progress at home strengthens the country’s voice abroad.
Within Parliament’s storied chambers, the ongoing review of the NCGBVF Act represents a commitment to building institutions that will serve generations to come. By focusing on detail, clarity, and accountability, the Committee sets a standard for future reforms. Their work, rooted in history yet responsive to present needs, seeks to turn legislative promise into lasting protection and justice for all.
Word Count: ~1,050
FAQ: National Council on Gender-Based Violence and Femicide (NCGBVF) Act Review
1. What is the purpose of Parliament’s review of the NCGBVF Act?
Parliament’s Portfolio Committee is reviewing the NCGBVF Act to ensure it effectively combats gender-based violence and femicide. The review aims to create a strong, efficient Council that protects women, girls, and gender-diverse people by streamlining its structure, incorporating civil society voices, setting clear timelines, and enhancing accountability. This ensures the Act is not just symbolic but delivers real safety and justice.
2. How is the Portfolio Committee addressing concerns about bureaucracy within the NCGBVF Council?
The Committee is critically examining the proposed 24-member secretariat, concerned that such a large structure could cause bureaucratic delays and hamper the Council’s ability to respond swiftly to urgent issues. They seek a balance between inclusivity and operational agility to prevent the Council from becoming a hollow bureaucracy and to ensure it can act decisively in tackling gender-based violence.
3. What role does civil society play in the NCGBVF Council, and how is their participation being managed?
Civil society representatives are vital for bringing diverse perspectives and expertise to the Council. The Committee is exploring ways to compensate these representatives fairly, acknowledging their valuable contributions while also managing limited public resources responsibly. This approach aims to encourage active participation without overburdening the state budget.
4. Are the proposed changes to the NCGBVF Act major reforms or technical amendments?
Most proposed changes are technical rather than fundamental reforms. While the amendments are unlikely to spark widespread public controversy, the Committee emphasizes careful scrutiny to avoid unintended consequences. The focus is on improving the Act’s effectiveness through clear provisions and practical adjustments rather than overhauling the entire law.
5. How does the Committee ensure timely progress in implementing amendments to the NCGBVF Act?
The Committee insists on clear, structured timelines for introducing and enacting amendments to avoid delays. Recognizing the urgent nature of gender-based violence and femicide, they have prioritized setting deadlines to ensure legislative action keeps pace with the immediate need for enhanced protection and justice for affected communities.
6. What lessons from South Africa’s history and other bodies inform the Committee’s approach to revising the NCGBVF Act?
The Committee draws on South Africa’s history of commissions like the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and legislation such as the Children’s Act to inform a careful, balanced approach. They also study successful models like the South African National AIDS Council to craft a Council that is both accountable and efficient. This historical and comparative insight helps ensure the NCGBVF Council avoids excessive bureaucracy and delivers meaningful impact.
If you have more questions or want to learn about how South Africa is leading gender justice initiatives, feel free to reach out or follow parliamentary updates.
