National Council of Provinces - 09 October 2001
TUESDAY, 9 OCTOBER 2001 __
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF PROVINCES
____
The Council met at 14:04.
The Chairperson took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayers or meditation.
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS - see col 000.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Could I please remind members that when the bells have stopped ringing, it is assumed that the sitting will begin. Once we have come into the House and the members introducing matters are present, we should be able to proceed. Members should not gather around the Chamber. That makes it difficult for us to begin on time. I therefore ask that members pay attention to the time.
NOTICES OF MOTION Mr K D S DURR: Madam Chairperson, at the next sitting of the House I will move:
That the Council -
(1) calls upon the South African Government to make it abundantly clear to a recent visitor, Mr Gerry Adams, leader of Sinn Féin and a leader of the Irish Republican Army, that -
(a) there is no longer any place for terrorism in the world today;
and
(b) that all peace-loving people expect the IRA and their terrorist
partners to end violence, including the bombing of public
buildings, to decommission all their weapons and arms as
requested by all involved in the peace process and to use the
goodwill of governments and the many peaceful opportunities,
including negotiation and the ballot box, that the full
democracies that exist in Britain and Ireland offer; and
(2) further declares that until the IRA have done so, they and Mr Adams will be unwelcome visitors to our shores.
Mnr J L THERON: Voorsitter, by die volgende sitting van die Raad sal ek voorstel:
Dat die Raad -
(1) die koalisie- of alliansiemagte gelukwens met die suksesvolle aanvalle op die terroristemagte in Afganistan;
(2) die vertroue uitspreek dat daar nog vele suksesvolle aanvalle op terroristemagte wêreldwyd sal wees om hierdie euwel vir eens en vir altyd hok te slaan; en
(3) sy volle steun en solidariteit met die koalisiemagte teen wêreldterrorisme verklaar. (Translation of Afrikaans notice of motion follows.)
[Mr J L THERON: Chairperson, at the next sitting of the Council I shall move:
That the Council -
(1) congratulates the coalition or alliance forces on the successful attacks on the terrorist forces in Afghanistan;
(2) voices its trust that there will be many more successful attacks on terrorist forces worldwide in order to crack down on this evil once and for all; and
(3) declares its full support for and solidarity with the coalition forces against world terrorism.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Could the sound engineers make sure that we get the sound right? It is really intolerable that we have not been able to get the sound system to work properly over a number of weeks. I think this is absolutely unacceptable.
CONGRATULATIONS TO CRICKETERS OF THE YEAR
(Draft Resolution)
Mr N M RAJU: Chairperson, I move without notice:
That the Council -
(1) notes with great pleasure that two of our up-and-coming cricketers, Messrs Makhaya Ntini and Mfuneko Ngam, have been chosen to be among the Five Cricketers of the Year, no mean achievement when considering the odds that they had to overcome;
(2) concedes that this elevation of previously disadvantaged players to the coveted elite group of five outstanding Cricketers of the Year underlines the enormous strides that are taking place in respect of transformation in sport in South Africa;
(3) rejects any notion that suggests that the selection of Makhaya Ntini and Mfuneko Ngam was tokeny and/or quota-inspired; and
(4) congratulates these fine players for their sterling contributions to cricket.
Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
MARCH COMMEMORATING FALLEN IN ANGLO-BOER WAR
(Draft Resolution)
Rev M CHABAKU: Chairperson, I move without notice:
That the Council -
(1) takes note of the march which ended at the War Museum for Women and Children of the War in Bloemfontein on Saturday, 6 October 2001;
(2) notes that the march was in memory of people who fell in the Anglo- Boer War;
(3) further notes that only people of Dutch and Anglo-Saxon descent took part in this march;
(4) wishes to remind everyone that in that war indigenous Africans also took part on both sides of the war and that they too were shot and killed; (5) notes that the human loss and hurt touched us all;
(6) acknowledges that this bitter past which brought people together belongs to all of us and makes our destinies intertwined; and
(7) therefore calls upon everyone to utilise such occasions for working together and healing rather than for perpetuating hurt and separation.
Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
CENSUS 2001
(Draft Resolution)
Ms E C GOUWS: Chairperson, I move without notice:
That the Council -
(1) notes that today, 9 October 2001, heralds the start of Census 2001;
(2) notes that a UDM member of the Eastern Cape Legislature called on people not to take part in the census;
(3) calls upon all citizens to actively support the census; and
(4) emphasises the importance of access to accurate figures in the long- term planning of South Africa’s future.
Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
FRAUDULENT MARRIAGES
(Draft Resolution)
Mrs C NKUNA: Chairperson, I move without notice:
That the Council -
(1) notes with concern the reports in the national media highlighting fraudulent marriages performed by former employees of the Department of Home Affairs;
(2) urges all South Africans, especially women, to be vigilant when filling in forms requiring their identity documents and signatures, as this has been one of the popular ways in which fraudulent marriages have taken place, unbeknown to the South African spouse;
(3) encourages the Minister of Home Affairs to speed up the process of investigation into these marriage agencies so that our citizens can be protected from unscrupulous scam artists undermining our citizenship laws to gain illegal access to our country; and
(4) calls on the Minister of Home Affairs to finalise as a matter of urgency the pending legislation amending the Marriage Act that would curb such fraudulent practices.
Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution. POISONING NEAR VANADIUM PROCESSING PLANT
(Draft Resolution)
Mr V V Z WINDVOEL: Chairperson, I move without notice:
That the Council -
(1) notes with concern a report by the Department of Minerals and Energy into problems at a vanadium processing plant in Steelpoort in Mpumalanga;
(2) further notes that in terms of this report the levels of toxic chemical fumes are so high that it has caused 83 of the firm’s workers to be laid off due to ill-health over the past two years;
(3) acknowledges the role played by Mrs Julia Makofane, a highly qualified nurse and former employee of the mining company, in bringing the poisoning of workers and villages around the plant into the open;
(4) recognises that she has done so at great peril to herself and her livelihood; (5) commends her on her bravery; and
(6) calls on the Department to speed up its investigation into the mining company to prevent the further poisoning of workers and communities around the mine.
Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
CANNIBALISM
(Draft Resolution)
Prince B Z ZULU: Chairperson, I move without notice:
That the Council -
(1) notes with horror, shock and dismay the incident that occurred in Mandeni, KwaZulu-Natal, where a man was caught braaing the body parts of his five-year-old cousin, apparently having already eaten some of the body parts;
(2) expresses that this is a very devastating and profoundly disturbing act;
(3) notes that this is the second gruesome act of cannibalism occurring in KwaZulu-Natal recently; and
(4) calls on the Minister of Safety and Security to leave no stone unturned in hounding out these miscreants in society who seem bent on pursuing their criminal agendas with impunity and capricious disdain.
Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
KALAHARI KUIERFEES
(Draft Resolution)
Mnr A E VAN NIEKERK: Voorsitter, ek stel sonder kennisgewing voor:
Dat die Raad -
(1) kennis neem dat - (a) ‘n voorstel verlede jaar deur die Raad aanvaar is waarin Upington in die Noord-Kaap se gemeenskap gelukgewens is met die Kalahari Kuierfees wat aangebied is; en
(b) daar eenparig besluit is om 'n pakkie rosyntjies uit die Benede-
Oranjerivier en 'n houer Kalahari-sand as welwillendheidsgeskenk
per hand aan die President van Suid-Afrika te oorhandig;
(2) weer kennis neem van die Kalahari Kuierfees wat môre amptelik open, en dat die Upington-gemeenskap geluk en sterkte toegewens word met hierdie poging, veral in die lig daarvan dat hierdie fees die geleentheid skep -
(a) vir die bou van brûe tussen die verskillende kultuur- en
taalgroepe van die gebied;
(b) om gemeenskapsprojekte te stimuleer deur byvoorbeeld -
(i) die Oasis-dienssentrum, waar liggaamlik gestremdes die
geleentheid gebied word om deur die donkiekartaxi's vir
hulleself fondse te genereer;
(ii) die Kitsklets, die feeskoerant, wat deur leerders uit die
voorheen benadeelde gemeenskap behartig word - 120
leerders het joernalistieke opleiding ontvang om hulle
hiervoor toe te rus; en
(iii) doelgerigte projekte waar plaaslike talent saam met
professionele kunstenaars optree om hulle voor te berei
vir wanneer hulle die geleentheid kry om te werk;
(c) vir plaaslike en ander kunstenaars om hul talente tot wasdom te
bring; en
(d) vir mense om saam te werk, saam te lag en saam die vreugde van
menswees en taal in die Noord-Kaap te waardeer;
(3) verder kennis neem dat die Graat Meerkat, of in Setswana “Moesha”, die Kalahari Kuierfees se logo van die jaar is, onder die naam “Graatjie” met die slagspreuk “maak gat skoon”;
(4) besluit dat ‘n geskenk, geskep deur ‘n straatkunstenaar, mnr Shephard … (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows)
[Mr A E VAN NIEKERK: Chairperson, I move without notice:]
That the Council -
(1) takes note that -
(a) a motion was accepted by the Council last year wherein the
community of Upington in the Northern Cape was congratulated on
the Kalahari Kuierfees which they hosted; and
(b) a unanimous decision was taken to personally hand over a packet
of raisins from the Lower Orange River and a container of
Kalahari sand as a gift of goodwill to the President of South
Africa;
(2) once again takes note of the Kalahari Kuierfees which officially opens tomorrow and that the Upington community be wished well with this attempt, especially in the light of the fact that this festival creates the opportunity -
(a) for the building of bridges between the different cultural and
language groups of the area;
(b) to stimulate community projects such as, for example -
(i) the Oasis Service Centre, where physically disabled people
are given the opportunity to generate funds for
themselves by means of the donkey cart taxis;
(ii) the Kitsklets, the festival paper, which is managed by
learners from previously disadvantaged communities - 120
learners received training in journalism to equip them
for this; and
(iii) purposeful projects where local talent act with
professional artists to prepare them for when they are
afforded the opportunity to work;
(c) for local and other artists to bring their talents to fruition;
and
(d) for people to work together, to laugh together and to appreciate
the joy of humanity and language in the Northern Cape;
(3) further notes that the slender-tailed meercat, or “Moesha” in Setswana, is the logo of the year for the Kalahari Kuierfees, under the name “Graatjie” with the slogan “maak gat skoon”;
(4) resolves that a gift created by a street artist, Mr Shephard …
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order! I am afraid that your time has expired. I will put the motion, and, should the House agree to it, it will be published in full. You have won the speed-reading contest, but your time has expired. You were granted far longer than the stipulated one and a half minutes.
Mr A E VAN NIEKERK: Chairperson, can I just add one sentence, because I want the House to take a decision on that specific sentence? I want to move that the gift donated by the people there be presented to the President when the time arrives.
Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
CHILD PROSTITUTION
(Draft Resolution)
Mrs J N VILAKAZI: Chairperson, I move without notice:
That the Council -
(1) notes that child prostitution is increasing in South Africa, especially in our big cities;
(2) also notes that children involved blame poverty for their behaviour;
(3) further notes that child prostitution is not only detrimental to the individuals involved but reduces the values of our society; and
(4) therefore calls on all the departments concerned to work with the Department of Social Development in eradicating this serious social problem in our society.
Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
BENZENE POLLUTION IN WENTWORTH
(Draft Resolution)
Mr P A MATTHEE: Chairperson, I move without notice:
That the Council -
(1) takes note that according to media reports a toxicology expert recently advised the Durban City Health Department to evacuate at least five families from their homes in Wentworth, Durban, because benzene pollution levels were three times higher than in rush-hour traffic conditions;
(2) further notes that the aforesaid levels were so high that if residents were exposed to them over a lifetime, it is likely that some of the exposed individuals would develop blood cancer; and
(3) urges the national Departments of Health and of Environmental Affairs and Tourism as well as the health departments of provinces and municipalities to see to it that regular tests are carried out in areas affected by high pollution so as to ensure that the rights of citizens to a safe environment are at all times adequately protected.
Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Could I ask members please to keep the noise level down? I know that we do not often see one another, especially those of us from the provinces, but the meetings should be conducted outside this Chamber.
DESIGNATION OF MR P D N BALOYI TO MAGISTRATES COMMISSION
(Draft Resolution)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE COUNCIL: Chairperson, I move the draft resolution printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:
That the Council designates Mr P D N Maloyi to replace Mr J L Mahlangu on the Magistrates Commission.
Motion agreed to in accordance with section 3(1)(a)(xi) of the Magistrates Act, 1993 (Act No 90 of 1993).
INTRODUCTION OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL FISCAL REVIEW
The MINISTER OF FINANCE: Hon Chairperson, hon members, MECs here present, representatives of organised local government, ladies and gentlemen, at the outset, I would like to express my appreciation to the Chairperson, to the Chief Whip of the Council and to Ms Mahlangu for having taken the time and effort to make these elaborate arrangements for the discussion of the Intergovernmental Fiscal Review.
I would also like to echo the sentiments expressed by the hon Gouws earlier, inviting all members to take a leadership role in ensuring that South Africans participate in Census 2001.
Our Constitution enjoins us to create a caring democracy built on the strong foundation set out in our Bill of Rights. It also requires that we develop appropriate systems of government which recognise three interrelated and interdependent spheres by developing appropriate norms of co-operative governance.
Because decentralisation is necessary for effective delivery, the Constitution assigns to provinces the delivery of essential services like school education, clinics and hospitals, the provision of social grants and welfare services, housing and roads. Municipalities, in turn, have responsibility for the delivery of essential basic services like water, electricity, roads, streets and emergency services.
Provincial and local governments determine their own priorities and budgets.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order! Hon Minister, could I interrupt and ask if you could try the other microphone? Unfortunately we do have a problem with our sound system.
The MINISTER: Madam Chairperson, I do not believe in forced removals, especially by the Chief Whip of the Council. [Laughter.]
The point was that provincial and local governments determine their own priorities and budgets. They are governments in their own right, accountable to their legislatures and councils and tasked with real responsibilities to serve their people.
The fiscal system cuts to the heart of co-operative governance, which requires the close alignment of policy, budgeting and planning. Co- operative governance will succeed because we are able to co-ordinate and reconcile the priorities of the different spheres and transfer sufficient resources to enable provincial and local governments to provide basic services. The system will work because all institutions of government collect all revenues due and make appropriate spending choices, effectively.
In preparing this Intergovernmental Fiscal Review, we repeatedly asked whether these interrelationships are working optimally, and what we can learn from our experiences to improve the function of our intergovernmental relationships. The review - and I trust everyone has one by now - focuses on the outcomes of the nationally raised revenues shared with the two other spheres of government. It does not review the spending by national Government. This task is best dealt with in the national Estimates of Expenditure that we publish alongside the Budget.
Provincial governments have the largest spending budgets, totalling R121,4 billion in 2001-02, and local governments about R62 billion, after taking their own revenues and transfers into account. Sixty percent of the nationally raised revenues available after servicing our debt is transferred to provinces and municipalities. It is this fact that makes the review as important as it is. The review analyses expenditures and outcomes in the key areas of social services delivery, education, health, social services and infrastructure, since these are essentially areas of provincial competence. We will, in future, also examine other expenditure areas such as land and agriculture that are essential to uprooting poverty. Similarly, we must recognise that areas of national competence, like the criminal justice system, all add up to measure the quality of life of South Africans, alongside those which are covered by the review.
It is in this context that the annual Intergovernmental Fiscal Review must be seen. There are three points to make about it. Firstly, the review focuses primarily on budget and financial information, but this third edition also focuses on important nonfinancial information. This should enable us to assess performance on service delivery, to set benchmarks and to identify best practice. It gives us a sense of how our provincial hospitals are shaping, how our schools measure up, how our local governments do in their task to bring basic services to people.
Secondly, the relevance of the review goes far beyond these numbers or service delivery indicators or achievements. It tells us about the difficulties and challenges facing the three spheres of government, about achievements, delivery challenges, institutional changes, fiscal choices made and to be made. Through this learning we can help to make our Constitution work better for the people of this country, and strengthen the provincial and local spheres to deliver better and more efficiently.
Thirdly, the Intergovernmental Fiscal Review enables us to learn. Government must learn from its own experiences so that it can improve on what it does. We have to learn from what we do correctly so that we can reinforce our successes, but we must also be mindful of our shortcomings in order to eliminate these. We cannot, in the short term, deliver on all the expectations of our people, but democracy demands that we be mindful of the choices we make, and that we are able to report on the implementation of those choices.
It is critical that this House and its members become the champions of the use of the Intergovernmental Fiscal Review as a tool to address broader development and delivery issues. The Intergovernmental Fiscal Review is an attempt to help us answer some difficult questions and it should assist Parliament, the NCOP in particular, legislatures and municipal councils to strengthen their oversight function. It is the story of remarkable successes attained in a relatively short period.
The review details some essential elements of this wonderful transformation to democracy that we are all so important a part of. It is an invitation to engage with the executive in all spheres of government on what needs to be done. More importantly, this process offers a significant opportunity to advise on future spending choices, and hence on future allocations between the three spheres. It allows us to assess key fiscal policy challenges that we face, together, as a country.
This year’s review covers both provincial and local government issues across provincial functions like education, health, welfare or social development, housing and provincial roads, and looks at critical issues such as infrastructure and personnel. It details the challenges facing the new municipalities, the first of which is to consolidate the new structures, their staff and budgets. Hon members should bear in mind that in the newly demarcated local authorities we have brought together local authorities where salary structures were vastly different.
Other challenges are, secondly, to co-ordinate grants, which will ensure effective capacity-building, infrastructure development and service delivery; thirdly, to finalise the powers and functions of different categories of municipalities, which will bring greater certainty to this sphere; fourthly, to improve budgeting, financial planning and data management; and fifthly to address the policy and implementation issues around the commitment to free basic services.
The review also details a number of lessons. From the provinces we have learnt, in respect of the previous reviews, of the remarkable turnaround in provincial finances since 1998-99. The review indicates that this trend is continuing. Personnel spending moved from a high of 59% of total provincial spending in 1998-99 to 57,3 % in the previous fiscal year. Provinces are no longer running deficits, and are, in fact, running bigger surpluses than projected.
There is a mistaken view out there that fiscal management in the provinces leaves a lot to be desired. The facts contained in the review tell quite a different story. There are a number of successes that Government can be proud of. I want to outline some of these briefly.
Spending on and the provision of social services are the key priority for provincial governments. The three social sectors, which we have mentioned, cover about 83% of provincial budgets. This share varies by province, depending on the demographics and history. For example, poor provinces like the Eastern Cape spend about 22% of their total budget on social development, whilst Gauteng spends only about 14%. However, given that Gauteng has more academic hospital complexes, it spends over 30% of its budget on health, compared to the average of around 24%.
Nonetheless, the trends show progress, more access and greater equity. The measurable inequalities between provinces present - to this House in particular, I believe - the greatest ongoing challenge for all decision- makers.
We have made good progress in turning the education system around. Given the legacy of apartheid, the transition over the past five years has been tough. Despite the many problems, the transition in education has been well managed, mainly due to the co-operative relationship between the national and provincial governments and between the education and finance arms of government. We live in the same house.
Enrolment rates increased in South Africa to about 12,3 million learners in 1997, mainly due to a concerted effort to increase school enrolment after
- Learner-educator ratios declined from about 33,7 in 1996 to 32,7 last year. More importantly, the average class size declined from 43 to 38 over the same period. Over 25 000 classrooms have been built since 1996. Most provinces report a reduction in the number of schools that are overcrowded, with the notable exception of Gauteng and the Western Cape.
There have also been great leaps in coverage of the social grants system to the aged, children under six, foster care and the disabled. This success is probably Government’s most effective tool in alleviating poverty. There are now 3,9 million beneficiaries of social grants. We will know if that is 8% or 10% at the conclusion of Census 2001, of course. But 3,9 million beneficiaries of social grants is a phenomenal number of people who are dependent on this, and it is very clear that this then has to be a very effective means for tackling the grinding poverty that so many have to face.
The number of beneficiaries in 2003 is expected to double from the 1998 figure. This rate of change is unsurpassed anywhere, but we must recognise that this remarkable take-up of grants places enormous stress on provincial social welfare budgets. Welfare grants and services will play an increasingly important role in countering the impact of HIV/Aids on household vulnerability, especially the need to care for orphans below 15 years of age who have lost parents due to Aids. The beneficiaries of foster care grants grew from about 40 000 in April 1997 to 79 437 in March last year due, in part, to the increasing number of Aids orphans.
The extension of primary health care has made basic health care more accessible to all South Africans. Provincial health expenditure grew by more than 2% over inflation in 2001-02 from R24,1 billion in the previous year to R26,4 billion in the current year. Indeed, the private health care system only allows access to less than one fifth of all South Africans, mainly those covered by medical aid schemes. We must not allow this gap to widen. The review points out that 84% of the population is not covered by medical aid or health insurance. With less funding, the public sector has to care for a much larger number of people than the private sector.
One of our key areas of achievement is clearly in primary health care, and the review cited surveys that show much progress in areas such as substantial increases in antenatal care; improvement in turnaround times for various tests, including HIV/Aids; wider treatment of tuberculosis through the Dots programme; reduced patient loads at clinics; doctor availability at clinics; a marked increase in the availability of electricity at clinics; and increases in the availability of condoms, oxygen, penicillin and oral contraceptives.
Hon members will learn from the review that the distribution of all health professionals - doctors, specialists, dentists and nurses - is unbelievably uneven across the provinces. This set of statistics and the fact that we are aware of it presents us with enormous policy challenges. In fact, the number of doctors, general practitioners and specialists in provinces like Gauteng and the Western Cape is so much higher than the North West, Northern Province and Eastern Cape. So the challenge of getting qualified professionals into provinces and areas where people do not have access to private health care is one of the challenges that the review presents us with quite starkly.
Government spent over R16 billion on provincial housing development between 1994-95 and last year, R11,2 billion of which was spent since 1997-98. This contributed towards the building of more than 1,1 million housing units accommodating about 4,9 million people. Apart from providing shelter, this also means job creation. The challenge remains vast, and one person without shelter, one household without water, is one too many. But a serious dent has been made in redressing the backlogs.
Infrastructure spending is now growing strongly. Capital spending in provinces rebounded with a 19% increase to R7,6 billion and all provinces have been spending more each year now. This trend should continue, bolstered by the additional funding announced in the Budget this year. Over the medium term, provincial capital expenditure is set to grow strongly at an average rate of a whopping 23% and is set to surpass the R14 billion mark by 2003-04. It will thus more than double its 1999-2000 level. During this period, the provincial share of funding for capital expenditure is expected to rise from R3,5 billion in the last fiscal year to R7,4 billion by 31 March 2004, at which time the provincial share will be 52% of total capital expenditures.
One looks, similarly, at local government for the lessons. We must recognise that enormous changes have been effected in respect of local government since the period under review. Hon members would observe that the section on local government has been expanded in this edition to four discrete chapters. The changes were the result of the process of demarcation and the establishment of 284 new municipalities created by the elections last year.
In many respects the lessons of the earlier period will prove extremely important to delivering the quality of democracy which local government must provide, the kind which touches the lives of all of us on a daily basis.
We have advanced substantially with local government transformation, and the fiscal conditions to support developmental municipalities are taking shape. Transfers are being consolidated to ensure that they effectively support a municipal sphere that serves communities best, and that addresses the needs of the poor. The report shows, however, that many transformation issues require very careful consideration to ensure that the new structures are fiscally sustainable.
The powers and functions of district and local municipalities must be clarified soon, to assist planning and budgeting and to create certainty for investors. The shifting of functions not only entails shifting of funds, but also of personnel. Similar pressures apply when restructuring in sectors such as electricity and water. Grants need to be co-ordinated and better targeted.
The need is to accelerate budget reforms, introduce three-year budgets and develop more management-orientated budget formats, as the Municipal Finance Management Bill intends to do. Municipalities must develop credible IDPs that link to their budgets and that take available resources into account. Public resources for the expansion and improvement of municipal services will be limited. A key tool to expanding service delivery is the development of partnerships with the private sector, either in the form of equity partnerships in which private-sector skills are used to improve service delivery or through responsible municipal borrowing. National Government has developed robust regulatory frameworks for both forms of partnerships.
The review notes the successes in equity partnerships that have been achieved, particularly through the work of the Municipal Infrastructure Investment Unit. Municipal borrowing, however, has remained stagnant despite enormous infrastructure backlogs. Apart from the Development Bank of Southern Africa and Inca - the Infrastructure Finance Corporation Limited - most institutions are not lending to municipalities. This highlights the importance of providing a stable and predictable framework for both lenders and municipalities themselves.
The commitment to free basic services fits our developmental agenda, and policy work is moving ahead to ensure that we do get this right. To be successful, municipalities must carefully target those this policy must benefit, and focus time and energy on managing this implementation. Fiscal constraints require that we first target people who cannot afford to pay for the basic level of essential services, to avoid what MEC Godongwana calls ``middle-class capture.’’
National funding assists local governments through the equitable share and municipal infrastructure grants. Priority must be given to extending essential services to those who have no service, and to providing basic services to those who cannot afford to pay.
However, cost recovery is central to any sustainable subsidy system. Municipalities must apply tighter credit control to consumers that are able to pay. This not only improves cash flows, but also releases additional funds to subsidise consumers who cannot pay.
I now want to focus on some of the key lessons from the review and what they suggest for the future. Firstly, there are considerable institutional and management challenges. There is much to be learnt from the provincial experience, both for the provinces themselves, and in our approach to the local sphere as it goes through its final stage of transformation.
Provinces are now enjoying the benefits arising from better management and policy manoeuvrability, though there is still a deficit of skilled and experienced managers, especially in the middle to lower ranks of management. I think what readers of the report will find is that it is less an issue now of the availability of money or of well-constructed policies. Many of the difficulties we encounter are in the management of the delivery of services, in the performance by the lower ranks of the Public Service, and that is a challenge that, clearly, we must be able to address.
These personnel problems affect provinces as they seek to improve their financial management, establish proper internal controls and implement the PFMA. The challenge is to enhance the culture of service delivery and to live the principles of Batho Pele. Governments in all spheres must make every effort to attract and retain professional staff, and they must look into ways to make all staff more service-oriented.
We must continue to align policy choices with spending. In recognising the formidable changes that have taken place, we must sharpen the focus on the outcomes of resource allocation. The PFMA is a powerful tool to measure the changes taking place. We have a responsibility to trumpet the successes in financial management by provincial governments because this creates the policy space to drive transformation. At the same time, we must commit to developing new instruments to measure the impact on the lives of intended beneficiaries.
So it is beyond the big numbers. It is beyond how much we spend on social services such as education or social welfare. We need to be able to measure what happens in the life of a learner or a pensioner. That is the next stage of this and clearly something that we hope to come from the process of review that this Council must undertake.
Our new municipalities face considerable challenges in expanding service delivery to all South Africans. These include the establishment of new institutional structures. The demarcation of boundaries created some municipalities that must be built from the ground up, and the need to absorb personnel into new organisations, as a result both of amalgamations and of the reorganisation of the powers and functions of municipalities. As highlighted in the review, the cost of personnel and benefits has, in recent years, been the highest cost driver for municipalities.
The transfer, movement and placement of staff in newly amalgamated municipalities have added upward pressure to equalise on salary and other employee benefits. This issue is possibly the most critical area for consideration and sober discussion. The outcomes of this process will determine whether adequate resources are available for us to expand service delivery to all citizens. Similar pressures apply to the restructuring of the electricity industry.
Each government must take full responsibility for exercising its powers. We should not create perverse incentives which reward poor conduct. The fiscal system must have the appropriate incentives to ensure that all governments improve their management. We recognise the decision-making power of provincial and local governments and we give them discretion, and thus we make them duly accountable for the services they need to deliver. In fact, the turnaround in provincial finances shows the potential for policy manoeuvrability. Government did not throw money at the provinces. Section 101(a) was used very widely and consultatively, but essentially the changes happened within provinces when the fiscal constraint was understood.
Affordability is a major issue. The report shows, for example, that while Government has contributed to more than 1,1 million houses built since 1994 and provided many social and basic services, beneficiaries cannot always afford municipal service charges. So how do we work smarter to reduce the costs and offer people real choices? How do we ensure rapid and sustainable improvements in the quality of life of people, where all the basic needs are met? How do we make it affordable for them, and support it in ways that are fiscally sustainable for the sphere of government concerned?
Any decentralisation must be well-considered and properly sequenced. Provinces and municipalities will perform better if duly accountable and empowered, and not stretched beyond their capacity. We have made many major changes, over the past seven years, to enhance democratic accountability, fiscal sustainability and service delivery. We are in no doubt about the need for major change, but the trade-offs and fiscal implications must be carefully considered. This review gives us a lot of stimulating data and ideas to think through these issues and manage the choices.
In conclusion, the review is born of the desire to empower provinces and local governments, and those who deal with them. It will assist Parliament, and the NCOP in particular, in its oversight function.
A government alive to its responsibilities to build a deep democracy must continually appraise its own performance. It must ask itself the questions that the review attempts. They are questions such as: Are we giving effect to the requirements of the Constitution? This question must be asked not in a legal technical sense, but in respect of empowering the various spheres of government to fulfil their respective mandates. Are our policies adequate to provide democracy in the form of essential and shared services to our people? Is governance co-operative? Does each sphere of government make the appropriate spending choices? Is spending efficient? Does it collect revenue optimally? Are there unfunded mandates? What has been the progress towards improving financial management? Has an effort been made to equip departments with the appropriate skills to manage financial resources? Are there measurable improvements in the delivery of goods and services? What does the comparative analysis of similar spheres, be they provinces or local authorities, teach us? Are we making sufficient progress in eliminating backlogs?
These are tough questions with no easy solutions. This is what we offer the NCOP as a subject for detailed examination. As I have already stated, we invite distinguished members to analyse the report in the minutest detail. We wait to be advised in this House on 23 October in the report to be tabled as feedback to us.
This is an enormous undertaking in the building of accountable government. Every aspect of the report will be considered by us. The observations of members from their constituencies matter immensely, because they are the litmus test of what we observe from the perspective of the Treasury. Similarly, the suggestions which this House will make in respect of realigning spending priorities in the future will be, obviously, closely studied.
So I invite this House in placing the Intergovernmental Fiscal Review before it and you, Chairperson, to build the caring democracy that the Constitution entreats us to do, and that we undertake this together. [Applause.]
The MINISTER FOR PROVINCIAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT: Madam Chairperson, hon members, MECs here present, representatives of organised local government, ladies and gentlemen, I am particularly honoured to have been invited both by the Minister of Finance and by your good self, Chairperson, to participate in the discussion of the Intergovernmental Fiscal Review. This review posits as its end the provision of insights into service delivery progress in provinces and municipalities.
Although, as a practice, the review was initiated in 1999, 1994 is the most appropriate marker for the beginning of a period on the basis of which the dividend of democratic governance must be evaluated. We inherited a country whose income inequality, as measured by the Gini coefficient, is among the worst in the world. Embedded in the structure of our economy are the historical disabling mechanisms which constrain the poor from extricating themselves from their situation.
An assessment of the growth of the economy over the last 30 years shows that the GDP growth rate has fallen from an average of nearly 6% during the 1960s to around 3% during the 1990s. This assessment also reveals a sustained period during which our economy languished in negative growth territory. The economic rebound that began in 1994 is, indeed, a function of fiscal prudence and good governance.
As was to be expected, we managed to ride on the back of that political and economic flowering to begin addressing the problems of economic disparities by using the Budget as an instrument of distribution. An examination of the intersphere distribution of the Budget shows that 56,4% of nationally collected revenue goes to the provinces, while health, education and welfare account for the bulk of provincial spending.
Their share of total provincial spending is expected to stabilise at around 81% of the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework. This means that within our intergovernmental fiscal relations configuration the provincial government sphere serves as the institutional repository for distribution.
The period since 1994 has seen extraordinary social transformation in the areas of education, health, social development and housing. In education, we achieved school enrolment rates which signalled Government success on the issue of access to basic education. On the health front, we have realised an unprecedented increase in antenatal care. Child support grants and old age grants continue to broaden their coverage rates.
It is this Government, and no other, which contributed to over one million low-cost houses being built, giving shelter to 4,9 million people. Indeed, 1994 to the present marks a period of social transformation which has positively changed South African society more profoundly than any other period of comparable brevity.
What I said earlier about our economy’s lack of robust capacity for growth speaks to the immense challenges facing all three spheres of government. We need a methodical approach, which begins with the premise that all societies must reproduce themselves from year to year, and this requires that they engage in material production. Unless we are informed by this perspective, we will not be able to mitigate the recurring disproportionality between production and consumption.
It is trite to say that our Constitution enjoins us to create local jurisdictions within which we have to build institutions that influence governance, service delivery and economic growth. Amongst the mutually conditioning forces of delivery and growth, we should be able to accentuate growth as the focal and driving force. In other words, the municipalities in our intergovernmental schema, designed to play the role of providers of economic growth, require a strategic intervention which centres itself on growth and distribution. Unless we understand the profound implications of this arrangement, our initial forays into redressing the disparities of the past are in danger of being reversed.
Local government, as a sphere of government, is at a formative stage of evolution. As it evolves, we must always keep the relationship between it and the other spheres on our radar screens. As local government gains confidence and the requisite capacity to discharge its mandate, this will have implications for the vertical split of nationally collected revenue. More importantly, the growing maturity of local government will serve as a catalyst for the refinement of the entire system of governance.
It will soon be one year since the 2000 local government elections, which inaugurated the new local government system. Since December last year we have moved fairly rapidly to establish the new municipalities. All the 284 new municipalities are in place. We now have to focus on giving them the capacity to carry out their developmental obligations.
Issues of capacitating municipalities and simultaneously reigniting growth will put short-term spending pressures on us. In order to meet some of these pressures, national and provincial government departments have been looking at their own budgets with a view to reprioritisation. Given the tightness of some budgets, especially those of provincial departments, some have wondered whether there is enough room to manoeuvre. Yet others have asked whether it is possible and desirable to sustain low deficits in the face of many unaccomplished tasks, which bear on the quality of the collective life of our people.
We have to move beyond this polarisation of argument and find a new synthesis capable of taking us forward on a basis that is firm and productive. I hope that this review will provide all governance practitioners with the information base which will underpin our collective decision-making and action. [Applause.]
Ms Q D MAHLANGU: Madam Chair, on behalf of the NCOP, as a House, I feel very honoured and privileged to receive this document on behalf of everybody here. I welcome the Minister of Finance, Mr T A Manuel, the Minister for Provincial and Local Government, Mr Sydney Mufamadi, the Deputy Minister of Finance, Mr Mphahlwa, and MECs present here today.
The Intergovernmental Fiscal Review is one of the most important tools for members of Parliament to hold the executive accountable. It will enable members to do their oversight work with a better understanding of issues. This affords us the opportunity of bringing all spheres of government under one umbrella to discuss service delivery issues. The Minister of Finance referred to this.
This document will help all of us to see whether there is value for money for every rand that has been spent, which has been voted by this Parliament and by respective provincial legislatures. We also need to measure efficiency in the delivery of services in our quest to improve the lives of poor people that we represent in this Chamber.
The document takes stock not only of what has happened in the past few years until March 2001, but also affords us an opportunity to do the following: firstly, to assess whether decisions we have made thus far have had a positive impact on people’s lives; secondly, to further review or consider policy options if necessary and change strategies and approach; and lastly, to also look ahead with pride because of the road traversed thus far.
The week ahead is of crucial importance to all of us and many citizens of our country, because members will be discussing the contents of the document with several members and MECs, legislatures and civil society bodies. We invite everyone to take a keen interest while these issues are being discussed in the precincts of Parliament.
I just want to outline the programme of what is going to happen between tomorrow and next week. We are going to have a discussion with the Minister of Finance on the broad provincial spending trends, which will include MEC’s of finance and other interested bodies and our colleagues in the National Assembly who have been invited. On Friday, 12 October, we will discuss the social development chapter with the Minister responsible and discuss the education chapter with the Minister of Education. These discussions will be at different times and will go on until 5 o’clock.
On Monday we will deal with the infrastructure chapter. The Ministers of Finance, roads, Public Works and respective MECs thereof will be involved. On Tuesday, the chapter on health will be dealt with. On Wednesday 17 October, the chapter on Public Service will be dealt with and the discussion will include housing, transport and other representatives. On Thursday the local government chapter will be dealt with, which will include the MECs of local government and the Minister concerned.
The committee will be given an opportunity to formulate its report and will come back to the NCOP on 23 October to have the first part of the debate. The debate will be concluded on 24 October. Because this is a very intense debate we cannot finish it in one day. I also want to thank the committee clerk who has also done sterling work by putting this programme together. Once again, my sincere appreciation goes to Henry Eksteen individually for the work that he has done.
The tabling of this report in our Chamber is very important, because it will link up with the Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement process that is going to be tabled in October. The report will form part and parcel of the process as we proceed to discussing the Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement. It will be a benchmark for Government priorities, as will be outlined in the statement tabled in October.
In my travels around the globe, I have come to appreciate our country and our achievements more than ever. A lot of work has been done, but more still needs to be done. The groundwork covered thus far gives us hope for the future. May I call upon members to rise to the occasion or to the challenge and engage the document with the vigour and credibility it deserves as the information is fairly accurate. May I once again remind the nation that tomorrow is the beginning of Census 2001, from 10 October to 31 October. Let us all be counted. The relevance of this exercise is well expressed in the ANC Today in that ``The results of the census provide statistics for planning, not only by Government but also business, foreign investors and individuals.’’ Hon member must remember to be counted. It is in the interests of the nation to be counted.
Once again, I want to commend the department for releasing the third Intergovernmental Fiscal Review under the leadership of Mr Manuel, his deputy and all the officials in the provincial and national treasuries. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order! That concludes the discussion. As Ms Mahlangu and Minister Manuel have indicated, there will be further opportunity for a more detailed debate and review of the contents of the report that has been introduced by Minister Manuel.
EDUCATION LAWS AMENDMENT BILL
GENERAL AND FURTHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING QUALITY ASSURANCE BILL
(Consideration of Bills and of Reports thereon)
The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Chairperson, members, representatives of local government, particularly the MECs who are present, I have pleasure in introducing these two section 76 Bills today, one which we hope will improve the quality of education at general and further education levels, and one which will introduce some necessary changes to the South African Schools Act to prevent, largely, the abuse of school funds.
The quality of education has become a priority area of focus for my Ministry and department. We spent the first years of our democracy establishing a single national education system in the country. It is unparalleled that we have been able to achieve that out of the detritus of apartheid. Now we have to look at what we are getting for the 21% of our Budget spent on education.
One of the instruments we are currently using is the systemic evaluation of learner achievement, which will measure the progress of learners across the country at Grades 3,6 and 9. This removes the myth that in outcomes-based education there is no testing of children. This will ensure that we are able to measure the quality of learning at an early stage and not wait until the end of the 12 years before picking up any problems. This is a new development introduced by me to ensure that certain minimum levels of literacy and numeracy are achieved. I should say that the problem of literacy in Grade 3 is a universal problem, not limited to South Africa, by the way.
Another instrument is the policy on whole school evaluation, which we have recently determined. This instrument will look at the functioning of a school as a whole organisation, through an in-depth investigation by a team of trained evaluators. We shall then know what is actually happening in our schools, how our teachers and principals are performing, instead of relying on anecdotal tittle-tattle. I am looking forward to the results of both these instruments, which I will make available to the public to ensure accountability. This is a very important development.
The purpose of both of the above attempts to intervene in the process of schooling is to ensure that standards are not only beginning to be established, but are maintained along the way. I am very impressed, by the way, at what is happening in our primary schools with the first postapartheid intake now. These are going to be the geniuses of the future, without exaggeration. They have extraordinary resilience, chutzpah and self- possession. These will be, in fact, our intake in a few years’ time into secondary school.
The third leg of quality assurance relates to the exit standards which are achieved, and these are reflected in the final examinations and their results. Historically, we have made use of the SA Certification Council, otherwise known in terms of our obsession with acronyms, as Safcert, which has certified the results of provincial matriculation examinations. There has been a national system - it is not something invented by the ANC Government - to certify results and to give authenticity to a South African qualification. This council has done much to maintain public confidence in the matric examination, particularly since 1994. I must extend my appreciation to it for its valuable work. Now we are expanding the boundaries of quality assurance, based on the view that this cannot just be an ex post facto process of certification, after the event in other words. This should rather be a continual process which feeds quality needs and imperatives back into the system. It is not enough to simply monitor learning achievements. The aim must surely be to improve these, and this is stated in the preamble to the Bill.
We are therefore proposing in the Bill the establishment of a new body - the Minister of Finance, of course, does not like new bodies to be established, particularly because they cost money. But, let me tell him in his presence, that this will replace Safcert and take responsibility for the quality assurance of institutional programmes in the general grades, Grades R to 9 and, further, Grades 10 to 12, the education bands of the national qualifications framework. This proposal is based on extensive research, both here in South Africa and internationally, and takes place after thorough consultations. The new body will, in future, recognise learner achievements and award qualifications, certificates or credits towards a National Qualifications Framework qualification.
Its scope will be limited to programmes offered by institutions established, declared or registered under the South African Schools Act, the Further Education and Training Act or the Adult Basic Education and Training Act. This body will not affect other quality assurance bodies or processes in regard to programmes offered outside of these institutions. In addition, the new body will have the power to delegate and assign any of its duties to other bodies with the capacity to assist, while remaining primarily responsible for quality assurance in the two bands.
The sector education and training authorities - the Setas - a new development in South Africa, will come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Labour. The Setas will therefore continue to play a quality assurance role in respect of programmes offered by employers and training agencies within the economic sector. We have to look at the relationship between the Seta’s work, and, for example, continuing education leading to higher education. The SA Qualifications Authority, Saqa, will maintain an oversight of quality assurance across all bands of the NQF.
I ask the hon members not to be put off by the existence of different bodies. It would be a bureaucratic nightmare to have a single body, to have quality assurance for all of these.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Minister Asmal, I wonder perhaps if we could ask you to again move forward. I do apologise. We will be refurbishing the National Council and we will have a whole new system in place early next year, but this is …
The MINISTER: Madam, Chairperson, I thought you were going to build a new Council altogether.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: I think we may ask Minister Manuel for that. [Laughter.]
The MINISTER: Well, thank you very much. I was saying that it is not possible to have a single body dealing with the whole area of quality assurance, because it is too complex, very extensive in its application, and having discrete and different bodies, therefore, is the appropriate way.
One of the major tasks of the new body, as detailed in Chapter 3 of the Bill, will be the accreditation of providers, both public and private. Once the criteria for accreditation have been established and the policy in respect of such criteria has been determined by me, all providers, including provincial departments of education, will be required to comply with such criteria or face sanctions.
In the case of a provincial department, the education MEC will be required to give a detailed report to the Minister on why they have not done so. In the case of a private provider, the accreditation may be refused. That is very important, because at this level, in particular general education and training, there are more fly-by-nights than in any particular area in education. This is a real first attempt. It will be very difficult to control these private providers. One sees them all over the place, even next to the Department of Education in Schoeman Street, providing instruction, particularly in computers.
These are powerful instruments and strongly in the interests of the public. I expect that the national and provincial departments will work closely to ensure that the process is smooth and efficient. I regret to say that the new body is designated as the General and Further Education and Training Quality Assurance Council, otherwise to be known, regrettably, as Genfetqa, an accurate if rather lengthy description of its functions. We have tried very hard, in fact, we offered many prizes - money prizes - to identify a shorter title, but failed. Once this Bill is approved, I will be inviting nominations, especially from organisations involved in education, from which I will appoint 15 persons, including a chairperson. I ask hon members to be involved in this nomination process.
These appointments will take into account representivity in the sector and consideration of expertise, knowledge and experience of the different nominees. Let me be quite clear: I want maximum participation in an efficient, professional body that can properly tackle the task at hand. Membership of this body must be seen as part of public service, in the best tradition of voluntary activity. Gold-diggers and those seeking alternative employment need not apply for appointment, and this is very important.
On Friday, of course, we shall be looking, when we look at the Budget Review, at aspects of principle. I hope we will tease out, for example, how education functions are being carried out at present - this is immutable - and whether local government, in particular metropolitan councils, should not be playing a bigger part in education. I hope we will be able to discuss this as a matter of principle, rather than simply responding to two Bills here.
I believe that the country is more than ready for the rigours of a systematic quality assurance programme. We have been improving our results over the past year, and we hope to do so again, particularly at the bottom end of this year. These achievements have been the result of an uncompromising stance on the commitment of teachers and officials and a close monitoring of outcomes. The Genfetqa Council, if hon members approve, will be another tool which will prepare our education system and our students and learners for the 21st century, as I promised the President on taking office.
I am delighted to record that, except for minor amendments, all the provinces have indicated support for the draft legislation in recognition of its purpose and its ability to improve quality in education. I thank them very much. As the Department of Education, together with provincial departments of education, we are placing ourselves before the public and establishing a structure which will report to them on our performance. This, I must say, is a brave move, but we owe it to the public. We are confident that in working with this council we will continue to improve the quality of education at general and further levels.
The second piece of legislation is an amending Bill, which makes minor textual changes to the Employment of Educators Act and the Further Education and Training Act. The main substantive change is to the South African Schools Act, where the implementation of the Act has shown some rather unfortunate gaps. Perhaps the most dramatic demonstration of these has been the former principal of Ermelo Hoërskool, who is alleged to have diverted significant amounts from the school funds into his own pockets. Regrettably, we know he is not alone in this, and we have tried to address this serious problem, among other concerns.
The amendments therefore deal with three areas: firstly, the status of the representative council of learners as against other student bodies; secondly, the functioning of the school governing bodies; and thirdly, the management of funds of the schools.
In respect of learner bodies, the legislation makes more explicit what was intended in the South African Schools Act - that the representative council of learners should be ``the only recognised and legitimate learner body at the school’’.
We have espoused democracy as the form of representation in society, and schools are not exempt from this. However, in too many instances another body, most often a prefect body, which is not democratically elected, is put forward as a group representing learners.
This amendment does not outlaw prefects. It is up to the province. Mpumalanga, in its wisdom, has outlawed prefects in the schools from next year. It merely seeks to ensure that they are understood in their rightful place. Prefects are usually an arm of the management of the school. Prefects are often appointed by the school, and serve a different function from the council of learners. Similarly, other bodies, including national student organisations such as Cosas and Azasco, may still be encouraged at school, but they should also not confused with the real representatives of all the learners. These bodies like Azasco and Cosas are voluntary organisations, whose mandates and accountabilities lie elsewhere.
Young people are entitled to have their views represented by peers of their choice. Why some schools tend to downgrade this is not clear to me. These representative councils are consultative bodies. As I have said again and again, they do not run the school, but many difficulties would be overcome if the school authorities listened to legitimate grievances brought to their attention by these learner councils.
As regards the functioning of governing bodies, the Council knows that we have the most far-reaching governing body system anywhere that I have studied. I am astonished that when we passed this legislation in 1996, we gave such enormous powers to the governing bodies. It has become quite apparent that many governing bodies are not fulfilling their functions in terms of the law. In some cases this is due to a lack of capacity, and we are working very hard to build this capacity in a number of programmes, particularly with the establishment of a more representative association of school governing bodies.
Regrettably, others have demonstrated a wilful neglect of their duties, with the aim of frustrating the professional management of a school or provincial department. This cannot be tolerated, particularly when such governing bodies try to usurp the functions of the principal or try to dismiss the principal or teachers. Therefore this cannot be tolerated, given the enormous powers which school governing bodies have been allocated.
We have therefore made provision, where a governing body ceases to perform all or some of its functions, for the head of the department of education of the province to be empowered to intervene, either by the appointment of a person to fulfil the neglected functions, or by insisting on the election of a new governing body. At the same time, we have committed ourselves to building capacity where there is a need for this and a willingness to meet the responsibilities. I trust this approach will be strongly supported. I hope members, as I have appealed before, will play their part in assisting governing bodies in their own localities.
The final aspect we deal with is the utilisation of the school fund. Now, of course, as we know, in theory, school funds were set up to supplement the grant from the state. But in many of the schools, the school fund is particularly important. I am referring in particular to the poorer schools.
We have discovered that many schools, especially those which are able to collect substantial fees from the parents, have been hiding some of this fee income in trusts established by the school.
This is, of course, completely untenable, because the essence of a trust is that it removes accountability from the parents to a select group of trustees. The school fund is a property interest of the parents. They contribute to it. So if we remove the accountability from the parents to a select group of trustees, they may at any stage, without the consent of the school, amend the purposes of the trust and use it for their own or other people’s enrichment or for other purposes, however noble they may be, that are not related to the functioning of the school.
Some schools have done so under the mistaken belief that to contribute to a trust brings about certain tax advantages. I am happy to say that my colleague the Minister of Finance, last year at my request, determined that any financial contribution to a school, be it public or independent, is tax exempt. Therefore there is no need for such trusts. I have therefore proposed in the Bill that money from the school fund of a public school may not be paid into a trust or be used to establish a trust, and I call on the House to support this.
School fees are public moneys. They must remain in the public domain under the scrutiny of the school governing body and thereby that of the parents. The school governing body is also required to submit its budget and financial reports to the provincial department. Moneys which may have been paid into trusts already will have to be repaid into the school fund.
I might add that this provision does not preclude a private association of parents or other interested parties from establishing a trust of which the beneficiary is the school. They can continue to do so. This is outside the domain of our legislation, and would be a private arrangement between the trustees. Most importantly, money collected by such a trust would not be public money. Many parents have actually approached me to say they would like to bring young blacks into the school and set up a trust fund to assist them with their school fees. This approach is not affected by that. They can set up a separate trust fund which has nothing to do with the school fees.
A final amendment to the Further Education and Training Act deals with the provision of loans and overdrafts to further education and training institutions. Again there is a mischief to be cured. Only the MEC for education in a province is now empowered to approve a loan overdraft. Without such approval, the state and the institution will not be liable for that debt. At present the position is unclear, namely that schools do run debts and get loans. This will therefore send a cautionary message to lending institutions, and the schools and colleges will in future be obliged to work within their budgets, except for major or unanticipated expenses, where the member of the executive council might have reason to approve a loan or overdraft.
I end by saying that these amendments are all intended to bring about greater clarity. They are really merely shopkeeping amendments, by and large, to clarify and tidy up things and do not introduce any departures from our policy, or from the original purposes of the Acts which they amend. I hope hon members will appreciate the need for constant improvements to the legislation, based on our experience of implementing it.
The move from a state-controlled education system to one in which significant governance responsibilities are placed in the hands of the communities is, in principle, a good one. Let me say this quite clearly. We are in fact lessening the control of the state as far as education is concerned, rather than increasing it. We will not deviate from that principle because it was a principle of the ANC - not the idea of subsidiarity, but local control. Local control is very important. It is very much part of our three spheres working together.
Taken together the two Bills have a contribution to make towards better- quality schools and colleges, which are more effectively managed and governed. This is in the interests of everyone, and I therefore have pleasure in tabling them for members’ consideration and approval. [Applause.]
Mr D M KGWARE: Chairperson, hon Minister, hon MECs and hon members, the South African Schools Act, which was passed in 1996, is our country’s blueprint for the fundamental restructuring of our public education system. Like all other restructuring processes, the transformation of our education system is a difficult process, and issues may crop up from time to time which we did not foresee at the time we enacted the South African Schools Act.
Many of these issues are not merely incidental to, but form an integral part of, the visions we set out in the South African Schools Act. If we do not make provision for the inclusion of such issues in the Act, we may not be able to implement our vision of greater equity in the education system, and of more effective and financially sound public schools.
The Education Laws Amendment Bill contains some of these important issues, which are fundamental to the implementation of the above vision. It seeks to fill some of the gaps that were left open when we drafted the South African Schools Act, the Employment of Educators Act and the Further Education and Training Act.
The need for some of these amendments had been highlighted by the recent revelation of corruption and misspending in some of our public schools. For the reason that public schools are funded from public money, it is then important that all learners must benefit from this money received from them, and that it should not be used selectively to benefit only certain learners.
In the absence of strict guidelines on the application of public school funds, it is quite possible for those who do not care about the wellbeing of our public education system to misappropriate these funds for their own personal gain or for those who want to perpetuate past privileges to use the funds for the benefit of only certain learners.
Indeed, a tendency has developed of public schools having different bank accounts, some of which are in the name of structures without any legal personality. There is a real danger in this because it can potentially be used to hide money and distort the actual financial situation of the school, when compulsory school fees are determined.
This amending Bill is an attempt to prevent the above situation. It places an obligation on school governing bodies to open and maintain a single banking account and empowers the MEC to approve or disapprove the investment of surplus money in another account.
It is not only through the creation of different banking accounts that the financial position of public schools can be undermined. The entering into of loan or overdraft agreements also has the potential to seriously jeopardise the financial position of public schools, because the state will be liable to compensate for claims against public schools where these schools default in terms of their loan or overdraft agreements. It is quite possible that this fact can be exploited by certain public schools. It may even lead to the bizarre situation in which our democratic Government will be obliged to pay for the entrenchment of white privileges.
A previously advantaged public school which has not made any attempt to integrate previously disadvantaged learners could enter into a loan agreement. If they cannot repay the loan, the state will have to carry out this responsibility and, in this way, will pay for the entrenchment of white privilege.
Similarly, a loan agreement can be concluded and its proceeds used to benefit only certain learners at a public school. If schools cannot repay the loan, the state will then be liable and, in this way, again be forced to assist those certain learners.
In terms of the Education Laws Amendment Bill, public schools will no longer have the power to enter into a loan or overdraft agreement without the written permission of the MECs. Where they enter into such an agreement without the approval of the MECs, the state will no longer be responsible to compensate for claims against the public school.
These amendments are crucial to sustain the financial wellbeing of our public schools and need to be supported by all those who are seriously concerned about our public education system.
The General and Further Education and Training Quality Assurance Bill is another important brick in the foundation that we are laying in ensuring the highest quality of education in our country. Quality assurance is important to ensure that general education and further education meet the needs of learners, communities, employers and society as a whole. It provides a means of measuring our programmes and qualifications against world-class standards.
This is particularly important in this new era of globalisation, in which continuous and quality improvements are vital to ensure relevance in a dynamically changing and globally competitive world. It is a fact that quality is driven from within organisations and institutions. The primary responsibility for quality assurance therefore lies with general and further education and training providers themselves.
However, I believe that quality assurance requires external validation. This Bill will provide a mechanism for external validation of general and further education and training quality assurance through the creation of the General and Further Education and Training Quality Assurance Council.
This council will replace the existing SA Certification Council, which is a leftover of apartheid education. Its main functions will be to accredit all providers of general and further education and training, to recognise learners’ achievements and award credits towards qualifications registered on the National Qualifications Framework, and to issue the certificates. [Applause.]
Mr B J TOLO (Mpumalanga): Chairperson, hon Minister, hon members, MECs present here and all other members, a salient feature of the South African education system up to 1994 was the existence of insensitive language in some provisions of its Acts, which are either obsolete, not gender sensitive or not user-friendly.
Soon after the advent of democracy, our Government, through the Department of Education, announced its intentions to transform the institutional landscape of education with a noble vision and great zeal. This vision is given further impetus today with the tabling of the General Further Education and Training Quality Assurance Bill in this House.
We are convinced that this is a noble goal promised on the ideals of the
collective needs of all the learners at the various exit points of further
education and training in this country. Obviously, in our endeavour to
realise this noble goal, we are bound to incur the wrath of some of the
opposition parties, whose vocabulary is riddled with terms like, lowering
of standards'',compromising of quality’’, and so on.
One such party is the undemocratic DA, especially here in the Western Cape, through its MEC of education, the hon Helen Zille, who is fortunately in this House today. On Sunday, 30 September 2001, the Sunday Argus published an article in which the hon MEC slammed the proposed provisions of this Bill.
She is quoted as saying that this province - the Western Cape, that is - will not accept single national senior certificate exams unless they are benchmarked on the Scottish Qualifications Authority. She went on to say:
The Scottish Qualifications Authority is the best in the world, and we reserve the right to withdraw unless the Minister gives the undertaking. Without this, the Western Cape cannot move towards a single examination and retain the confidence of our good public schools and independent schools.
She goes on to say that this will compromise the quality of education in the Western Cape. In the same article, an anonymous parent, obviously belonging to the same school of thought as the hon MEC, said that he would not like his children to write the same exam as children in the Eastern Cape or the Northern Province, because their certificates were not worth the paper they were written on.
We must indicate that we are assured by the department that it has consulted extensively on this Bill. And by the way, it has consulted with the very same Scottish and Canadian quality authorities. Of course, this Bill is testimony to that process and one needs to commend the department.
This Department of Education and the ANC-led Government will not and should not be derailed and distracted by those people like the hon MEC for education in the Western Cape, who are clearly nostalgic about the past. We should not be distracted by those who want to cling to the advantages of a tiny minority over the majority of the citizens of this country.
The Bill also sees the SA Certification Council replaced by a new council, the General and Further Education and Training Quality Assurance Council. This is necessitated by the fact that Safcert dates back to the apartheid days and transformation is necessary. The new body will contribute a great deal towards eroding the inherited inequalities and provide advancement through access to equity and opportunity. Apart from its duties as a quality assurance provider for the general and further education and training bands, it will also ensure efficient, effective and optimal utilisation of our scarce resources.
Maybe the hon MEC Zille should channel her energies towards encouraging those who are harbouring racial prejudices in her party to abandon their racial spleen and start to celebrate the efforts of the Government in making this country a better place for all. Her utterances further strengthen our belief that a leopard cannot change its spots, but can only change from spot to spot.
Education is a cornerstone and a prerequisite for development in our country and indeed in any country in the world. This is so because a school is a nursery to shape the world outlook of individuals. If this world outlook is not shaped while the minds are young and pliable, it might be a mission impossible when the minds are old and rigid. Prior to 1994, education in our country was used not to produce balanced citizens aware of their patriotic duties, but to produce, especially amongst Africans, hewers of wood and drawers of water.
The advent of democracy in our country therefore meant bringing about a revolution in education, a revolution that would fundamentally change the education system in this country. The South African Schools Act and other relevant Acts then and the Education Laws Amendment Bill debated today are all meant to advance that revolution. We will do so despite the screaming and kicking of those wanting to cling to the past. We will drag them along into the bright future of education in this country.
The South African Schools Act introduced for the first time the concept of school governing bodies in our schools. The SGBs are the most democratic structures that have ever been involved in the governance of our schools. For the first time in the history of this country we have statutory structures in our schools that represent all role-players in a school situation. Students as represented in the SGBs are no longer just recipients of instructions from the school’s principal but can now participate in the shaping of their own destiny. Parents and teachers are important stakeholders and are now also involved in the governance of the schools. This is democracy in its purest form.
The only snag, which I think is subjective, is the fact that we have had some small shortcomings here and there. The Education Laws Amendment Bill seeks to address some of those shortcomings. The experience of the past few years shows that the main problem with SGBs was capacity. The law demands that after their election the SGBs must be capacitated. The level of development of communities in our country, like anywhere else, is not the same. SGBs in the affluent areas have performed relatively better than those in the rural areas. We have had situations where SGBs, due to a lack of understanding of their duties, and especially in the rural areas, strove to exceed their mandates, whilst in other areas we have had them dictated to by the principals. All these anomalies happen when these bodies are not properly empowered. The Education Laws Amendment Bill makes it compulsory for the departments of education in the provinces to empower SGBs to be equipped to do their tasks. We want to further urge that in capacitating these bodies the provincial education departments must apply positive discrimination in favour of the rural areas, because the need is greatest in those areas. To illustrate what happens when an SGB is not capacitated, I would like to go into a little detail as to what actually happened in Ermelo. This is from an article in the Sunday Times, 30 September 2001, entitled ``The worst headmaster in the land’’. This headmaster, Koos Kruger, used the school fees to pay for his Mercedes-Benz 180 C class. [Interjections.] Unfortunately he is from Mpumalanga. [Interjections.]
This headmaster paid for his booze with school money, he went out to dine with school fees, he went to casinos with that money and we are also told that he paid his domestic servant with the school fees. Over and above that, this very principal refused a student a bursary of R2 760, just because that student was black. This is racism at its best.
Mr A E VAN NIEKERK: That is not true. [Interjections.]
Mr B J TOLO (MPUMALANGA): Now, we are therefore saying that we believe that if the SGB in that school had been capacitated and functioning properly, these serious irregularities would not have happened or would have been detected in time. [Time expired.]
Ms O H ZILLE (Western Cape): Chairperson, Minister, MECs, colleagues, hon members, including the hon Mr Tolo, I do not think that I am going to spend any of my precious time commenting on Mr Tolo, because he is clearly speaking on issues that he knows very little about and are irrelevant to the Bills before us, in large measure.
I do welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate and I will begin on the Education Laws Amendment Bill. I would like to start by commending the process by which this Bill took shape. It was a participative process and provinces’ inputs were taken seriously. We were given various opportunities to state our case, and in some instances - important instances - the amendments to the Bill showed that we had been listened to. We greatly value this and would like to place our appreciation on record.
Our Constitution stipulates the right to a basic education for everyone. When it comes to turning that right into reality, we come up against the stark realisation of just how basic the education is that the state can afford to offer each child. For this reason we rely a great deal on the contributions of parents to help Government to lift public schools above the level of basic and assist us in our quest for excellence in all public schools.
We believe in redistribution and have implemented the national department’s norms and standards for the funding of schools with great determination and, I may say, success. This system allocates seven times more funding in key categories to the poorest schools in comparison with the least poor schools - with a sliding scale in between.
In addition, we encourage all contributions by parents, and I am pleased to report that their involvement in schools is, in many cases, growing.
This involvement has sometimes, unfortunately, been accompanied by financial malpractices, although I have not found too many Koos Krugers in this province, I am pleased to say.
We are determined to ensure that all moneys raised by a school are used for the children’s educational interests, and we have taken concerted steps to end malpractices and root out all forms of corruption. We believe that we already have all the measures we need to stamp out corruption. I am surprised that Mr Koos Kruger is not in jail. I am sure that if he were in this province, if a case against him could be proved, and after a fair trial, he would be in jail if he were found guilty. [Interjections.]
Our forensic audit teams have achieved significant success, and of course success breeds success. Parents and teachers report malpractice, knowing that if they do, we will send our forensic audit teams and something will be done. The word is out throughout this province that corruption and malpractices will be detected, and that is the first essential step to curbing such practices.
However, the vast majority of our schools are not corrupt, and the increasing involvement of parents has been enormously beneficial to the public school system. The benefits have far outweighed the disadvantages, and we have all the laws we currently need to stamp out corruption wherever we find it. We are therefore concerned by the general trend, also evidenced in this Bill, for the state to curb the scope of school communities to deliver the resources and input required to build the excellence of all public schools.
We understand what malpractices these measures seek to prevent, and we support this objective, but we do not believe that measures to deal with the corrupt few should be applied in a way that could shackle the creativity of the honest majority in raising funds and investing those funds in the interest of education.
These prohibitions have been ameliorated somewhat by the Bill making provision for the MEC to grant a school permission to enter into loans and overdrafts, or to open another account, where appropriate. This puts an enormous responsibility on all MECs to be efficient and prompt in responding to such requests to avoid serious inconvenience to the schools involved. I will support a time deadline to be included in the relevant clause to ensure that MECs apply their minds and respond promptly.
However, we must reiterate our concern about the retrospective nature of the clause in the Bill relating to trusts, particularly the fact that it applies without any time limit. Many schools have operated trust funds for decades, perfectly legally and without any corruption or ulterior motives.
We know that in the application of South African law, our courts make a presumption against retrospectivity, unless it is expressly stated. In this Bill it is expressly stated, but gives rise to serious uncertainties. For example: How far back will this retrospectivity apply? What happens to the rights and obligations of currently lawful trusts and assets they may own? What happens, for example, if funds from a trust are used to purchase or develop a fixed asset, such as a school hall? The building obviously cannot be returned to the school fund.
In all such instances our law requires that the clause be given its most restrictive and limited interpretation. We are concerned about the unresolved issues and unintended consequences this clause is likely to engender.
In terms of this Bill, which will be law before the start of the 2002 school year, many routine procedures of financial administration, which are perfectly legal now, will become illegal. We strongly believe that there should be a six-month phasing-in period for schools to adjust their systems and procedures to comply with the provisions of this Bill. Most schools have completed their budgetary processes for 2002, and need time to adjust well-established practices to the new reality.
Another area of concern is the evidence in this Bill that the national department continues its tendency to centralise controls and remove the discretion of the MEC to determine what is best for local circumstances. [Interjections.] With federal aspects!
An example of this to be found in the section of the Bill which requires the MEC to determine the functions and the procedures for the establishment and election of representative councils of learners, subject to policy made in terms of the National Education Policy Act. There is little point in giving an MEC discretion, only to curb such discretion in line with quite narrowly defined criteria. The possible implications of the recent Constitutional Court judgment, for the extent to which the National Education Policy Act can determine procedures that are binding on provinces, will also have to be carefully studied. We will examine this clause in the light of that judgment.
One final area of concern we have with this clause is that clause 4, relating to governing bodies, still does not enable provincial departments to deal with individual governing body members who misuse their positions and disrupt the functioning of schools. The clause deals effectively, and we welcome it, with the problem of governing bodies that are collectively dysfunctional. However, we believe our laws should make provision for the increasingly common situation in which individuals with hidden agendas seek to advance their individual interests, and not the school’s, using their position on governing bodies to do so. In some cases this results in severe conflict, and curbs the governing body in the exercise of its mandate.
Apart from these concerns, and some are serious concerns, we think that several amendments are constructive, and those we welcome. However, having applied our minds very seriously indeed, we have considered the weaknesses in this Bill sufficient cause to oppose it.
I will summarise briefly what these reasons are: There are sufficient currently available methods to stop malpractices and corruption in a small minority of schools. We do not need another law that will merely curb the capacity of schools to help the state raise the money needed to fund quality education in all schools.
Some very capable parents are beginning to withdraw from governing bodies, because it is just too much work in an increasingly restrained context. Secondly, we believe there must be a phase-in period to prevent a situation where schools find they are guilty of breaking the law if they are merely continuing practices which up to now have been perfectly legal, and have not abused their situations.
Thirdly, we oppose the increasing tendency to centralise power by the national department. We must apply concurrent powers to allow MECs discretion to apply law in appropriate ways to suit schools in different situations, within provinces and between provinces.
However, it is our very great pleasure to support the General and Further Education and Training Quality Assurance Bill, generally referred to by us as Genfetqa. The essence of the Bill is the establishment of a General and Further Education and Training Quality Assurance Council that will replace the SA Certification Council, and also the repeal of the South African Certification Council Act of 1986.
We extend our sincere thanks, along with the Minister, and our commendation, to the SA Certification Council for its exceptional contribution over many years. The new council will perform the role of an education and training quality assurance body for the general education and training and the further education and training bands on the National Qualifications Framework in terms of the South African Qualifications Act of 1995.
The functions of the council include quality assurance, which would make it a reactionary Bill according to Mr Tolo, and the assessment and certification of learners at GET and FET exit points. [Interjections.] The composition of the council consists of 15 members appointed by the Minister. The Minister is also responsible, through the invitation of nominations, for the appointment of the chairperson, as well as the CEO. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Mr N M RAJU: Chairperson, hon Minister, hon MECs, hon special delegates, hon colleagues, like the hon MEC who preceded me, I will not be tempted to engage Mr Tolo in his disparaging remarks about unsubstantiated statements attributed to Ms Zille. [Interjections.] However, I just want to pose two questions for Who Wants to be a Millionare? Question one: Which province fiddled with the matriculation results: (a) Mpumalanga, (b) Mpumalanga, (c) Mpumalanga or (d) Mpumalanga? [Laughter.] Question two: The mampara Kruger, the principal …
Mr M A SULLIMAN: Chairperson, on a point of order: I would like to know whether the Mpumalanga exams have anything to do with this particular Bill that is before us. The hon member is totally out of order.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Carry on, hon member.
Mr N M RAJU: Chairperson, I did not finish with my second question. The mampara Kruger, to whom Mr Tolo referred, happened to be from Mpumalanga. He had both his hands and feet in the cookie jar and nobody was watching. So it was a bit rich for the delegate from Mpumalanga to make self- righteous statements on education.
The General and Further Education and Training Quality Assurance Bill proposes the establishment of the General and Further Education and Training Quality Assurance Council to replace the SA Certification Council. The proposed council will perform the role of an education and training quality assurance body for general and further education. The main function of the council is to be responsible for monitoring and auditing education and training achievements and systems commensurate with national standards and qualifications.
It is well known that the SA Certification Council Act of 1986 is of apartheid origin and, as such, was neither user-friendly nor gender- friendly. And it was no surprise that the Department of Education appointed a task team to investigate, develop and produce a suitable quality assurance model for the general and the further education and training bands of the National Qualifications Framework.
The DP supports the Bill and fully acknowledges the fact that the Bill provides for a smooth transition before it becomes a wholly registered education and training quality assurance body with the SA Qualifications Authority. The Education Laws Amendment Bill, on the other hand, provides for the amendment of the South African Schools Act of 1996, the Employment of Educators Act of 1998 and the Further Education and Training Act of 1998. Obviously, these pieces of legislation had loopholes and the amendments seek to plug them.
Let us examine the main objectives of the Bill. Firstly, the amendment to section 11 of the South African Schools Act 1996 seeks to make the representative council of learners the only recognised and legitimate learner body at public schools. The MEC will determine the functions of the council. The prefect system, as we know it, will be history.
Secondly, the amendment to section 16 seeks to specify the functions of the governing body of a school. In other words, some powers of the SGB will, as a result, be curtailed.
Thirdly, section 36 is amended to prohibit the school governing body from applying for overdrafts or raising money by means of loans without obtaining the prior approval of the MEC. Fourthly, section 37 is amended to make it clear that a school should maintain one bank account only.
The Bill also prohibits the school governing body from establishing a trust from school funds or paying school fees into trust accounts. The fact that trusts may lead to abuse is a valid concern. But to obviate such abuse, a preferred route would be for provincial heads of departments to monitor and oversee the management and administration of such trusts. In any case, there is the recourse of the Auditor-General, who could be requested to undertake an audit of the records and financial statements of a trust administered by a public school that is suspected to be involved in malfeasance.
The denial of access to financial tools such as loans, overdrafts and trusts will be tantamount to pulling the plug of the lifeline of financial viability of most schools.
Such denial will put especially the former Model C schools in an invidious situation as they are destined to rely less on subsidies in comparison with public schools.
The DP sees the Education Laws Amendment Bill as sounding the the death knell of such schools, and therefore opposes the Bill. Surely the financial wellbeing of a school is paramount if it has to carry out its constitutional mandate of providing optimum quality education to its charges, unfettered by extraneous constraints.
Mev J WITBOOI: Voorsitter, agb Minister en agb lede, die Nuwe NP staan voor die Raad om ons teenstem teen die Wysigingswetsontwerp op Onderwyswette aan te teken. Hierdie wetsontwerp het dit ten doel om bepaalde wysigings aan die Suid-Afrikaanse Skolewet aan te bring en dit is met van hierdie klousules waarmee ons wesenlike probleme het.
In klousule lui 1(b) dit soos volg:
Subject to policy made in terms of section 3(4)(g) of the National Education Policy Act, 1096, the member of the executive Council must … determine the functions and procedures for the establishment and election of representative councils of learners.
Die Nuwe NP is van mening dat hierdie stukkie wysiging die outonomie van enige lid van die uitvoerende komitee aan bande lê en dat dit dui op ‘n geneigdheid van die Minister om sentrale beheer uit te oefen. As daar gekyk word na wat in Wet 27 van 1996 staan en spesifiek in artikel 3(4)(g) staan, is dit duidelik dat daar geen ruimte aan LUKs gebied word om hul provinsiale magte wat wel op papier staan, uitvoering te gee nie.
Hoewel die Nuwe NP met die wysiging in artikels 36(2) en (3) van Wet 84 van 1996 kan saamleef, is die bepaling dat die beheerliggame slegs lenings mag aangaan met die goedkeuring van die LUKs, volgens ons nie heeltemal goed deurdag nie. Vrae ontstaan onwillekeurig by ons: Wat gebeur as ‘n gevaarlike situasie by ‘n skool ontstaan, een met onmiddellike finansiële implikasies? Wat as die staat op daardie gegewe oomblik ‘n prioriteitslys het waarvan nie afgewyk kan word nie? Moet die beheerliggaam van ‘n betrokke skool verlief daarmee neem met ‘n antwoord wat as volg mag lui: Ons neem kennis van die probleem. Ons plaas u op die prioriteitslys. Nodeloos om te sê, dat so ‘n lys soms lank kan wees. Hierdie en vele ander vrae sal mettertyd by almal van ons spook, en ek hoop dat in die uitvoering van gebeurlikhede soos hierdie, spoedeisend te werk gegaan sal word om die nadele wat die wysiging mag inhou, te ondervang. Die wysiging wat oor trustfondse handel, is vir die Nuwe NP onaanvaarbaar. Dit moet egter kategories gestel word dat die Nuwe NP enige misbruik van trustfondse deur skolebeheerrade nie goedpraat nie. En waar dit voorkom dat trustfondse anders as tot voordeel van die funksionering van ‘n skool aangewend word, dit summier gestop moet word. Die beëindiging van alle trustfondse is vir ons onversoenbaar.
Gestel op ‘n ouervergadering van ‘n bepaalde gemeenskap word besluit dat daar op ‘n kollektiewe wyse geld geïn word, om ‘n fonds of trust te stig ten einde die skoolbeheerraad in staat te stel om al die leerders in daardie skool ten beste te dien, hoe kan dit as onwettig geag word? As die doelstelling van hierdie klousule tot die wetsontwerp is om besorgde ouers, toegewyde landsburgers wie se hande en harte oop is vir alle skole in ‘n bepaalde skoolgemeenskap, se hand van uitreiking weg te klap word, wil die Nuwe NP hom met iets so drakonies nie vereenselwig nie.
Die Nuwe NP vereenselwig hom met die General and Further Education and Training Quality Assurance Bill, asook die doelstellings daarvan en ondersteun dit heelhartig. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)
[Mrs J WITBOOI: Chairperson, hon Minister and hon members, the New NP is standing before the Council to put on record our vote against the Education Laws Amendment Bill. The objective of this Bill is to make certain amendments to the South African Schools Act and it is with some of these clauses that we have real problems.
Clause 1(b) goes as follows:
Subject to policy made in terms of section 3(4)(g) of the National Education Policy Act, 1996, the member of the Executive Council must … determine the functions and procedures for the establishment and election of representative councils of learners.
The New NP is of the view that this piece of amendment curbs the autonomy of any member of the executive council and that it points to a tendency of the Minister to exercise central control. When one looks at what Act 27 of 1996 says, and specifically section 3(4)(g), it is clear that MEC’s are left no room to give effect to those of their provincial powers that are in fact on paper.
Although the New NP could live with the amendments of section 36(2) and (3) of Act 84 of 1996, the provision that the governing bodies may only enter into loans with the approval of the MECs is in our view not entirely well considered. Questions involuntarily arise among us: What happens if a dangerous situation arises at a school, one with immediate financial implications? What if the state at that given moment has a priority list from which it may not deviate? Should the governing body of any relevant school be satisfied with a reply that might go as follows: We take note of the problem. We are placing you on the priority list? Needless to say, such a list could sometimes be a long one. These and other questions will in time start haunting all of us and we hope that speedy action will be taken in the case of events such as these to limit the detrimental effect that this amendment may have.
The amendment in respect of trust funds is unacceptable to the New NP. It should be stated categorically, however, that the New NP does not approve of any abuse of trust funds by school governing bodies. And where it appears that trust funds are used other than for the benefit of the functioning of a school, it should be stopped summarily. Ending all trust funds is irreconcilable to us.
Say that a certain community decides on parents’ evening that money will be collected in a collective manner to establish a fund or trust fund in order to enable the school governing body best to serve all the learners in that school, how could it be deemed to be illegal? If the objective of this clause of the Bill is to slap away the extended hand of caring parents, dedicated citizens whose hands and hearts are open to all schools in a certain school community, the New NP does not want to associate itself with something that draconian.
The New NP associates itself with the General and Further Education and Training Quality Assurance Bill, as well as its objectives, and supports it wholeheartedly. [Applause.]]
Umntwana B Z ZULU: Ngqongqoshe wezemFundo nomKhandlu ohloniphekile weziFundazwe, uHulumeni oholwa nguKhongolose seloku athatha izintambo zomBuso ngonyaka ka-1994 ubhekene nezinselele zokwenza iNingizimu Afrika ibe yikhaya elemukelekayo ezakhamuzini zonke zaleli zwe, ngaphandle kokubheka ibala lomuntu ngamunye. umNyango wezemFundo sewenze inqubekelaphambili ebonakalayo ezinseleleni obhekene nazo ekuthuthukiseni izinga lemfundo, amakhono kanye nokulingana ohlelweni lwemfundo.
Impumelelo yomNyango ekufezeni izinhloso nemigomo yawo ecacile kwadalwa ukufakwa kohlelo olusha ngonyaka ka-2000. Lolu hlelo alukhona nje ukuveza izifundiswa ezifunde kakhulu, kepha ukuba lukhiqize izifundiswa ezinolwazi olusezingeni eliphezulu emhlabeni othuthukayo.
Izikhungo zamakhono eziningi esazithola zikhona kuhulumeni wobandlululo zazinohlelo lokusebenza olwase luphelelwe yisikhathi. Lezi zikhungo zamakhono zazakhelwe phezu komgomo wokwesekela ubandlululo. Lolu hlelo engikhuluma ngalo lapha yilolo olwalungasuki emicabangweni yeningi labantu baseNingizimu Afrika. Uhlelo olwalusebenza kulezi zikhungo lwalwakhiwe ngendlela yokungakhuthazi ukukhula emqondweni, nokwenza ukuthi umfundi angabi nayo intshisekelo nokuzicija azithuthukise yena ukuze akwazi ukuzimela kulo mhlaba othuthuka ngesivinini kwezobuchwepheshe.
UmNyango weMfundo ukwazile ukuxazulula izinkinga eziningi ezadalwa uhlelo lobandlululo. Enye yalezo zinselele umNyango obubhekene nazo kube ukutshalwa kabusha kothisha abangaphezu kwe-300 000 ezikhaleni ezintsha lapho bebedingeka khona kakhulu.
Lo msebenzi wenziwe ngenkulu impumelelo kangangokuthi akubanga khona noyedwa kothisha owaphoqeka ukuthi adilizwe. Lo mNyango kaNgqongqoshe wezemFundo usebenze ngenkulu impumelelo ukwenza ngcono izinga lemiphumela yebanga leshumi ngonyaka odlule. Izinga lokuphumelela libe phezulu ngama- 90% uma kuqhathaniswa nelonyaka ongaphambili.
Lobu bungcono bemiphumela bubonakale kuzo zonke izifundazwe eziyisishiyagalolunye zaseNingizimu Afrika. UmNyango usebenzise isamba esicishe sibe ngaphezulu kwesigidi sezigidi ukuthenga izinsizakufundisa zabafundi ezikoleni. Ukwazile ukwenza inqubekelaphambili yokuthi uhlelo lokuthuthukiswa kwezikole lusebenze ngokulinganayo ngaphansi komgomo obizwa ngokuthi yi-National Norms and Standards for School Funding. Lokhu kusho ukuthi izikole eziswele kakhulu seziyokwazi ukuthola imali eyi-5% ngaphezu kwaleyo etholwa yizikole ezinemali eningi.
INingizimu Afrika inenani eliphezulu kakhulu labafundi abasezikoleni uma kuqhathaniswa namanye amazwe asathuthukayo.
Okunye okubalulekile ngukwenyuka kakhulu kwenani labafundi bamantombazane … (Translation of Zulu paragraphs follows.)
[Prince B Z ZULU: Minister of Education, and the NCOP, since the ANC came into power in 1994 it has faced the challenge of making South Africa an acceptable home to all its citizens without discriminating against people on the basis of their colour. The Department of Education has made major progress in the challenges that it faces, such as improving the level of education, skills and equality in the education system.
The success of the department in fulfilling its clear policies and aims was made possible by introducing a new programme in 2000. This programme is not there just to produce highly educated people, but also to ensure that they have high-quality knowledge in a developing world.
Most institutions teaching skills, that we inherited from the apartheid government, had an expiring work programme. These institutions were built on the foundation of apartheid. The system that I am talking about here is the one that haunted the people of South Africa for a long time.
The structure of the system that operated in those institutions was designed in a way that discouraged the development of the mind of a student. A student did not get the courage to improve and prepare for his future so that he could be serious in this world in which progress in technology takes place quickly.
The Department of Education has managed to solve most of the problems that were created by apartheid. One of the problems that the department has resolved was the redeployment of 30 000 teachers in new positions where they were needed most.
This job was done successfully since not a single teacher was retrenched. This Department of Education has worked successfully in improving matric results last year by 90% as compared to the previous year’s results. This improvement was noticed in all nine provinces of South Africa. The department has used thousands of millions of rands to buy study aids for students at schools. It has also managed to make progress in ensuring that the school development programme functioned equally under the National Norms and Standards for School Funding. This means that those schools that are in dire need of money will get 5% more that those that have enough money.
South Africa has a large number of students in schools compared to developed countries.
Another thing that was noticed was the increase in the number of female …]
Ms CS BOTHA: Chairperson, on a point of order: Are there translation facilities?
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! We do not seem to have them at the moment. I am trying to verify this.
Ms C S BOTHA: Chairperson, there is a problem, however, because the speech was indicated as being in English. I do not see an indication that any other vernacular was going to be used, so we need a translation, please.
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! If the member has the speech in English and is prepared to speak in another language I would ask him to continue but if not, I will reschedule his speech and go on to the next member. Hon member Zulu, are you prepared to do that? [Interjections.] I am talking to the hon member Zulu, and he is only one person.
Prince B Z ZULU: Chairperson, no.
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Hon member, with due respect then I will reschedule your speech and go on to the next member.
Ms B D CREECY (Gauteng): Chairperson, hon Minister, MECs and colleagues in the NCOP, the Gauteng province welcomes the two proposed Bills as amended. It is our view that these Bills contribute to the ongoing process of transforming the education system in our country and to promoting access, equity, transparency and quality.
I want to start with the Education Laws Amendment Bill. There has been an attempt here this afternoon by some of the hon members of the opposition to sow seeds of panic around this Bill. They have claimed that it undermines the principle of partnership between school committees and the state. They have also said that it limits the functions of the school governing bodies and suggest that these might be usurped by the MEC or the national Minister.
They suggest that school governing bodies will be left with fundraising and managerial obligations, but with no legal capacity and that the result of this will be to destroy the willingness of school communities to raise independent funds. Hon member Witbooi even suggested that private trust funds will not be allowed at all anymore.
I think it is important to set a few matters straight. It is this ANC Government which has generalised to all schools and entrenched in law the partnership of school governing bodies and the state. [Interjections.] This same Government has extended this partnership to the point at which school governing bodies may apply for section 21 status in terms of the Companies Act, so that they can more effectively pursue governance of their own schools. School communities are juristic persons. Section 21 is the Companies Act, I would like to say to hon Zille. They are therefore in a position to raise school fees and other funds for the benefit of the school. The 2000 amendments to the Income Tax Act allow individuals and companies to donate to schools to receive a tax benefit. I think this has been adequately portrayed to us once again this afternoon by the hon the Minister. What the Bill explicitly prevents is the transfer of fees or donations already in the school fund to independent trusts. It does not prevent any individual or any group of individuals outside of the school community from setting up trusts, which can benefit that school or any other school. [Interjections.] Yes, you did.
Every parent has the right to know what money has been collected by the school governing body, and has the right to a say in how it is spent. This proviso is contained in the Bill and it is entrenched in the provisions that insist that school governing bodies must draw up annual budgets. This is not some draconian Big Brother intervention as hon members of the opposition would have us believe. [Interjections.] It is a reasonable measure to protect parents’ fees, and to bring education legislation in line with the principles of the Promotion of Access to Information Act and the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act.
It does not help to say that there are only a few schools that have transgressed regulations. The point is that there is an onus on the state to regulate all schools, whether they are good or bad. [Interjections.] School governing bodies will be able to raise loans or enter into credit agreements provided they have written permission from the MEC. It is our view that the state has a responsibility to ensure that when school governing bodies raise loans, they will be in a position to repay these without jeopardising state assets that might inadvertently have been put up as surety on these loans.
I also think it is important to say a few words regarding the representative councils of learners. The primary purpose of these bodies is to instil a sense of responsibility and leadership skills in learners. This cannot happen if they continue to be sidelined within the school administrative system. To play a meaningful role, they need responsibility for issues such as extramural clubs and societies, and, to the extent to which students are involved in discipline, this function needs to fall under the representative council of learners.
One of the primary civic lessons which we are trying to build in our society is that leadership and authority derive from a mandate and must be exercised under conditions of responsibility and accountability. This lesson becomes a very hollow one to young people if it exists side by side with a prefect system that is arbitrary, authoritarian and unaccountable to the very people over whom it is exercising power.
Turning to the General and Further Education and Training Quality Assurance Bill, one of the difficulties that we have seen in the further education and training sector has been the lack of a common minimum standard for quality assurance and service delivery. This problem has been exacerbated by the plethora of accrediting institutions in the education system as a whole. The Gauteng province believes there is a need to strive for greater uniformity in the education system and believes that the Bill makes a positive contribution in this regard.
In the course of public hearings held in our province we were made aware of some of the difficulties independent schools in historically disadvantaged areas might have in applying for accreditation. We were assured by the Department of Education that schools receiving a state subsidy would be included in the departmental accreditation processes. We believe that this provision will cover the majority of independent schools in historically disadvantaged areas.
We were also made aware of the concerns of some stakeholders regarding the extent to which the Bill makes provision for public-private partnerships in the field of accreditation. We were assured that clause 28 of the Bill allows the General and Further Education and Training Quality Assurance Council to enter into public-private partnerships to perform any or some of its functions. I think that the hon the Minister stated this again today.
We, in Gauteng, believe that this Bill and the General Law Amendment Act will assist us in standardising and normalising public schooling and further education and training in our province. We welcome both of them as a contribution to ensuring a basic minimum standard of public service in public schools and further education and training institutions. [Applause.]
Mr J O TLHAGALE: Madam Chairperson, hon Minister, hon MECs present and the honourable House, I have been mandated by my province, the North West, in the absence of a special delegate, to represent it and to convey its support of the Bills in terms of the mandates received.
The proposed Education Laws Amendment Bill now before this honourable House seeks to amend the South African Schools Act of 1996, the Further Education and Training Act of 1998 and the Employment of Educators Act of 1998. The amendments were the result of an evaluation process of the above-mentioned Acts in order to close loopholes that existed in them.
Clause 1 of the Education Laws Amendment Bill provides that the representative council of learners is the only recognised and legitimate learner body at the school. The significance of this provision is that it helps to avoid situations in which rival councils are established by opposing student groups in the same school.
Clause 6 of this Bill limits a school to a single banking account, but it does not prohibit a public school from investing surplus funds with the approval of the MEC. However, it does prohibit governing bodies from paying moneys from the school fund into a trust account or from establishing a trust. The reason for this prohibition on trusts is that school governing bodies or principals could easily hide school moneys, thus misleading parents and frustrating the principle of promoting transparency.
In fact, school funds are intended to benefit the learner during his or her learning career. It is therefore logical that the school must not set out to amass large amounts of money, which will not be used to benefit the learners and which will ultimately tempt the principal to purchase a Mercedes-Benz, as in the case of the principal of Ermelo Hoërskool in Mpumalanga, something the Minister has already alluded to.
In respect of the Employment of Educators Act of 1998, schedule 2 of the Act is amended to make provision for educators to appeal against the findings arising from a disciplinary hearing, and that in cases in which the accused educator wishes to bring a legal representative, the presiding officer should decide whether or not to allow it.
The General and Further Education and Training Quality Assurance Bill before the honourable House aims to establish a quality assurance body, which would ensure quality in the delivery and outcomes of the national education training system. The appointment of the chairperson of the council by the Minister has our support. This office is too important to be left in the hands of council members to sort out amongst themselves.
The functions of the council, with which we are in full agreement, are, inter alia, to monitor the suitability and adequacy of standards and qualifications; to assure the quality of learner assessment at exit points; and to issue certificates of learner achievement and so on.
Clauses 18 and 19 of the Bill make provision for the functions of the provider or the assessment body regarding external examinations. The functions include taking appropriate measures to combat irregularities at examinations and marking centres so that irregularities, such as those which occurred at the marking centre in one of our provinces recently, do not recur. However, should they happen, the council is obliged to report any such malpractices to the director for his or her attention.
The council is also empowered to cancel a certificate in serious cases in which a learner has not fulfilled the requirements for the qualification. The issue of irregularities and noncompliance with the prescribed examination policy is so serious in terms of this Bill that a person can be found guilty of an offence and be liable to imprisonment.
Motlotlegi Modulasetilo, ka mafoko a, ke bua fano gore Porofense ya Bokone Bophirima e tlatsa Molaotlhomo o gore o amogelwe. [Legofi.] [Chairperson, with these words, I would like to say that the North West urges that this Bill be supported. [Applause.]]
THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE COMMITTEES: Ungaqala ekuqaleni. You may start from the beginning.]
Umntwana B Z ZULU: Sihlalo, ngingaqala ekuqaleni?
Bengicelwe uSihlalo wami ekomidini wathi uyothokoza kakhulu uma ngikhuluma ngolimi engaluncela ebeleni. Ngakho-ke yonke inkulumo yami bengiyihlele kanjalo.
UmNyango wezeMfundo sewenze inqubekela phambili ebonakalayo ezinselelweni obhekene nazo, ekuthuthukiseni izinga lemfundo, amakhono kanye nokulingana ohlelweni lwemfundo. Impumelelo yomNyango, ekufezeni izinhloso nemigomo yawo ecacile, yadalwa ukufakwa kohlelo olusha ngonyaka odlule. Lolu hlelo alukhona nje ukuveza izifundiswa ezifunde kakhulu kepha ukuba lukhiqize izifundiswa ezinolwazi olusezingeni eliphezulu emhlabeni othuthukayo.
Izikhungo zamakhono eziningi esazithola zikhona kuhulumeni wobandlululo uhlelo lokusebenza kwazo lwase luphelelwe yisikhathi. Lezi zikhungo zamakhono zazakhelwe phezu komgomo wokwesekela ubandlululo. Lolu hlelo engikhuluma ngalo lapha yilolo olwalungasuki emizweni yokucabanga yabantu abaningi baseNingizimu Afrika.
Ukuhlelwa kwalolo hlelo olwalusebenza kulezi zikhungo kwakwakhiwe ngendlela yokungakukhuthazi ukukhula emqondweni. Umfundi ubengabi nayo intshisekelo yokuzicija, azithuthukise yena ukuze akwazi ukuzimela kulo mhlaba othuthuka ngesivinini kwezobuchwepheshe.
UMnyango wezeMfundo ukwazile ukuxazulula izinkinga eziningi ezadalwa uhlelo lobandlululo. Enye yalezo zinkinga obubhekene nazo uMnyango kube ukutshalwa kabusha kothisha abangaphezu kwe-30 000 ezikhaleni ezintsha lapho bebedingeka khona kakhulu. Lo msebenzi wenziwe ngenkulu impumelelo lapho kungabanga bikho noyedwa kothisha owaphoqelelwa ukuba adilizwe.
Lo Mnyango kaNgqongqoshe wezeMfundo usebenze ngenkulu impumelelo ekwenzeni ngcono izinga lemiphumela yokuhlolwa kwabafundi bebanga leshumi ngonyaka odlule ngezinga lokuphumelela elibe ngama-90% kunelalowo nyaka ongaphambili. Lobu bungcono bemiphumela bubonakale kuzo zonke izifundazwe eziyisishiyagalolunye zaseNingizimu Afrika.
UMnyango usebenzise isamba esicishe sibe ngamarandi ayizigidi eziyinkulungwane ekuthengeni izinsiza-kufundisa zabafundi ezikoleni. Ukwazile ukwenza inqubekela-phambili yokuba uhlelo lokuthuthukiswa kwezikole lusebenze ngokulinganayo ngaphansi komgomo obizwa ngokuthi i- National Norms and Standards for School Funding. Lokhu kusho ukuthi izikole eziswele kakhulu seziyokwazi ukuthola imali engama-7% ngaphezu kwaleyo etholwa yilezo zikole ezinemali eningi.
INingizimu Afrika inenani eliphezulu kakhulu labafundi ezikoleni uma iqhathaniswa namanye amazwe asathuthuka. Okunye okubalulekile ukwenyuka kakhulu kwenani labafundi besifazane ezikoleni zaseNingizimu Afrika, okuyinto esibeke leli zwe lakithi eqophelweni eliphezulu emhlabeni jikelele. UMnyango usemkhankasweni omkhulu wokuhlelwa kabusha kwemfundo yokwengeza, ephakeme kanye nokuqeqesha. Lokhu kusho inqubekela-phambili enkulu eMnyangweni.
Umqulu we-Quantitative Overview of South African Technical Colleges owashicilelwa ngo-Okthoba kulo nyaka ophelile yiwona owabalula inselelo yokuguqulwa kwalo mkhakha wezikhungo zemfundo yokwengeza kanye nokuqeqesha. Lokhu kuholele ekubeni kusungulwe ithimba elaziwa ngokuthi yi-National Landscape Task Team. Umsebenzi omkhulu waleli thimba ukuba leluleke uMnyango ngokuthi isimo salo mkhakha wezemfundo yokwengeza nokuqeqeshwa sizoba njani esikhathini esizayo.
Okunye okubalulekile ukuthi izikhungo zemfundo yokwengeza kanye nokuqeqesha zingahlanganiswa futhi zihlelwe kanjani. Ukuphatha izikhungo zemfundo eziningi kangaka zibe zenza umsebenzi ofanayo sekusho ukulahlekelwa okukhulu ngasohlangothini loMnyango wezeMfundo. Izikhungo lezi zokwengeza kanye nokuqeqesha othisha yizona eziningi kakhulu kanti zidla uMnyango izigidi zezimali. Lezi zikhungo zemfundo engikhuluma ngazo lapha futhi ezizimele ziyi-152. UMnyango uhlose ukuziphincisa lezi zikhungo kusale ezingama-50 kuphela. Lezo ezizosala uMnyango uhlose ukuzihlanganisa zisebenze ngokubambisana namayunivesithi aseNingizimu Afrika. Ukuhlanganiswa kwalezi zikhungo kwenzelwa ukuba kube ngabafundi abasizakalayo ngezimali ezifakwa kuzo. UMnyango uphokophele ukuba lube selusebenza lolu hlelo lwemfundo yokwengeza kanye nokuqeqesha ngonyaka ka-
- (Translation of Zulu paragraphs follows.)
[Prince: B Z ZULU: Chairperson, may I start at the beginning?
My committee chairperson said he would be glad if I delivered my speech in my mother tongue. Therefore my whole speech is prepared in my language.
The Department of Education has made major progress in dealing with the challenges that it faces, such as improving the level of education, skills and equality in the education system. The success of the department in attaining its goals is clear. This was caused by the introduction of new system last year. This system is not just there to produce highly educated people, but also to ensure that they have high-quality knowledge in a developing world.
Most institutions teaching skills, that we inherited from the apartheid government, had an expiring work programme. These institutions were built on the foundation of apartheid. The system that I am talking about here is the one that haunted the people of South Africa for a long time.
The structure of the system that operated in those institutions was designed in a way that discouraged the development of the mind of a student. A student did not get the courage to improve and prepare for his future so that he could be serious in this world in which progress in technology takes place quickly.
The Department of Education has managed to solve most of the problems that were created by apartheid. One of the problems that the department has resolved was the redeployment of 30 000 teachers in new positions where they were needed most. This job was done successfully since not a single teacher was retrenched.
This Department of Education has worked successfully in improving matric results last year by 90% as compared to the previous year’s results. This improvement was noticed in all nine provinces of South Africa.
The department has used thousands of millions of rands to buy study aids for students at schools. It has also managed to make progress in ensuring that the school development programme functioned equally under the National Norms and Standards for School Funding. This means that those schools that are in dire need of money will get 7% more than those that have enough money.
South Africa has a large number of students in schools compared to developed countries. Another thing that was noticed was the increase in the number of female students in South African schools, something that has put our country at a high international level. The department is campaigning to restructure college and teaching education. This means a great achievement in the department.
The Quantitative Overview of South African Technical Colleges that was printed in October last year identified the challenge to transform this college and teaching education. This has led to the formation of a National Landscape Task Team. The main job of this team is to advise the department on what this field should look like in future.
Another important thing is the way that colleges and training institutions can be restructured. The management of so many institutions that are doing one and the same thing means a great loss for the Department of Education. Colleges and training institutions are in the majority and they cost the department millions of rands. I am talking about 152 independent colleges and teaching institutions. The Department of Education aims at reducing them to only 50. Those that will remain, according to the department, will be linked with universities of South Africa. The joining of these institutions will be done so that some students will be assisted with the money that is put in to these institutions. The department aims to have this programme in use by 2003.]
Quality assurance and quality improvement are fundamental to ensuring that general further education and training programmes meet the needs of learners, communities, employers and society. Quality assurance provides a means of benchmarking our programmes and qualifications against one another and the rest of the world.
Continual quality improvement is vital if we are to address the inequalities and deficiencies of the past and ensure the responsiveness and relevance of provision in a dynamically changing and globally competitive world. Therefore, the priorities of the new council will be to establish projects to investigate and pioneer work in quality assurance of further education and training institutions; to provide certification of Abet Level 4 learners; to provide accreditation of school education providers; and to modernise assessment and moderation, and ensure that appropriate experience and expertise are available in this regard.
The council will be accredited by the SA Qualifications Authority as an education and training quality assurance body, and we are sure that it will execute its quality assurance function in this context. As for the funding of the council, the Bill is clear as to what the main sources of funding will be and this will include fees charged for rendering services such as certification of learners; accreditation of providers; and Government allocation and donor funding. The ANC supports the Bill. [Applause.]
Mr P S SIZANI (Eastern Cape): Chairperson, hon Prof Asmal, Minister of Education, MECs and hon members, the education system in the Republic of South Africa, as we have now come to know, is undergoing major changes unheard of in this country. Some South Africans, who are comfortable with what they know or who have become accustomed to what they know, are reluctant to give us their unqualified support when we make the change, for fear of the unknown. Some of them have a dogmatic adherence to ideology, untempered by empathy with the sensitivities of the population in their areas of jurisdiction.
Ours is not a dogmatic adherence, for we can deal with ideological challenges. But we have an obligation to build a democratic nonsexist, nonracial and united education system, based on the rule of law and a culture of human rights. It would be folly, therefore, to follow the Roman emperors who sought to change the workings of the Greek empire institutions, but left Greek teachers in the empire’s schools. The two Bills, namely, the Education Laws Amendment Bill and the General and Further Education and Training Quality Assurance Bill, seek to address this very point.
By way of the Education Laws Amendment Bill we seek to amend the South African Schools Act so as to provide for representative councils of learners to be fully recognised learner bodies at the schools. The coexistence of the RCLs and the prefect system has been a violation of the South African Schools Act. This, in our view, is a residue of the Model C schools that are very authoritarian and therefore out of line with the democratic norms of the new South Africa. The amendment will therefore assist in the process of transformation and build learners’ leadership and confidence in preparation for their future roles in society.
The Bill further provides the provincial department of education with instruments regarding the failure of the school governing bodies to perform their functions. When they do, they are prohibited from raising loans and overdrafts without authority or stashing those funds in trust accounts. Again, this is a relic of the past which remains with us and must be done away with, not the centralisation of power, as the hon Helen Zille tries to suggest.
I commend the Minister and all those who support this Bill for their insight and foresight because these amendments go into the grain of the South African management and governance that complicate provincial administration unnecessarily.
The Genfetqa goes a bit further since it provides for the establishment, composition and functioning of the General and Further Education and Training Quality Assurance Council with clear quality assurance in that band. The certificates at exit points are controlled by norms and standards of curriculum and assessment as provided for by this Bill. In that regard, the Safcert Act of 1986 is repealed; another relic of the past. In the Eastern Cape we have demarcated, at GET schools, Grades 3, 6 and 9 exit points to assess learner achievements and performance and built in continuous assessment as an OBE principle, and an integral part of the formative assessment in the classroom. We are currently piloting GET certification in the form of external and continuous assessment tasks to assess learner performance.
The amendments in the FET Act of 1998 will help complete the framework for FET band transformation currently under way, to avoid the dichotomy of the old curriculum and assessment bases in the new system. In our earlier submission we indicated that the Bill should take on board Abet, private providers and other training providers. Further, the Bill must align the assessment processes with the OBE paradigm so that outdated Safcert principles should not infringe OBE principles. I see that this is done in part. We in the Eastern Cape fully support the amendments and wish to urge the NCOP to rally behind the Minister and all those who love democracy. [Applause.]
Ms T J NDIMANDE (Northern Province): Chairperson, hon members, I bring to the House greetings from the Northern Province, the home of peace. May I also take this opportunity to express my honest and sincere appreciation for having been afforded the opportunity to participate in this important debate, which will undoubtedly contribute towards the reconstruction, development and transformation of our education system.
The Education Laws Amendment Bill is aimed at amending the South African Schools Act, Act 84 of 1996, the Employment of Educators Act, Act 76 of 1998, and the Further Education and Training Act, Act 98 of 1998. One would have loved to make inputs on these three Acts above. However, owing to time limitations, I will only focus on the first two, ie Sasa and EEA because our experience is drawn from our interactions with schools.
Currently, Sasa provides for the establishment of RCLs, ie representative councils of learners, at each and every public school that enrols learners in the eighth grade and higher.
We in the Northern Province support the above-mentioned amendment of section 11 of the principal Act because clause 1 provides for the RCL to be the only recognised and legitimate representative body for the learners at a school. Our experience is that former Model C schools have a tendency of establishing parallel learner representative structures in the form of RCLs and the prefect system.
More often than not RCLs are seen as representatives of historically disadvantaged learners, whilst prefects are a preserve of the historically advantaged learner population. This state of affairs cannot be tolerated or left to continue, because it is one way of perpetuating racism in the most subtle manner. Therefore this Bill will go a long way in strengthening democratic practices at institutional levels and also deals, and harshly so, with any vestiges of racial practice.
Another contentious issue I would like to speak about is clause 4 of the Bill, which attempts to amend section 25 of Sasa. This clause deals with the powers of the head of department in terms of handling school governing bodies which are dysfunctional. Clause 4 empowers the head of department to appoint sufficient persons to perform some or all of the functions that were exercised by the predecessor SGB for a period not exceeding three months. These amendments get our full support.
The Bill further provides for the head of department to cause the election of a new SGB within a year of the appointment of the interim or temporary SGB. We have a slight problem with this amendment, because what it actually means is that the HOD may cause the election of an SGB within 12 calendar months, even beyond the three-month period of the temporary SGB.
To illustrate my point, suppose the SGB of school A proves beyond reasonable doubt to be dysfunctional around December 2000, the head of the department then appoints sufficient persons as an interim SGB from January to March 2001, which is three months. This Bill says that the HOD should cause the election of the new SGB within one year of the establishment of the interim structure.
The HOD can therefore cause an election in February or March 2001, in which case there will be no problem, or in April, May or June, etc, in which case there will be a lacuna or a vacuum in the governance of the school because the interim structure’s term of office will have expired. We would therefore propose that the time frames for the election of the new SGB should fall within the period of the temporarily appointed SGB to avoid the lacuna situation I have illustrated here.
Currently, section 36 of Sasa provides guidelines for the handling of the finances of the school. Our experience is that some schools, especially former Model C schools, exceed their powers with regard to the finances of the school in their effort to raise funds as provided for in section 36. Our experience has further taught us that such actions by SGBs might lead to fraud and related financial irregularities. Consequently we support the proposed amendment in that it prohibits SGBs from raising any loans without the express written approval of the MEC.
Section 37 of Sasa provides for the establishment of a school fund, and all moneys must be deposited into one banking account. There is also provision for the establishment of a trust. Experience in our interaction with various schools in the Northern Province has taught us that in some schools moneys are given to schools by way of a trust and such trustees are not controlled by the department.
Legally speaking, such trustees are accountable to the Master of the Supreme Court. That makes it difficult for the department to control and monitor such funds. Where a school operates more than one bank account, there is always room for financial misappropriation as well. The proposed amendment states that only one banking account should be maintained by the school. No school funds should be used to establish a trust or be deposited in any trust account. We fully agree with this amendment, because schools which are run by sophisticated school governing bodies do often abuse such a facility.
Furthermore, the amendment proposes that where any trust was established out of school funds, or where money from the school fees was deposited into such a trust before January 2002, such payment is invalid, and that money should be put back into the school funds.
We are convinced that these amendments, once passed into law, will indeed go a long way in ensuring that our schools become centres of community life and academic excellence.
Ndza ha hlamala la, loko ka hari na vanhu lava va sukaka va yima va
sirhelela kuri ku fanele ku va na ti overdraft'', ku fanele ku va na ti
loan’’ exikolweni hikuva na vona i xiphemu xa swilo leswi. Se va chava ku
lahlekeriwa naswona swi hlwerisa vana la va humaka evuswetini lava nga hava
nchumu. Va chava na ku ya eswikolweni leswiya va vulavula hi tihuvo ta
milawu na ku avanyisa. Va sivela mfumo lowu ku tirha ntirho wa wona. A va
nga ha pfuki va swi vonile, ka ha ri hava ku htlelela endzhaku.
Mhaka leyikulu eka nawu lowu, i ku hunguta no susa nkitsikitsi lowu
vangiwaka hi vafambisi va swikolo lava va rhandzaka ku tifumisa leswaku
vana lava nga tsoniwa dyondzo khale va nga yi emahlweni hikokwalaho ka
vusweti. Ku humelela va lavaya na khale a va ri na swona. A va nga ha swi
voni vo tihlolela ntsena. Xikongomelo xa xikolo loko mi lava ku swi twisisa
is child centred'' n'wana hi yena loyi a nga xirho lexikulu loyi a
fanelaka ku kuma dyondzo hi ku ntshunxeka, a nga byeriwi timhaka ta timali.
Swa tiakhawunti ta bangi na mali yo lomba. N'wina swikolo mi lava ku va
vamachonisi xana? Tioverdraft’’ leti loko mi tsandzeka ku ti hakela a
swi nga ta vuya kwala ka Ndzawulo ya Dyondzo? A swi fe.
Muchaviseki Kadar Asmal ha n’wi khensa na ndzawulo ya yena loko va vone leswaku swilo a swi fambi kahle, ku na ku hambana. Ku na swikolo ematiko- xikaya laha va tshamaka eritshurini. Swin’wana swikolo loko u fika eka swona switediyamu swa kona swi fana na xitediyamu xa Orlando, kambe ku ri rivala ra mintlangu. A swi heli, vana va ringana. N’wana i n’wana hambi i wo tshwuka hambi wa ntima, vana va Afrika Dzonga va ringana. Naswona nawu lowu wu ta endla leswaku vana va Afrika Dzonga va ringana. Va ta susa na ku hambana na ku va vana lava nga hlupheka khale va titwa va ri vanhu. [Phokotela.] (Translation of Tsonga paragraphs follows.)
[I am still surprised to see members standing up here in order to encourage the use of overdrafts as well as loans in our schools, because they are also part of all that is taking place there. They are afraid of losing and it causes delays in delivery to children who are poor. They are even afraid to go to those schools, and speak through legislative councils as well as judicial courts. They prevent this Government from doing its work. That will never happen again; there is no turning back.
The gravity of this Act is to reduce and do away with maladministration caused by school managers in our schools who are interested in enriching themselves, so that children who were deprived of education in the past, due to poverty, would be unable to continue with their studies. It is only those who come from rich families, as was always the case in the past, who manage to continue their school education. They will never see that happen again, they are just heaping misfortune on themselves. The objective of a school, if you wish to know, is child-centred. A child is the prominent part of a school and should receive education free of charge, without being told of financial matters. In regard to bank accounts and loans, are you school managers thinking of becoming money lenders? What is going to happen if you fail to pay back your overdraft? Surely the responsibility to repay is not that of the Department of Education? It must be abolished.
We would like to thank hon Minister Kader Asmal and his department, who identified that something was wrong, that there were differences. In rural areas there are schools where children sit in the dust, where there are no cement floors. The stadiums of schools look like Orlando stadium, but are ordinary playing fields. Such things should be done away with, because all children are equal. A child is a child, whether he or she is white or black; all South African children are equal. They must do away with discrimination so that the previously disadvantaged children can also feel they are accepted like any other person. [Applause.]]
Ka gore bjale re a go leboga. [We say thank you.]
Mr H T SOGONI: hon Chairperson, hon Minister of Education, MECs, special delegates present here and members, the UDM supports the Bills put before the NCOP, namely the Education Laws Amendment Bill and the General and Further Education and Training Quality Assurance Bill.
It is the UDM’s view that the Education Laws Amendment Bill seeks to provide specific context or meaning and/or clarity to some sections of the relevant principal Acts where otherwise the intention of the legislation was not clearly defined or sufficiently underlined.
Section 11 of the South African Schools Act allowed the establishment of representative councils of learners, but the amendment before us goes further to declare such a learners’ council to be the only recognised and legitimate body. These provisions, in our view, should serve to regulate with certainty and also to define, once and for all, the roles and power relations between the learners’ council and other learners’ structures in public schools.
Considering the critical role and responsibilities of the governing bodies, there is justification for the intervention by the head of the department to ensure that the governing bodies continue to perform their functions unhindered in terms of the law. But it is equally important for the Department of Education to provide a clear mechanism as well as to identify situations that create a vacuum in the performance of functions by SGBs and act promptly in response.
There are reported cases where some schools run either without a governing body or without a full complement thereof for unreasonable lengths of time.
Section 36 of the principal Act permits a governing body to “take all reasonable measures within its means to supplement the resources supplied by the state in order to improve the quality of education.’’ It is, however, not clear to me whether the use of ``may not’’ in subsection (2) does not create uncertainty regarding the intention of the legislator in this regard, if the intention is to make it compulsory to seek the written approval of the MEC before such loan or overdraft agreement is entered into, when the appropriate undertaking could be made by the department that such written approval by the MEC would be obtainable with the least possible delay.
Regarding the amendment of section 37(3), the UDM is in full agreement with regard to the keeping of one banking account by the governing body, obviously for purposes of proper control.
I am also satisfied, after thorough briefing by the department, that the amendment of subsection (6) as a precautionary measure serves to prohibit the payment of school funds into a trust, or that such school funds should not be used to establish a trust. This provision will keep all financial resources collected from parents in the hands of the SGB.
Finally, on the General and Further Education and Training Quality Assurance Bill, the establishment of the council is also welcome. Clause 6(1)(b) of the Bill was adequately addressed during the briefings. Whether or not the chairperson of the council will be appointed by the Minister from among the council members as the Bill proposes, the appointment to the position, in the view of the UDM, should be purely on merit to ensure that competence, efficiency and quality are not compromised. [Applause.]
Mrs C NKUNA: Muchaviseki Mutshami wa xitulu, holobye wa Ndzawulo ya Dyondzo, Profesa A K Asmal, vatirhi kulobye wo huma eka swi- fundza-nkulu na vatirhi kulobye va le ndzeni ka yindlu leyi. [Hon Chairperson, Minister of Education, Professor A K Asmal, colleagues from all provinces and hon members in this House.]
Allow me to start by conveying a message to the opposition, a message especially to those who are not in favour of this amending Bill. I want to say to them that this House is one that represents the interests of the provinces, and not a ground for competition. We are here to share experiences from our different provinces so that, at the end of the day, the Minister will be able to identify those gaps and flaws which need to be amended.
Ndzi pfumelele ku na mina ndzi vulavula hi Xiyenge xa 11 xa Nawu wa lembe ra 1996, wa swikolo wa Afrika-Dzonga. Nawu lowu wu lulamisiwile ku vumba nhlangano wun’we wa vadyodzisiwa lomu swikolweni lowu vuriwaka ``RCL’’. Xikongomelo-nkulu xa nawu lowu i ku endla leswaku ku va na ku angarhela hi xitalo ka tihuvo leti nga kona lomu swikolweni. Leti vukona bya tona a byi nga twiwi kumbe ku voniwa eka nkarhi lowu wu hundzeke.
Tihuvo to tala ta vadyondzisiwa a ti siyiwile ehandle hi minkarhi liya ya
tiprefect system'' ni lomu ku nga ni tiprefects’’ eka nkarhi wa sweswi.
Tihuvo leti a ti kalanga ti tiphina. Hi nhlangano wa RCL,'' vadyondzisiwa
va ta va na vurhangeri lebyi nga enawini, lebyi byi yimelaka vadyondzisiwa
hinkwavo. Ndzulamiso wa nawu lowu, i xikombiso xa maendlelo ya ndzinganiso
na angarhelo leswi hi xilungu va nge iequality and inclusivity’’. Ti nga
timhaka leti nga kona eka mfumo lowu wa ANC. Ndzinganiso na angarhelo i
timhaka leti mfumo lowu wu nga taka wu nga pfuki wu hambanile na tona.
Maendlele na mafambisele ya nhlangano lowu, i swilo leswi swi nga ta
hlamuseriwa hi xitalo eka Gazete ya xifundza-nkulu xin’wana na xin’wana.
Huvo kumbe khansele leyi yi ta pfuna vadyondzi ku landzelela nawu.
Mhaka ya vumbirhi hi nawu lowu, i ku sivela kumbe ku yirisa tiSGB'' ku
pfulatrust’’ kumbe nkwama hi mali ya vana va xikolo, ku nga school
fund'' kumbe ku teka mali ya xikolo yi ya nghenisiwa eka trust’’ kumbe
eka nkwama. Swirhalanganyi eka mhaka leyi swi tele, kambe minhlangano
yin’wana ya swa tipolitiki, a yi yimi na yona mhaka leyi hikuva va dyerile,
va dya, va ha lava ku tlhela va dya. Va lava ku ya emahlweni ku dya mali ya
vatswari hi vutlhari. Xiyenge xa 37 xiyenge-ntsongo xa vumune xa nawu lowu,
xa pfumela leswaku xikolo xi nga pfula nkwama kumbe ``trust’’ hi ndlela
leyi:
Ku endliwa tsalwa ra xikombelo ku pfula nkwama lowu, tsalwa ri fanele ku
kongomisiwa eka MEC'' wa swa dyondzo ku endla leswaku ku ta va na leswi
swi vuriwakatransparency’’ hi xilungu, kambe mhaka ya timali yi va leyi
yi andlalekeke erivaleni. Vatswari ni vana va fanekele va tiva xiyimo xa
timali ta vona.
Loko ku nga kumeka leswaku ku na surplus'' ya mali ya xikolo kumbe
donexini yo karhi va nga pfula ntsena nkwama kumbetrust’’ hi mpfumelelo
wa MEC'' wa ndzawulo ya dyondzo. Timali ta xikolo kumbe school fund’’
leti ti tirhisiwaka ku pfula trust'' kumbe nkwama ku nga si fika lembe
leri ra 2002, ti fanele ku tlherisiwa. Ndzi twile un'wana a vutisa la a ku:
Loko ku ri leswaku ku akiwile muako se ku ta endliwa yini?’’ Mi to ya
humesa marhasiti mi komba mfumo leswaku xikolo lexi xi akisiwe ku yini.
Swiyenge swo tala kumbe ti``stake-holders’’ swa dyondzo swi naverile ku tiva leswaku hikokwalaho ka yini swikolo swi tekeriwa matimba yo pfula minkwama kumbe ti”trust’’ hi swoxe?
Timali ta swikolo, xikolo xo karhi ngopfu-ngopfu tiModel C'' ta khale va
teke mali ya xikolo va yiomisa, hi xilungu va ri ya starchiwa’’, yi
omisiwa leswaku loko se mali liya yi fika eka xiteji lexi va nge ya
machuwara yi ta kumiwa hi vafambisi va trust ntsena ku nga va Van Tonder va
Piet Hoender.
Loko xikolo xi endla swiolovisi kumbe ti``facilities’’ to karhi, xikombiso, a hi nge mali ya xikolo yi pfula senthara ya tikhompyuta lahaya vana loko va ya kona va fanele ku humesa mali ku ta kota ku amukeriwa eka tisenthara leti. Kasi loko ku timhaka ti tirhiwe kahle hi xikolo, vana va kota ku tirhisa swilo sweswo va nga hakeli nchumu.
Xin’wana hileswaku maendlele kumbe matirhele ya trust'' a ya pfumeleli
mfumo ku va wu nghenelela wu kota ku va na rito. Mfumo wu sala wu ri
ehandle hikokwalaho mfumo wu lava leswaku wu va na xiyenge kokwalaho.
Xin'wana lexi karhataka hi tlhelo ra trust’’, mi kuma leswaku
tibeneficiary'' ta kona ta cinca namunthla i va-Nkuna, i va-Ndimande i va-
Witbooi. Mundzuku tibeneficiary’’ ta kona mi kuma leswaku i va-Piet
Hoender, Van der merwe, Van Niekerk swi ku taniya na va-Van Tonder.
Xin’wana vatirhikulobye, lexi karhataka hileswaku mali ya muxaka lowu yi
tlhela yi tirhisiwa ku hakela vadyondzisi lava va nga thola hi mfumo lowu
wa Afrika-Dzonga. (Translation of Tsonga paragraphs follows.]
[Allow me also to address Section 11 of the South African Schools Act of
- The Act is amended in order to form one council of learners in schools, known as the RCL, or representative council of learners. The main aim of this Bill is to enable it to embrace this council in our schools. Previously this council was ignored and neglected.
Most councils of learners were discriminated against during the time of the prefect system and at schools where there are prefects at present. These councils did not enjoy their rightful privileges. The representative council of learners will have legal leadership, representing all learners. Amending this Bill is an example of exercising the rights of equality and inclusivity. This is what is taking place in the ANC Government. Equality and inclusivity are matters which this Government cannot do away with. The process and management of this council will be promulgated by notice in the Gazette for each province. This council will help learners to abide by the rules.
The second point in this Bill is to prevent school governing bodies from opening trust funds, or any account with school funds from children, or any other money of the school that may be put into a trust fund or an account. There are a lot of problems in this regard, but other political parties do not align themselves with this view because they benefited a lot and they still want to continue to enrich themselves through the same process. They want to continue to exploit parents by using their money in an unacceptable manner. Section 37(4) is amended to allow schools to open a trust account in the following manner. It must be done through a letter of application directed to the MEC of the Department of Education in order to ensure transparency. All financial matters must be presented very clearly. Parents and schoolchildren should know the position of their school fund.
Should there be any surplus money from the school fund or if a donation is made, permission will be granted to open a trust account and approval should be obtained from the MEC of the department of education. School funds that were used for the opening of a trust account before 2002 must be paid back. I heard someone asking what was going to happen to money used for building a structure. In that case receipts must be produced to the department as proof of the erection of a school building.
A lot of stakeholders in the Department of Education wanted to know why schools were no longer allowed to open trust accounts on their own. In regard to school funds for certain schools, especially the Model C schools, managers used to bank school funds and stash it away so that by the time it reached maturity it would have been paid into the accounts of the managers of that trust, possibly for Van Tonder or Piet Hoender, for example.
If a school happens to construct certain facilities, for example, where school funds are used for the erection of a computer centre and children are made to pay a certain amount in order to be able to learn at such a centre, this could be eliminated if things are well organised. Then children can use that school facility without making any further payment for those purposes.
Another point is that in so far as operating a trust fund is concerned, the Government is not allowed to interfere and may not have a say. The Government is excluded from the process, therefore Government should in fact be allowed to have a say too. Another impediment in respect of trust accounts is that the beneficiaries keep on changing. Today it might be Nkuna, Ndimande and Witbooi. Tomorrow the beneficiaries may be Piet Hoender, Van der Merwe, Van Niekerk and Van Tonder. Another painful matter in this regard, hon members, is that such moneys are used to pay the salaries of teachers appointed by the South African Government.]
In the previous dispensation we had Ministers that had the sole power themselves. A Minister would take a decision, not even communicating it to his wife. He would just do it on his own. In the democratic dispensation or in a democratic situation, in no way can hon Minister Asmal, or whoever takes a decision, do so on his own. Our Ministers and our MECs subscribe to the principle of consultation.
When we talk about the MEC or the Minister, we are referring to an office where there are advisers and there is a support group. We no longer want to see a situation in which an account opened with school funds bears a rugby team’s name. Secondly, the ANC Government is not interested in a situation in which moneys in a trust are frozen or stashed away in order to cater for someone during his or her retirement.
I have already said that the disadvantage of a trust is that beneficiaries can change from this colour to that colour. Transparency should be the question of the day. Definitely parents need to know the state of the finances relating to the school, whether it is a trust or in a school fund. [Applause.]
The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Chairperson, may I make a confession to this House. Although by profession I am described as a lawyer, I have been an educationalist all my life from the time I was a school teacher to the time that I was a university dean. All my interests have really been education. Therefore when I say this, I say it with pride. What we have done in seven years is unparalleled. If we look at all the postwar societies which were destroyed in the war and the transition in postcolonial countries, such as our neighbours, their education systems are in effect the same as under the colonial system.
Still today it is the case. If we look at Europe, the reconstruction of particularly education took nearly 25 years. The pride is that general and further education quality assurance is the last stage of the great reforms of the ANC Government. I mean this seriously. Only this Government could have done it.
The first Bill we passed was the SA Qualifications Authority Bill, not the South African Schools Bill or the discipline of teachers Public Service Bill. It was also not a higher education Bill, but a quality assurance Bill. We want equity and fairness as a Government, but we want, in fact, quality with it. We did not fight apartheid to get bantu education under a new name. Essential to us is the fact that there must be quality. The great pride I take is in bringing to this House - I have not spoken on this in the National Assembly - the information that no other country has been able to achieve this in seven or eight years: to bring to a close the whole issue of quality assurance throughout the educational system. We now have a quality assurance body for higher education also. It is nonsense that some degrees are better than others. There will not be tittle-tattle and gossip but it will actually be affirmed by this quality body. We have done that to higher education, because we in this Government want the best for people.
That is why I say, with some pain, that I respond to hon Witbooi and hon Zille. I get on very well socially with Ms Zille. It is a pleasure to interact with her socially. There is a kind of split personality. What happens at the Council of Education Ministers and what happens three weeks later in the public press shows this split personality. It is a split personality that perplexes me, because the Education Laws Amendment Bill was unanimously adopted by the Council of Education Ministers. What Ms Zille talks about, the tendency towards centralisation, is a myth. What this means is that eight MECs agree, while she may have some reservations. That reservation is then blown up, then, as an attempt to centralise.
Our MECs say that they want a national law to cover the appointment and election of the school learning councils. The Western Cape is not a ``Zilleville’’. She does not have a prerogative to decide entirely what happens in the Western Cape. It is a national matter. I have news for the hon member: The Constitutional Court upheld the norms and standards established by the national educational policy for public schools.
In the same way, I would like to ask the hon Mrs Witbooi and Ms Zille to look at the actual Act in relation to the trust funds. Nobody has argued in support of the trust fund. What the two hon members have said was that difficulties arise. Let me look at those difficulties for a moment. One reason I am introducing this is that school fees are skyrocketing, particularly in the former Model C schools. As the former Model C schools are opening up on racial grounds, I do not see the Western Cape saying that they should look at, for example, the catchment area for the schools at the foothills of Table Mountain. Public schools at the foothills of Table Mountain have their own catchment areas, which means that learners who are maids’ children cannot get in. As the national department, we are going to look at these catchment areas, because the deracialisation of our schools is still a central matter. I will come to the question of deracialisation and equality in a moment.
Fees are going up. Some of the schools that raise fees are state schools. Parents are paying about R9 000, R10 000 or R12 000. This is impossible. My job as the national Minister is to ensure that the poor do not have to pay fees. But some of these schools ask for deposits, which may be as high as R3 000. It is illegal to do that. I would like to say to Ms Zille that we would rather publicly say this on egalitarian grounds, not controlling privilege. It is illegal to ask for a deposit, on egalitarian grounds.
Time and again Gauteng has produced a leaflet which they have put in the newspapers. Gauteng and the Western Cape are not oases in South Africa. Hon Ms Zille must understand that. But really, quality does not come with 20 more additional teachers, or through the fees. Quality does not come with schools which look like the south of England, with vines creeping on the chapel. Quality does not come with that. Quality comes with the teaching process inside the school. That is why the Western Cape has the most unequal school system in South Africa. The hon member should remember that.
This Government has reduced inequality between provinces by 60%. It is a great triumph and, consequently, impressions have been given that the norms and standards of funding were highly controversial when they started. This Government decided to move resources fairly and modestly to the disadvantaged places. But the inequalities within a province are very great. We must take it systematically.
I know that the DA does not support regstellende aksie'', or corrective
action, for their own constituencies' sake. But, in the area of education
it is impossible to countenance the vast inequalities today. Whether there
may be justification for that, we can no longer countenance these enormous
inequalities. It is only the ANC Government that says, and I seriously mean
it, that we must deal with inequality in a very quiet but systematic way.
We do not want warlords involved in this. We do not want abrupt changes,
but we can no longer countenance these vast and painful inequalities. I
mean this because I go around schools in the whole of South Africa. It is
painful and humiliating, and we should not use elusive words, for example
One school has better standards,’’ when a girl from a big squatter camp
in Johannesburg gets matric exemption without a laboratory or library and
with two unemployed illiterate parents, without water and electricity in a
shack, and is now at a university at the age of 15. How much real potential
is down there which is never identified or acknowledged? That is why it is
very important that fees should not go out of control, but should be
controlled by parents and the school governing body.
Contrary to what hon Ms Zille said, there is no question of money being invested in building. I would like to ask her to look at her prerogative to vote against the Bill. It is a pity that she is doing that, because there is schizophrenia in the New NP and DP. They always have this instinct to oppose educational measures. In the National Assembly they vote against every educational measure. There is some kind of schizophrenia. It may be a privilege, they are saying. Privilege must be retained and maintained and, therefore, we will find squalid and irrelevant arguments.
If one looks at clause 6, for example, it provides that trusts must pay back such money or contributions to the school fund. If the money has already been used for a school building, that is nogal [quite] OK. That is what has happened. If the money has to be transferred and the promises were made under the trust fund, that money can still be used for the purposes for which the trust fund would have been used, except that now it is under the control of the parents, not some self-appointed trustees who can change. As vividly said by my sister Ndimande, beneficiaries can change from day to day. However exaggerated that may seem, it does happen. I think that there is a hidden South Africa.
Private power can be used very officiously. I know this because people write to me when they cannot get their kids into schools, and nobody tells them that they can appeal to the MEC. They write to me and some stop me in the streets and tell me that they are told to pay the fees but they are unemployed. I would then write to the school’s headmaster or headmistress to tell them that it is illegal to do that. I have to do this. I have one person from the private sector who deals with these letters full-time, because so many people write to me, and I cannot refer them to the MEC. I take up such issues directly with the school. The issue of the state taking more power is nonsense. It is not true. In many cases, the province concerned, particularly on issues of race and equality, does not do its wretched work. It would even work better, rather than officiously going around, scattering invectives against nonperforming schools that might do better in this business.
Can I, therefore, say that under section 6 the school is quite free to continue what it is doing, although the money should now be transferred. It is not true, therefore, that the school will be penalised. As for creativity, we must stop creative accounting. The hidden South Africa is a South Africa that we do not know, with some of us beginning to know what is happening. It is only the hoërskool [high school] there and the silly statements, which I treat with contempt, made by the hon Raju. It is not becoming of this House to speak in that silly way. [Laughter.] It is a form of contempt for the rest of the people, because I can tell him that in his province there are letters that I have received from Port Shepstone about a former Model C school spending money on the principal’s house and on his holidays. It is happening all over the place. There is a hidden South Africa that we should acknowledge.
Power without regulation and control can be very corrupting against poor people. As for Ms Ndimande, I love the word ``lacuna’’. There is no lacuna. Section 25 of the South African Schools Act does not create uncertainties. But time frames must be seen in the context of the principal Act. We do not have time to go into it. I will give the hon members my reply. There is no lacuna. In fact, it will flow evenly, if one looks at the principal Act.
In the same way, I agree very much with hon Tolo. School governing bodies are central to the Government’s view about local decision-making. We will have to train, but unfortunately we cannot find enough money but, we have discussed it at the CEM. Some provinces are using their best endeavours to train before the elections. I agree that there must be positive discrimination for the rural learners. We must particularly build them up. In my own view, the school feeding scheme must ultimately be operated through the school governing bodies. That is the only way it can work. We are going to give them particularly to the old mamas who know what poverty is and have an instinctive sense of organisation, because they have to get the R300 of the old age pension and feed nine people. They know what to do with money and they will be the least corrupt ones too, on the principle that men are much more corrupt than women, a principle which I subscribe to wholeheartedly.
As far as Mrs Witbooi is concerned, I think I have answered her question, because I think the DP and New NP are simply coalescing in their misunderstanding of this.
May I compliment Ms Creecy and Stone Sizani because they have answered fundamentally the issues that were raised today. I think it is very good to have taken part with them.
It has been a very stimulating debate, because, frankly, this is a good debating Chamber. I do not think I shall be stimulated much in the National Assembly when these Bills come up, but I would really ask members not to adopt partisan positions. I have spoken to chairpersons at school governing bodies in former Model C schools. I have explained to them the purposes and said that they could have their trusts for other purposes, as I explained at the beginning of my speech. And they have accepted it.
I do not think we should mobilise in support of fears the people may not have. I think it is not part of our way of creating that kind of consensus about education that we want very badly in South Africa. Therefore I am pleased that the majority of the provinces, and I hope all the provinces, will in the end support these two very important measures. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Education Laws Amendment Bill agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution (Western Cape dissenting).
General and Further Education and Training Quality Assurance Bill agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Consideration of Bill and of Report thereon)
The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Madam Chairperson, thank you for this opportunity to introduce this section 75 Bill to the National Council of Provinces. I think, in the light of our discussion earlier, I would just like to very briefly introduce this Bill and then ask for participation and I will answer the questions. I think that makes much more sense, frankly.
This Bill is necessitated simply by the introduction by the Government of the National Plan for Higher Education. This National Plan for Higher Education has a history of nearly 10 years, frankly. Long before the elections, the ANC produced this yellow book on the principles of education for the future. It has a small section on universities, a small section on the RDP programme on higher education in the context of human resource development.
Then, of course, there was this massive White Paper on higher education, possibly the most consulted White Paper ever in South African history. As a result of that, there was the Higher Education Act. The Higher Education Act, again, attempted to set up a seamless indivisible system of higher education, while allowing for local and regional needs to be met, and, if I may say so, peculiarities also.
Let us get rid of this myth that the ANC wants to homogenise the country. We take great pride in our Constitution, but our language, our culture, our religious distinctiveness is no longer a matter for division, but a matter for great pride. There are those who do not have any culture or international culture, those who have no religion, who unite with those who have religion and culture to say South Africa is a wonderful place because of diversity.
Therefore, in the same way, we do not want to homogenise the higher education system. What we do want is a higher education system that meets the needs of South Africa in the 21st century, a higher education system in which, in fact, access is open, a higher education system that also takes into account the needs of the locality, the region, and national needs.
So the national plan has much widespread support both within and without the higher education system. The few voices coming out in opposition are largely driven, and I must say, by very narrow personal or institutional interests. By and large, the national plan has had enormous support.
Can I say, therefore, that change will not take place in South Africa without pain. There will have to be some pain, and out of pain, as we know, comes enormous opportunity for growth and development. So we look at new institutions, new academic programmes and new research areas. This is what higher education thrives on. We want more research, more emphasis on African languages for example, which are totally discounted in our higher education.
We want three or four areas of excellence in information, science and technology. Three or four. We cannot afford 36. So we will have three or four, as the Government has decided, areas of excellence. But we want enormous regional variations. Some institutions are very good at rural agricultural and science. Some institutions are very good on governance. We want to put more money into developing that in South Africa. Some schools and universities are very good in modern languages, but they are running them down.
We want to use this as an opportunity to look at programmes, at new research areas and, of course, very importantly, to make sure that every child in school will now get the information about the 36 institutions, which, at present they do not get. We will set up a central applications office or admissions office. Each university, technikon will still decide that. In that central applications office there will be all the information about the national financial aid scheme. The hon Chairperson knows this, because she was chairperson of this body for five or six years, that in fact we have trained a quarter of a million young people who would never have gone to university, but for the R2,5 billion to R3 billion we have put into our education and the training programme. A quarter of a million! That is really remarkable. Their pass rate, by the way - those who got the financial aid - is 75%. For those who are not financially assisted by the state - most of our children - the pass rate is only 15%. There is some extraordinary thing that those who get assistance of the Government tend to do much better in the examinations.
This is the background to the amendments, which are, really, not very far- reaching amendments. It is like asking: How will we have the path to the reorganisation of higher education in South Africa worked out? It also looks at this extraordinary relic of apartheid history, the private Acts of universities. All the universities have private Acts which are introduced in Parliament. Other universities have to do with the general Higher Education Act regulating them. I think the debate will be much more exciting if I listen to the hon members and then respond to them. [Applause.]
Mr D M KGWARE: Chairperson, hon Minister, once more, and hon members, in his call to action on 27 June 2000, the hon Minister Asmal said:
We must implement a rational, seamless higher education system that grasps the intellectual and professional challenges facing South Africans in the 21st century.
Higher education plays a critical role in today’s modern society, even more so in our young democracy. In our context, higher education is charged with the responsibility of helping to stimulate, direct and mobilise the creative and intellectual energies of all South Africans towards meeting the challenges of the Reconstruction and Development Programme.
The higher education institutions that were inherited by democratic South Africa have their roots in the apartheid social order. Some institutions unreservedly served the apartheid government’s goals and policies. Others protested against racism and the creation of racial and ethnic institutions. Yet others challenged and actively resisted the social purposes that were defined for them by apartheid planners and attempted to elaborate new purposes linked to democracy and social justice.
However, in pursuit of these challenges, it is critical that our present inherited system of higher education be transformed from the current fragmented, unequal and inefficient system into a single, national co- ordinated structure. The Higher Education Amendment Bill is geared towards eliminating some of the obstacles in the path of achieving the aforesaid system. These obstacles were not foreseen upon the enactment of the Higher Education Act and became apparent when we attempted to implement the provisions of the said Act.
It is against this background that we welcome the amendments to the Higher Education Act, because they will strengthen the hand of our Government in developing the national plan, that is providing a framework for the restructuring and transformation of the higher education landscape.
At present the Act does not provide a governance framework in the event where a new university, college or technikon is established or where two or more existing institutions are merged. The Bill addresses this vacuum by providing for the establishment of interim councils, as outlined in the National Plan for Higher Education, to perform the functions relating to the governance of the institution for a period not exceeding six months. The interim councils envisaged in the Bill would ensure that the new organisations are based on the principles of nonracialism and democracy.
The Bill calls, among other things, for a merger between the two distance education universities, Vista and Unisa, and Technikon RSA. In our view, this is a very important provision since the Government is the major investor in higher education in the country if one considers that the public fiscus devotes more than R7 billion to the support and development of public higher education institutions, and this constitutes a significant part of the overall expenditure in education per annum.
It also provides for the legal dissolution of existing councils that were not discharging their legal and fiduciary responsibilities properly.
Obviously, the opposition would cry foul because, as I mentioned earlier, historically advantaged universities were their personal fiefdom.
Previously, universities could also exist in terms of private Acts. However, inasmuch as our new Higher Education Act laid the foundation for a single national higher education system, it left intact these private Acts. This omission created and still is creating problems in terms of the composition and functions of university councils, senates and institutional fora.
The repeal of these private Acts should not be seen as an intrusion on institutional autonomy and academic freedom, as argued by the opposition, but rather as an important step towards transforming the affairs of these institutions.
The country depends on the higher education system to meet its high level of human resource needs and to be the engine for the creation of new knowledge, innovation and critical discourse. We expect higher education managers to run their institutions in a responsible and inclusive manner. Similarly, we will expect councils to account for their responsibilities and actions.
In conclusion, there is no government anywhere in the world that does not navigate higher education in terms of broad policies. It is therefore arrogant of the opposition to disclaim this reality. The Bill has our unqualified support. [Applause.]
Mev J WITBOOI: Agb Voorsitter, agb minister en agb lede, ek weet nie wat ons dié keer genoem gaan word nie, ons was nou skisofrenies, maar die Nuwe NP-komponent van die DA ondersteun nie dié wetgewing nie.
Die Nuwe NP kan hom nie vereenselwig met die feit dat die beheer van hoër opvoedkundige inrigtings van die Parlement weggeneem en onder ministeriële beheer geplaas word nie. Wanneer gekyk word na klousule 26, maak dié klousule voorsiening vir die herroep van private wette. Die Nuwe NP se siening hieroor is dat as daar elemente in bestaande private wette is wat strydig met die Grondwet van Suid-Afrika is, dié wette eerder gewysig as herroep moet word.
Wanneer gekyk word na klousule 4 van die wysigingswetsontwerp, bemagtig dit die minister om interimrade in te stel. Weer eens is dit ‘n geval van minister en magte. Iewers langs die pad verloor ons die demokrasie en ons gee tog so hoog op daaroor. Ons vraag is of die lede van die interimrade nie bevoeg genoeg is om hul eie voorsitter te kies nie.
Demokrasie, en ek herhaal, waaroor ons so hoog opgee, word hier ‘n lelike knou toegedien en die Nuwe NP kan hom nie hiermee vereenselwig nie.
Ek herhaal wat ek aan die begin gesê het, ongeag van wat die minister ons dié keer noem, ons was so flussies ``skisofrenies’’, stem die Nuwe NP- komponent van die DA nie met dié wetsontwerp saam nie. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)
[Mrs J WITBOOI: Hon Chairperson, hon Minister and hon members, I do not know what we are going to be called this time, because we were previously labelled schizophrenic, but the New NP component of the DA does not support this legislation.
The New NP cannot associate itself with the fact that the control of institutions for higher learning be taken away from Parliament and be placed under ministerial control. When one looks at clause 26, it makes provision for the repeal of private laws. The New NP is of the opinion that if there are elements in the existing private laws which are contradictory to the Constitution of South Africa, those laws should rather be amended than repealed.
When one looks at clause 4 of the amending Bill, it empowers the Minister to establish interim councils. Once again this is a question of Minister and powers. Somewhere along the line we are losing our democracy of which we think so highly. Our question is whether the members of the interim councils are not competent enough to elect their own chairperson.
Democracy, and I repeat, of which we think so highly, is being dealt a terrible blow and the New NP cannot associate itself with that.
I repeat what I said at the beginning, irrespective of what the Minister is going to call us this time, a moment ago we were schizophrenic, the New NP component of the DA does not agree with this Bill. Applause.]]
Mr N M RAJU: Hon Chairperson, hon Minister, hon special delegates, hon colleagues, the Higher Education Amendment Bill seeks to amend the Higher Education Act of 1997. Most universities and technikons have been using private Acts that were passed during apartheid. Some of these Acts, of course, created universities on the basis of colour.
A number of obsolete Acts relating to higher education are still in force. The aim of the Higher Education Amendment Bill is to repeal those laws. No problem. The DP accepts the fact that the transformation of the higher education system is absolutely necessary in the wider interests of the new democratic dispensation in South Africa. The sinews of democracy will certainly be strengthened by the fresh ideas of transformation in the field of higher education.
The Higher Education Act of 1997 charged the Minister of Education with the responsibility of determining higher education policy after consultation with the Council on Higher Education.
The Higher Education Amendment Bill will be the only legal instrument pertaining to universities, once the private Acts of universities are repealed. The repeal of the certification council for technikon education will result in the creation of the higher education quality committee, which will be deemed to be accredited by the South African Qualifications Authority as an education and training quality assurance body.
The Higher Education Act does not provide a governance framework where a new higher education institution is to be established or where an existing institution is to be declared as a higher institution where two or more institutions are to be merged.
This Bill seeks to address this vacuum by making provision for the Minister of Education to establish an interim council for new declared or merged public institutions. The interim council will be given a time-span of six months. The council will consist of five members and two co-opted members without voting powers. The interim council has to perform the functions of a single institution. However, the interim council is not empowered to make an institutional statute.
The DP voted against the Bill which became the principal Act in 1997 because it considered that too much power was vested in the Minister. Unfortunately, the DP has had no reason to change its stance and therefore opposes the Higher Education Amendment Bill. [Interjections.] This is also because it is not convinced that too much power should be vested in the Minister. Ministerial oversight of universities cannot be equated to parliamentary oversight.
Furthermore, the DP sees the Higher Education Amendment Bill as a threat to the autonomy and academic freedom of higher education institutions. Creating space for the possible interference by the Minister in the governance of established institutions of higher education forebodes danger.
Let me hasten to assure the hon the Minister that this concern about the excessive powers being given him, as envisaged in the proposed Bill, does not reflect one iota on the professional and moral integrity of his person, which we do not doubt is impervious to intellectual compromise. It is on a matter of principle that my party observes that centralisation of too much power in the office of the Minister cannot be good for higher education governance. [Applause.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order! If hon members wanted a longer debate they should have indicated so.
Ms S N NTLABATI: Chairperson, hon members, it is so interesting for me, having listened to the two members who did not support the amending Bill, how quickly they have forgotten that, just like me, they were in Egypt. They had no choice, if one was coloured, one had to go to the Western Cape, and if one was Indian, one had to go to Durban-Westville. In that sense they were victims of forced removals just like me. They have forgotten. [Interjections.]
May I also congratulate the Department of Education on the role it has played in the transformation of institutions of higher learning in South Africa since we acquired our democracy. We say to the hon the Minister that he should carry on. Regardless of our differences in ideology, those who want to see do see and believe that we have all witnessed the tremendous vision, collaboration and positive progress made since 1994. However, the task has not been easy because we always had these people who wanted to oppose even where there was nothing to oppose.
We have come a long way as South Africans since the days when resources and the quality of education were allocated according to colour, race and gender. I doubt that the people of Asian origin and the so-called coloureds were any better off at all in that allocation. Those were the days when the Bantu Education Act of 1953 - if we are to trace this back - decreed that blacks should be provided with separate facilities under the control of the then Minister of Native Affairs, and not under the Minister of Education. Those were the days when the Extension of University Education Act of 1959 prohibited blacks from attending white institutions. Indeed, our history tells us those were bitter days for those who had vested interests in education because those were the days when very highly qualified and committed academics decided to leave this country against their will. Those were the days, if I can give examples, when a person who was not of European origin who wanted to go to the University of Cape Town would be asked the question: What is there in common between you and the people of European origin? That would be the answer given by the then Minister, called the Minister of Interior Affairs.
It was in this very House, then the Senate, that between 1954 and 1959 the then brilliant Dr Verwoerd addressed the Senate to say that the education which was given by the missionariesÿ.ÿ.ÿ. [Interjections.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order! Take your seat, hon member. Yes, Mr Van Niekerk, are you rising on a point of order?
Mr A E VAN NIEKERK: Madam Speaker, I just want to enquire whether the speakers are not supposed to speak on the Bill.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: You are asking me a question. What is the point of order?
Mr A E VAN NIEKERK: Madam Speaker, the point of order is that the hon member is not speaking to the Bill.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Hon member, you are being reminded of the Rule related to relevance, that you should speak to the legislation that we are dealing with. You may proceed.
An HON MEMBER: With the Bill.
An HON MEMBER: Slaan hom, MaNtlabati. [Hit him, MaNtlabati.]
Ms S N NTLABATI: But for everybody to understand, one has to understand where one comes from and where one is in order to understand exactly where one should be.
Those were the days of the discriminatory practices which limited access of black students and women students into fields such as science, engineering and technology. I am talking about institutions of higher education which never constructed a critical civil society. Which is why I repeat that the Minister should carry on with his amendments, and even with the repeal of whatever law is not beneficial to everybody in this country.
Therefore the higher education system that we inherited had to be amended. There is just no choice. We want to carry along with us even those who still do not agree with that. But I am sure that one day they will realise that the ANC-led Government was right. The framework seeks to promote lifelong learning, that is the broader factor of this Bill as well as our education system, and to develop the workforce in this country. This is unlike in the past, when learning did not encourage inclusiveness and democratic citizenship.
The key challenges facing the South African higher education system remained as outlined in the White Paper. This Bill is not deviating from that. It wants to redress past inequalities and to transform the higher education system to serve a new social order, to meet present national links and to respond to new realities and opportunities.
These changes have to be understood in the context of the impact on higher education systems worldwide, and of the changes associated with the phenomenon of globalisation. These have been spawned by the revolution in information and communications technology. In the 21st century, knowledge and the processing of information will be the key driving forces for wealth creation and, thus, social and economic development.
South Africa and the African continent have to lead that route, and I think that these very issues of amending or even repealing whatever we think is not going to carry us into the future become necessary. It even becomes necessary for us to achieve what we want to achieve in the Millennium African Recovery Programme.
As South Africa locates itself in this network of global exchanges and interactions, higher education will have to produce the skills and technological innovations necessary for successful economic participation in the global market. It must also socialise a new generation with requisite cultural values and communication competences to become citizens of an international and global community.
Therefore, if knowledge is the electricity of the new globalisation, then higher education institutions must seize the opportunity of becoming major generators of this source of power. I still say, as a parent, and on behalf of other parents, that it is imperative that the Minister carries on with his amendments.
To meet these demands and achieve these miracles, a new mobilisation that will release latent energies and talents is required. Universities and other institutions of higher education constitute a major resource for the generation of this new thinking. These, I believe, rest in the hands of the leadership, there at the institutions, which is what the Minister is trying to revolutionalise.
It is therefore for the above-mentioned reasons that the amendment of the Higher Education Act becomes not just necessary, but imperative and important. The White Paper states that all existing practices, institutions and values need to be viewed anew and rethought in terms of their fitness for this new era.
One major challenge we are facing as South Africa is the fact that some institutional cultures have not transcended the racial divide of the past.
Gender equity also continues to remain a problem, but the White Paper seeks to review it. As with black students, the spread of women students across different programme areas is uneven, and we hope that this will soon be rectified. As we all know, whatever we call challenges, let us not take them as obstacles. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Madam Chairperson, may I complement the hon Ms Ntlabati, particularly on her concluding remarks, when she spoke about the purpose of a university in higher education in the 21st Century. It is a very important statement. But, in fact, there is an evolving purpose, and there is no point subscribing to tattered, old, tired banners which we had before, and saying that those banners represent what we want in South Africa.
I like Mrs Witbooi. I am not patronising her. I think that she has a sense of humour, because when she sat down she started laughing. I think I liked that, because I hope that she had a similar kind of sense of humour when her esteemed leader of the Western Cape, the premier, spoke about the New NP.
I received his speech this morning, and it is a whole speech about the history of the New NP except that the word ``apartheid’’ never appeared in the speech. I hope that she laughed uproariously then, at the conclusion of the speech, because it was the biggest apology for apartheid that I have heard. Even Mr De Klerk would not have said that in 1994 and afterwards, with that degree of thick-skinnedness. I applaud Mrs Witbooi’s sense of humour.
May I also say that one has to be very humorous when one says: Why do we not amend these private Acts? There are scores of private Acts and every time one has to change a private Act, one must introduce an Act in Parliament. How much time will this take, and why should some institutions have this extraordinary privilege of having special access to Parliament for historical reasons and take up Parliament’s time every time they want to make a small change? Why should they not do so under the principle and umbrella of national education legislation? As we said, they can put the peculiar virtues and special sentiments of each institution that they usually talk to me about in the statutes.
I love these special historically developed sentiments. But let them be put into each institution’s statute. Nobody is arguing against that. If Wits university has a particular historic origin and philosophy which it wants to maintain, it must go into the statute. Nobody is arguing against this. Stellenbosch, which until the 1930s had English as a medium of instruction and now has a special association with languages, can do the same. Therefore one does not need special Acts.
I have news for Mrs Witbooi. The Association of Vice Chancellors, who are the real policemen of higher education in universities, have accepted the principle that these Acts are irrelevant to South Africa and should be repealed. Why is the New NP fighting a battle when the actual recipients of the legislation, the vice chancellors and principals of universities, have said they are perfectly happy? They have stated that this poses no threat to them as long as they can model their own statutes. I want to inform Mrs Witbooi that one cannot amend these statutes without introducing a Bill in Parliament.
Mr Raju spoke differently this time. He spoke with ringing, Churchillian tones. I like that. He spoke like a subfusc Churchill this time. [Laughter.] He spoke with the vigour of Churchill and ended up with this rolling thing, saying: ``I’m a good bloke, but even I can’t be trusted with these enormous powers that I’m given.’’ [Laughter.]
Let me tell Mr Raju that this is why, in my lifetime, the DA will never form a government. This is because it does not understand what is happening on the ground, apart from the fact that it does not know what the legislation lays down. Since I have been the Minister, for nearly 26 months, I have been asked by various forces why I do not dismiss a council which is not doing its job. I do not have the power to do so. This new Act does not give me that power. Some have asked why I do not dismiss a vice chancellor who is totally authoritarian and built a R50 million building in a university without the consent of the council. I do not have the power to dismiss or discipline the vice chancellor. Some have asked why I cannot take action when there are wide-scale allegations of corruption. I do not have the power. I can ask the Public Protector or Auditor-General to do so. Some ask why I cannot take action when council members and the chairperson earn between R200 000 and R400 000, while membership of or chairing a council is a voluntary public service. I do not have the power. What we laid down is that the most a person can get is about a R1 000 a month apart from one’s expenses. I am a eunuch in this business. I do not have any power, but I have responsibility. The UK and Danish ministers for education have much more power than I have. Members should remember that we are still in a reforming period. In a reforming period one needs power to carry out policies. Those are established democracies. Therefore I would suggest that Mr Raju does a little bit more homework. If he does this he will see that I have very little power.
I now want to deal with the central issue, and even Churchill would accept this. We have these interim councils for the simple reason that this is a transition. In a transition mergers will take place, there will be programmes transferred from one university or technikon to another, and there will also be development taking place.
How does one bring about those changes, unless the law allows one to set up interim councils representing two or three institutions? One cannot have the councils all existing and interacting with each other. In Australia the government set up a commission of inquiry and, in their belief, no institution with fewer than 8 000 students should exist. If there are fewer than 8 000 students, the institution should either close down or amalgamate. But we did not do that.
What we have done is this. The national working group that is going around the place produced a national plan in February 2001. They asked for comments and got them, and between now and December we will sit and decide what should be the future shape of higher education.
Two institutions in Durban said that they were merging voluntarily. We have two technikons next to each other. This is an extraordinary creation of the special geography of apartheid. We have two technikons literally next to each other with a small fence in between. One could not jump that fence. It was easier to jump about the matrimonial bed than over that fence. They have chosen an interim council that will bring about a proper election for the full council.
I believe that we have made a mistake. The six-month period is too short, but that is the nature of compromises and how we legislate. I might have to come back to the Council.
This argument about autonomy is misplaced. Autonomy in the political realities of a transition must allow for change to take place to carry out institutional reorganisation.
Nobody has mentioned academic freedom here. Academic freedom is freedom of a special kind. It is the most cherished value one can have in higher education. The right to lecture, to speak, to write by reference to one’s truth, not party-political and partisan. In South Africa we have written constitutions and therefore we have this extraordinary right to free speech. Freedom to write and research is quite different from freedom in ordinary speech. In France an academic cannot write a book which denies the Holocaust. We allow people to say that apartheid was not as bad as everybody thinks it was, although nearly 3 million people were ethnically cleansed, particularly in the Western Cape. In France one cannot write a book that denies the Holocaust. It is an offence to write such a book, whether one is an academic or not. We have a fuller range of freedom of speech. I would rather that members here took part in encouraging the whole question of academic freedom than that they went at the tattered banner of autonomy, because the Act of 1996 says that autonomy must be used in an accountable manner. I am particularly concerned that at medical schools, out of 250 there are only 3 or 4 blacks. I am concerned about that. There is no accountability when medical schools do not create the conditions for blacks to enter. Instead we send 100 people to Cuba, as we did yesterday, to get training there.
I ask the Council to participate in this enormous debate and vote in support of this Bill. It is necessary to move us into a much more democratic, open and representative 21st century. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Bill agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution.
The Council adjourned at 18:05. ____
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
MONDAY, 1 OCTOBER 2001 ANNOUNCEMENTS: National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
- The Speaker and the Chairperson:
(1) The following Bill was reintroduced by the Minister of Home
Affairs in the National Assembly on 1 October 2001 in terms of
Joint Rule 162 and referred to the Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM)
for classification in terms of Joint Rule 160:
(i) Immigration Bill [B 79 - 2001] (National Assembly - sec
75).
[The draft Bill that was published in Government Gazette No
22439 of 29 June 2001 was originally introduced as the
Immigration Bill [B 46 - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 75).
The JTM on 26 September 2001 found that Bill to be
constitutionally out of order in terms of Joint Rule
161(1)(e)].
The Immigration Bill [B 79 - 2001] has been referred to the
Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs of the National Assembly.
In terms of Joint Rule 154 written views on the classification of
the Bill may be submitted to the Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM)
within three parliamentary working days.
(2) The Minister for Provincial and Local Government submitted the
Wetsontwerp op die Kommissie vir die Bevordering en Beskerming van
die Regte van Kultuur-, Godsdiens- en Taalgemeenskappe [W 62 -
2001] (Nasionale Vergadering - art 75) to the Speaker and the
Chairperson on 28 September 2001. This is the official translation
of the Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights
of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities Bill [B 62 -
2001] (National Assembly - sec 75), which was introduced in the
National Assembly by the Minister on 4 September 2001.
TUESDAY, 2 OCTOBER 2001
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
- The Speaker and the Chairperson:
(1) The Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM) on 2 October 2001 in terms of
Joint Rule 160(3), classified the following Bills as section 75
Bills:
(i) Judicial Officers Amendment Bill [B 72 - 2001]
(National Assembly - sec 75).
(ii) Copyright Amendment Bill [B 73 - 2001] (National Assembly
- sec 75).
(iii) Performers' Protection Amendment Bill [B 74 - 2001]
(National Assembly - sec 75).
(iv) Stock Exchanges Control Amendment Bill [B 75 - 2001]
(National Assembly - sec 75).
(v) Planning Profession Bill [B 76 - 2001] (National
Assembly - sec 75).
(2) The Minister of Education submitted the Wysigingswetsontwerp op
Hoër Onderwys [W 61 - 2001] (Nasionale Vergadering - art 75) to
the Speaker and the Chairperson on 2 October 2001. This is the
official translation of the Higher Education Amendment Bill [B 61
- 2001] (National Assembly - sec 75), which was introduced in the
National Assembly by the Minister on 4 September 2001.
National Council of Provinces:
-
The Chairperson:
The following changes have been made to the membership of Select Committees, viz:
Education and Recreation:
Appointed: Windvoël, V V Z (Alt).
Finance:
Appointed: Ralane, T.
Land and Environmental Affairs:
Appointed: Windvoël, V V Z.
Local Government and Administration:
Appointed: Mkhaliphi, B J; Ralane, T; Tolo, B J.
Public Services:
Appointed: Ralane, T.
Security and Constitutional Affairs:
Appointed: Mokoena, M L; Tolo, B J.
TABLINGS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
Papers:
- The Minister of Education:
Report and Financial Statements of the Department of Education for 2000-
2001, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial
Statements for 2000-2001 [RP 125-2001]. 2. The Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development:
(1) Government Notice No R.844 published in Government Gazette No
22646 dated 7 September 2001, Notice of Determination of the
Remuneration and Conditions of Employment of Judges of the Land
Claims Court established in terms of section 22 of the Restitution
of Land Rights Act, 1994 (Act No 22 of 1994).
(2) Report of the South African Law Commission on the application of
the Bill of Rights to Criminal Procedure, Criminal Law, the Law of
Evidence and Sentencing, Project 101 [RP 118-2001].
(3) Report of the South African Law Commission on Domestic
Arbitration, Project 94 [RP 119-2001].
(4) Fourth Interim Report of the South African Law Commission on
Simplification of Criminal Procedure (Sentence Agreements),
Project 73 [RP 120-2001].
(5) Report of the South African Law Commission on the Review of the
Marriage Act 25 of 1961, Project 109 [RP 117-2001].
- The Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism:
(1) Government Notice No 1769 published in Government Gazette No
22516 dated 27 July 2001, Invitation to apply for experimental
fishing permits for the catching of Patagonian Toothfish
(Dissostichus spp) in terms of the Antarctic Treaties Act, 1996
(Act No 60 of 1996).
(2) Government Notice No 1768 published in Government Gazette No
22516 dated 27 July 2001, the South African Ratification of the
Convention on Conservation of the Fisheries Resources of South
East Atlantic Ocean, made in terms of section 231 of the
Constitution, 1996 (Act No 108 of 1996).
(3) Government Notice No 1767 published in Government Gazette No
22516 dated 27 July 2001, South African acceptance of the FAO Code
of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and the FAO Compliance
Agreement, made in terms of section 231 of the Constitution, 1996
(Act No 108 of 1996).
(4) Government Notice No 701 published in Government Gazette No
22516 dated 27 July 2001, Determination of fees payable in respect
of applications for and issuing or granting of rights, permits and
licences, made in terms of section 25 of the Marine Living
Resources Act, 1998 (Act No 18 of 1998).
- The Minister of Health:
Report and Financial Statements of the South African Medical Research
Council for 2000-2001, including the Report of the Auditor-General on
the Financial Statements for 2000-2001 [RP 122-2001].
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
National Council of Provinces:
-
Report of the Select Committee on Finance on the Financial Institutions (Protection of Funds) Bill [B 23B - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 75), dated 1 October 2001:
The Select Committee on Finance, having considered the subject of the Financial Institutions (Protection of Funds) Bill [B 23B - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 75), referred to it, reports that it has agreed to the Bill.
-
Report of the Select Committee on Land and Environmental Affairs on Study Tours to Kalk Bay, Hout Bay and Saldanha Bay, dated 30 August 2001:
The Select Committee on Land and Environmental Affairs, having
undertaken study tours to Kalk Bay, Hout Bay and Saldanha Bay on 24 and
25 May 2001, reports as follows:
A. Terms of reference
In terms of sections 70(1)(b) and 72(1)(a) of the Constitution,
Parliament must make provision for "representative and
participatory democracy, accountability, transparency and public
involvement", also "facilitating public involvement in the
legislative and other processes" of Parliament.
Furthermore, in terms of Rule 151(1) of the Rules of the National
Council of Provinces, the Rules Committee must establish select
committees to deal with legislation, oversight and other matters
concerning the affairs of government.
Therefore, when a letter from Ms A M Versfeld reached the
Committee, alleging irregularities in the fishing industry, the
Committee decided at a meeting on 4 April 2001 to undertake fact-
finding missions to fishing areas to ascertain from ordinary
fisher folk what the position was with respect to these
irregularities.
B. Background
The function of regulating the fishing industry resides with the
Marine and Coastal Management (MCM), which is a directorate within
the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. Part of the
mission statement of MCM reads:
To provide for responsible custodianship of South Africa's
marine and coastal resources and ecosystems for the benefit of
current and future generations of South Africans. This is
achieved by the conservation of such resources and ecosystems
through the control of, and the orderly, fair, and equitable
access to, their optimum sustainable utilisation.
In the years leading up to the first democratic elections, there
was a great deal of dissatisfaction with the management of South
Africa's marine resources. With the advent of the new dispensation
in 1994, steps were taken to revise policy on the fishing
industry, which culminated in the publication of a White Paper
entitled "A Marine Fisheries Policy for South Africa" in May 1997,
in which the new approach to the industry was outlined.
Some of the highlights of the new approach were:
* Transparency and accountability in marine resource management.
The management of living marine resources and all aspects of
the decision-making process will be open and transparent.
Administrators and stakeholders will be accountable for their
actions.
* Access to marine resources shall be fair and equitable.
* There should be a holistic approach to fisheries and the
utilisation of marine resources, which should include
addressing historical imbalances.
* Acceptable conditions of employment. Holders of fishing rights
will provide acceptable conditions of employment for all
employees with respect to income, health and safety, training,
job security, retirement and other employment benefits.
Coming to the problematic question of access and access rights,
the White Paper suggested the development of a mechanism that
would achieve the following objectives:
* Afairer system of allocation of access to rights to harvest
South Africa's living marine resources.
* Asystem which ensures greater access to the resource by those
who have been denied access previously.
* Current holders of fishing rights to be encouraged to
restructure their ownership and control to achieve empowerment
objectives throughout the industry.
* Initial allocation of rights to make provision for a range of
players of varying sizes, to avoid excessive domination of
certain fisheries by a few big players.
Empowerment objectives would be achieved by expanding equity
ownership in companies, restructuring the industry in order to
move in the direction of larger proportions of the quota being
sold to small-scale fishing operators and helping small-scale
operators to improve efficiency.
It was envisaged that equity ownership in companies could be
expanded by allowing a previously disadvantaged group to buy a
significant portion of equity in a large company or for a portion
of the equity to be sold to employees in terms of a share
participation scheme.
The culmination of the review of policy was the enactment of the
Marine Living Resources Act in 1998, that sought to put the
regulation of the fishing industry on a new, more equitable
footing.
It was against this background that the Committee undertook its
tours to the fishing areas of Kalk Bay, Hout Bay and Saldanha Bay.
C. Procedure
The Committee aimed at attaining its objectives by holding public
meetings at Kalk Bay and Hout Bay on 24 May 2001 and at Saldanha
Bay on 25 May 2001. Those attending were largely drawn from the
previously disadvantaged communities. The numbers attending ranged
from about 50 in Kalk Bay and Hout Bay, respectively, to about 80
in Saldanha Bay. Members of the public made oral submissions to
the Committee, and in Saldanha Bay these were accompanied by some
written submissions.
The delegation that undertook the tours, consisted of Rev P
Moatshe, Rev M Chabaku, Mr M L Mokoena, Ms A M Versfeld and Dr E A
Conroy, on 24 May, Dr Conroy being replaced by Mr A E van Niekerk
on 25 May 2001. Committee Secretary K Williams and Committee
Assistant K Tshoma accompanied the delegation on both days.
D. Findings
1. Kalk Bay
(a) Mr Barry Goodman, a boat-owner, stated that there were
only 45 boats using Kalk Bay harbour, and he felt the
community should be allowed to fish freely without any
regulation. He also complained of the high-handed actions
of the harbour master, which had led to the sinking of
his boat.
(b) Mr Trevor Okies of Africa Fishing Industry complained that
responses to applications for quotas were couched in
inaccessible language. Furthermore, reasons were not
given when applications were turned down. They had been
told that quotas would be easier to obtain if they formed
close corporations, but this had not happened. He further
claimed that persons who were not bona fide fishers were
obtaining quotas.
(c) Mrs Christine Trimmel stated that though companies like
New District Six had obtained quotas, the benefit of the
quota did not filter down to the community. She also felt
that people were being unfairly penalised when not
receiving quotas because of other employment besides
fishing.
(d) Mr J Gomez asked that small line-fishers be given a quota
for baitfish, as they had to obtain these at the
exorbitant price of R27 per box.
(e) Mr J Poggenpoel of Marion Dawn Fishing CC complained that
his company's quota for pilchards was not viable, as it
did not allow them to maintain their vessel and crew. He
further complained that newcomers were getting bigger
quotas than the older companies, and he felt there should
be consistent criteria for determining the size of the
quota.
(f) Peter Williams echoed the views that quotas were not
viable and that non-fishers were obtaining quotas. He
appealed for assistance in applying for quotas, and
claimed that companies were not providing for benefits
like pension and medical aid.
(g) Mr A Trimmel felt that quotas were not fairly awarded and
that one had to curry favour with politicians to obtain a
quota. He requested that a channel be made available for
the Department to receive complaints from ordinary
fishers.
(h) Mr E Rosslind of the Kalk Bay Lobster and Commercial Line
Fishing Association complained that his association had
been denied a quota for hake, even though a court had
ruled that this be granted. Although he acknowledged that
resources were shrinking, he felt that quotas in Kalk Bay
were no longer viable and that newcomers were getting
more than the older hands. He also complained that
inappropriate quotas were being granted.
(i) Mrs B Sackim appealed that widows be granted quotas since
companies did not pay compensation in the event of the
death of their spouses.
(j) The crew of the Arend B complained about their conditions
of employment in a written submission.
2. Hout Bay
(a) Carl Oppelt of Algemene Vissers complained that the
crayfish quota that his company had obtained, had been
cut to accommodate new entrants. As a result, his new
quota was not viable. Furthermore, a whitefish quota had
been granted on appeal to Marine and Coastal Management.
This quota had been withdrawn when there was a complaint
that it was inadequate.
(b) Henry Masemola was a member of the Bay View Fishing
Company. He was dropped from the company when it was
stated that there were too many members. He received some
money when he resigned. A court ruled on 7 April 1998
that he had to be taken back into the company. The
present directors, however, claim that they are still
evaluating the company before other members could be
taken back or compensated further.
He also resigned from the Masakhe Company. He was given
R5 000 as part payment of the settlement. Although he was
initially assured that the rest of his money would follow
by the end of the year, he has now been told that he will
have to wait for 10 years.
He further complained about the Oceania Company. Three
directors of the original 30 members now manage the
company. He claims that these three utilise the identity
documents of all 30 original members when obtaining
quotas. He wants MCM to investigate this.
(c) Mr Dickie Meter pointed out that the subsistence fishers
are not able to access lobster because the coast has been
declared a reserve. They are not able to harvest in the
deep sea because they cannot afford boats. As a result,
they have to resort to poaching. He asked MCM to consider
opening the coastline to subsistence fishers. He also
felt that the high cost of applying for quotas
marginalised the poor.
Furthermore, he felt that not enough was being done to
build capacity in new companies. This had resulted in
destructive in-fighting and corruption. He appealed to
MCM to play a role in this regard. He also claimed that
corrupt officials were giving preferential treatment to
big companies, which marginalised the previously
disadvantaged.
(d) Mr N Adams of Olympia Fishing claimed that quotas for
small, black companies were not viable. He said viable
quotas were given to big businesses with influence in the
Department. He felt that there were remnants of the old
regime in MCM who lied to fishers, withheld information
from them and were inaccessible.
(e) Francis Williams of Concordia Fisheries complained that
MCM did not explain their rejection of applications for
quotas. This led to a futile repetition of applications
with the subsequent loss of application fees.
(f) Mrs S Meter of Blue Fin Holdings stated that since rights
were granted for one year only, her company was
experiencing difficulty in acquiring loans. She further
stated that emerging black companies were granted non-
viable quotas because of the influence of big companies.
She advised that the quotas of big companies be cut to
provide for the emerging companies. She further appealed
to MCM to support the emerging companies to make them
viable.
(g) Mr E Jones claimed that Bay View Fishing used his name
when applying for a quota.
(h) Mr J Davids appealed for the reserved coastline to be
opened to fishers. He also appealed to the Department not
to recruit members from the community to patrol the area,
as this had led to conflict in the community.
(i) Mrs V Reed of the Hout Bay Widows' Association appealed to
MCM to intervene to prevent in-fighting in the newly
formed, emerging companies.
(j) Mr S Cupido highlighted the plight of the Atlantis fishing
community. He decried the lack of development at Atlantis
and pointed out that subsistence fishers could not make a
living on four lobsters a day. He appealed for viable
quotas and assistance with capacity-building for emerging
companies. In this he was supported by Mrs L Lippeurs and
Mr W Solomons, who suggested a communal permit to be
issued to subsistence fishers.
(k) Ms B Yon of the Hout Bay Subsistence Fishing Forum
complained that there seemed to be random selection in
the awarding of subsistence permits. Clear criteria were
needed in this respect. She felt that MCM could provide
fishers with more information. She also appealed for the
reserve to be opened or for subsistence fishers to be
given capital to acquire boats.
3. Saldanha Bay
(a) Mr F Louw of Louwville, Vredenburg, claimed the community
was awarded a quota, which resorted under a trust. They
were then advised to form a close corporation, and 89
became shareholders of the newly formed Denburg
Fisheries. Members then left the company and only five of
the original members continued to manage it. They now
claim to be bankrupt, but they still get a quota, while
those who left, get nothing. The remaining five have now
formed a new company called Pike Rock Fishing. He further
claimed that these companies do not pay compensation in
the case of an accident.
(b) Mr J Blankenberg of the Subsistence Forum of Lamberts Bay
claimed that a large portion of the Saldanha Bay quota
was unaccounted for. He also claimed it was unjust that
pensioners who only received small pensions should be
denied subsistence permits. He further asked that there
should be a moratorium on the issuing of B-licences until
these were fully explained to the community.
(c) Mr F Tolken of the West Coast Pelagic Fishers claimed that
many of the original quota holders, who were organised in
an association, were excluded when a close corporation
was formed, as they could not afford shares. He felt that
fishers should not have to purchase shares before they
could benefit from a quota. He also claimed that names
were being used by corrupt directors to access quotas
from which no one benefited but themselves. He further
stated that inappropriate quotas were granted. For
instance, a chokka permit was given to pelagic fishers.
(d) Mr A September, another member of the Pelagic Fishers
Association, was also excluded when the close corporation
was formed. He claimed that members bought death and
medical aid cover from Old Mutual and Sanlam, but they
were not compensated for accidents.
(e) Mr E de Necker of Langebaan Line-fishing Enterprise
claimed that quotas were granted to non-fishers like
policemen, army personnel and teachers, while the bona
fide fishers lived in abject poverty.
(f) Mr E Solomons, a former employee of Southern Seas, part of
Premier Fisheries, said that when Southern Seas was taken
over by Sekunjalo, they were promised 70% of the new
company. Instead, their benefits were lowered and there
were retrenchments and unfair dismissals. He said that
Premier Fisheries was stealing fish and that he had
documents to prove this. He wanted MCM to undertake an
investigation into Sekunjalo and Premier Fisheries.
He also claimed that shares were paid at dividends below
their value and that Sekunjalo had paid no dividends
since 1997, although the company did make a profit.
(g) Mrs E Mavusa of Berg River Fisheries claimed that
dividends have not been paid to shareholders since 1997,
even though the company purchased an expensive boat. She
also claimed that shareholders were not consulted in the
running of the company and were given no indication of
the quotas granted to the company.
(h) Mr F Jooste of Siphiwe Fisheries claimed that all evidence
of the granting of a whitefish quota to his company had
simply disappeared.
(i) Mr F Lisse of the Line Fishers of Saldanha and the West
Coast complained about the high cost of applications for
quotas. He also wanted the application forms to be
simplified. He appealed to MCM to regulate the marketing
of fish so that undercutting could be prevented.
(j) Mrs Elena Pyper complained of the loss of her husband's
catch right, since catch rights were not catered for in
the new legislation (Marine Living Resources Act).
(k) Mr J Issel stated that there was in-fighting and
corruption in the newly formed, empowerment companies
because MCM did not support them directly or intervene to
prevent malpractices. He claimed that many of the
instances of malpractice were the result of big companies
corrupting individuals in the empowerment companies. He
also appealed to MCM to engage in capacity-building
exercises within the empowerment companies.
(l) Mrs E Jordaan of La Ponterose Fisheries claimed that the
quota granted to the company in 1998-99 disappeared after
the old quota holder made a court case against the
granting of the quota to them. She appealed to the
Department to look into this matter, as the company had
no funds to engage lawyers.
(m) Mr N Cloete of Walpat CC claimed that although the names
of 33 persons were used to obtain quotas, only half of
them had received any money from the quota other than
income from the catch itself. He wanted this
investigated. (Walpat CC has since submitted documents to
the Committee.)
(n) Mr J Jantjies of Stompneusbaai Fisheries complained that
reasons were never given for the refusal of quotas. He
also felt that quotas were given to individuals with the
right connections.
(o) Mrs E Boyers stated that her husband, who had worked for
Denburg Fisheries, was not compensated after an accident.
She wanted an investigation into the company. She also
felt that quotas were granted to inappropriate people who
earned large salaries, while fishers lived in abject
poverty.
(p) Ms A Smit claimed that Vredenburg Fishers Corporation was
being run without consulting the general members.
(q) Mr C Jordaan, a subsistence fisher from St Helena Bay,
said that a forum was formed for subsistence fishers. The
management collected R60 from all permit holders for the
purchase of utility vehicles, which they used exclusively
for themselves.
(r) Mrs Farmer, a wife of a St Helena Bay line fisher, claimed
that quotas were awarded to corrupt people who squandered
their income on luxuries, while the fishers remain in
abject poverty.
(s) Mr J H Meter of Louwenians Fisheries complained of tension
between the managers of the corporation, and required
intervention from the Department to resolve the
situation. He also alleged that Southern Seas and Premier
Fisheries did not pay dividends to shareholders, although
their names were still used to acquire quotas.
(t) Mr G Smith of Louwville, Vredenburg, felt that quotas were
allocated to undeserving persons, while ordinary fishers
were given no reason why their applications had been
refused. He wished that the Department investigate the
awarding of quotas on the West Coast.
(u) Mr X Mcinga and Mr V Moyake made written submissions,
accusing Southern Seas and Premier Fisheries of not
honouring their pension pay-out obligations. Mr Mcinga
also accused Premier Fisheries of not paying dividends on
his shares.
(v) Mrs M Don, in a written submission, appealed for permits
to be given to ordinary fishers and not to doctors,
lawyers and priests. She also asked that the Department
institute a help desk to assist ordinary fishers with
applications.
(w) Mr J Erasmus of St Helena Bay alleged that Dromedaris
Fisheries did not pay members the full amount for their
crayfish catches in 2000. He also accused the chairperson
of selling the hake, sardine and anchovy quotas without
any payment to members. He asked for an investigation
into the company.
(x) Mr J Samuels, in a written submission, complained about
his exclusion from Hopefield Fishing Development, which
is now run by non-fishers. He claimed that fishers' names
were used to obtain a quota in 1998, but that members
were not informed of this and received no income from it.
(y) Mr J Coetzee, in a written submission, said that a
mysterious payment of R250 was made to former members of
the Hopefield Fishers' Co-operative after they were
supposed to have resigned from the corporation. He needed
clarity on what was due to him.
(z) Mr Christie Klaase, in a written submission, claims that
he was unfairly dismissed from CBL Midas, which is run by
two quota holders, Mr Lukas Strauss and Mr Bertus Cloete.
He also claims that the conditions of service which he
was offered when taken into their employ were never met.
E. Conclusions
Despite the often unsystematic nature of the submissions, the
Committee is of the opinion that:
1. there is evidence of irregularities with respect to the use of
names on applications for quotas, the disappearance of certain
quotas, and the non-payment of dividends, compensation and
pensions;
2. the granting of quotas to non-fishers, the granting of non-
viable and inappropriate quotas, and the fact that no reason
is given when an application is refused, cause dissatisfaction
and frustration;
3. a lack of intervention by and support from MCM leads to in-
fighting and corruption in newly formed, empowerment
companies;
4. the conditions of employment of some fishers are unacceptable;
and
5. the present arrangements with respect to subsistence fishers
causes undue hardship.
F. Recommendations
The Committee recommends that:
1. MCM investigate the alleged irregularities with respect to the
use of names when obtaining quotas, the disappearance of
certain quotas, and the non-payment of dividends, compensation
and pensions;
2. the granting of quotas be made more transparent by providing
reasons for the refusal of applications (also, a greater
percentage of bona fide fishers should receive quotas);
3. small companies reap the benefit of cutting the quotas of big
companies, which will ensure that they obtain viable quotas;
4. application forms for quotas be simplified, application fees be
lowered, and a help-desk be instituted to assist ordinary
fishers with applications (MCM should become more accessible
to ordinary fishers);
5. quotas be granted for a period of longer than one year;
6. the Hout Bay coastline be opened to subsistence fishers;
7. a communal permit be considered for subsistence fishers;
8. pensioners who receive small pensions be granted subsistence
permits;
9. small line-fishers be granted permits for bait-fish, or that
the price of bait-fish be regulated;
10. the actions of the harbour master at Kalk Bay be
investigated;
11. the conditions of employment on the Arend B be
investigated;
12. MCM support newly formed companies with capacity-building
for the enhancement of managerial skills (intervention in the
case of in-fighting is also advised); and
13. MCM interact with the Committee to discuss the
implementation of these recommendations.
G. Acknowledgements
The Committee heartily thanks Mr E Rosslind and Mr A Trimmel of
Kalk Bay, Mr D Meter of Hout Bay and Mrs G Kordom of Saldanha Bay
for their assistance in arranging the public meetings in their
respective areas.
WEDNESDAY, 3 OCTOBER 2001
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
- The Speaker and the Chairperson:
(1) The following Bill was introduced by the Minister of Health in
the National Assembly on 3 October 2001 and referred to the Joint
Tagging Mechanism (JTM) for classification in terms of Joint Rule
160:
(i) Medical Schemes Amendment Bill [B 80 - 2001] (National
Assembly - sec 75) [Explanatory summary of Bill and prior
notice of its introduction published in Government Gazette No
22554 of 8 August 2001.]
The Bill has been referred to the Portfolio Committee on Health of
the National Assembly.
In terms of Joint Rule 154 written views on the classification of
the Bill may be submitted to the Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM)
within three parliamentary working days.
National Council of Provinces:
- The Chairperson:
The following papers tabled are now referred to the Select Committee on
Security and Constitutional Affairs:
(1) Report and Financial Statements of the Independent Complaints
Directorate for 2000-2001, including the Report of the Auditor-
General on the Financial Statements for 2000-2001 [RP 149-2001].
(2) Government Notice No 764 published in Government Gazette No
22583 dated 24 August 2001, Amendment of the South African Police
Service Employment Regulations, 1999, made in terms of section
24(1) of the South African Police Service Act, 1995 (Act No 68 of
1995).
TABLINGS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
Papers:
- The Minister of Defence:
(1) Security Agreement between the Government of the Republic of
South Africa and the Government of the French Republic concerning
the Exchange of Classified Information in the Field of Defence,
tabled in terms of section 231(3) of the Constitution, 1996.
(2) Agreement between the Government of the Republic of South Africa
and the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria on Defence
Cooperation, tabled in terms of section 231(3) of the
Constitution, 1996.
(3) Arrangement between the Government of the Republic of South
Africa and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland concerning Mapping/Survey Cooperation and the Exchange of
Geographic Materials between the Directorate Geospatial
Information, South African National Defence Force and the Defence
Geographic and Imageri Intelligence Agency, UK, tabled in terms of
section 231(3) of the Constitution, 1996.
(4) Arrangement between the Government of the Republic of South
Africa and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland concerning the Provision of Personnel of the United
Kingdom Armed Forces and the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence to
advise the Department of Defence of the Republic of South Africa
on Aspects of Democratic Defence Management, tabled in terms of
section 231(3) of the Constitution, 1996.
(5) Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement between the Government
of the Republic of South Africa as represented by the Minister of
Defence and the Department of Defense of the United States of
America, tabled in terms of section 231(3) of the Constitution,
1996.
(6) Agreement between the Government of the Republic of South Africa
as represented by the Minister of Defence and the Government of
the United States of America as represented by the Department of
Defense concerning Exchange of Research and Development
Information, tabled in terms of section 231(3) of the
Constitution, 1996.
(7) Report and Financial Statements of the Armaments Corporation of
South Africa Limited for 2000-2001.
- The Minister of Finance:
(1) Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Seychelles
and the Government of the Republic of South Africa for the
Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion
with respect to Taxes on Income, tabled in terms of section 231(3)
of the Constitution, 1996.
(2) Explanatory memorandum to the Agreement.
- The Minister of Transport:
Financial Statements of the South African Civil Aviation Authority for
2000-2001.
- The Minister for the Public Service and Administration:
Report of the Department of Public Service and Administration on the
Use of Consultants in the Public Service, September 2001. 5. The Minister of Minerals and Energy:
Report and Financial Statements of the South African Nuclear Energy
Corporation Limited for 2000-2001.
- The Minister in The Presidency:
Report and Financial Statements of the Government Communication and
Information System for 2000-2001, including the Report of the Auditor-
General on the Financial Statements of Vote 12 - Government
Communication and Information System for 2000-2001 [RP 111-2001].
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
National Council of Provinces:
-
Report of the Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs on the Correctional Services Amendment Bill [B 8B - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 75), dated 2 October 2001:
The Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs, having considered the subject of the Correctional Services Amendment Bill [B 8B - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 75), referred to it, reports the Bill with a proposed amendment, as follows:
CLAUSE 30
(1) On page 10, from line 16, to omit subsection (4) and to
substitute:
(4)(a) Notwithstanding subsection (1), if the prison
population in general or in a particular prison is
reaching such proportions that the safety, human
dignity and physical care of the prisoners are being
affected materially, the Minister, with the
concurrence of the Minister of Justice, may direct
that any group of unsentenced prisoners be released.
(b) A direction contemplated in paragraph (a) may only
be issued if the Minister and the Minister of Justice
are satisfied that-
(i) in respect of each of the prisoners concerned,
the relevant court has not refused to grant
bail;
(ii) the prisoners concerned are not being detained
in respect of-
(aa) any offence referred to in Schedule 2 of
the Correctional Services Act, 1959 (Act
No. 8 of 1959);
(bb) domestic violence as defined in the
Domestic Violence Act, 1998 (Act No. 116
of 1998); or;
(cc) such additional offences as the Minister
may prescribe by regulation; and
(iii) there are no other cases being investigated
against any such prisoner in respect of an
offence contemplated in subparagraph (ii).
(c) When a prisoner is released under paragraph (a) the
head of the prison where the prisoner is being
detained must-
(i) serve a summons on the prisoner to appear
before the court and on the date and at a time
specified in the warrant of detention; and
(ii) explain the contents of the summons to the
prisoner.
(d) A copy of the summons must be forwarded to the clerk
of the court in question who must attach the copy to
the record of proceedings, and such copy shall be
prima facie proof that the summons was served on and
explained to the prisoner concerned.
(e) If a prisoner fails to appear in court as
contemplated in paragraph (c), the court may issue a
warrant for the arrest of that prisoner.
(f) Sections 67 and 67A of the Criminal Procedure Act,
1977 (Act No. 51 of 1977), apply with the necessary
changes in respect of a prisoner contemplated in
paragraph (e).
-
Report of the Select Committee on Land and Environmental Affairs on the SADC Region Shared Watercourses Protocol, dated 2 October 2001:
The Select Committee on Land and Environmental Affairs, having considered the request for approval by Parliament of the Revised Protocol on Shared Watercourses in the Southern African Development Community Region, referred to it, recommends that the Council, in terms of section 231(2) of the Constitution, approve the said Protocol.
THURSDAY, 4 OCTOBER 2001
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
- The Speaker and the Chairperson:
(1) The Minister of Trade and Industry submitted the
Wysigingswetsontwerp op Handelswaremerke [W 33 - 2001] (Nasionale
Vergadering - art 75) to the Speaker and the Chairperson on 4
October 2001. This is the official translation of the Merchandise
Marks Amendment Bill [B 33 - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 75),
which was introduced in the National Assembly by the Minister on
14 June 2001.
(2) The Minister of Communications submitted the
Wysigingswetsontwerp op Posdienste [W 63 - 2001] (Nasionale
Vergadering - art 75) to the Speaker and the Chairperson on 4
October 2001. This is the official translation of the Postal
Services Amendment Bill [B 63 - 2001] (National Assembly - sec
75), which was introduced in the National Assembly by the Minister
on 4 September 2001.
National Council of Provinces:
- The Chairperson:
The following papers have been tabled and are now referred to the
relevant committees as mentioned below:
(1) The following papers are referred to the Select Committee on
Security and Constitutional Affairs:
(a) Government Notice No R.844 published in Government Gazette
No 22646 dated 7 September 2001, Notice of Determination of
the Remuneration and Conditions of Employment of Judges of the
Land Claims Court established in terms of section 22 of the
Restitution of Land Rights Act, 1994 (Act No 22 of 1994).
(b) Report of the South African Law Commission on the
application of the Bill of Rights to Criminal Procedure,
Criminal Law, the Law of Evidence and Sentencing, Project 101
[RP 118-2001].
(c) Report of the South African Law Commission on Domestic
Arbitration, Project 94 [RP 119-2001].
(d) Fourth Interim Report of the South African Law Commission
on Simplification of Criminal Procedure (Sentence Agreements),
Project 73 [RP 120-2001].
(2) The following paper is referred to the Select Committee on
Security and Constitutional Affairs and to the Joint Monitoring
Committee on the Improvement of Quality of Life and Status of
Women:
Report of the South African Law Commission on the Review of the
Marriage Act 25 of 1961, Project 109 [RP 117-2001].
(3) The following papers are referred to the Select Committee on
Land and Environmental Affairs:
(a) Government Notice No 1769 published in Government Gazette
No 22516 dated 27 July 2001, Invitation to apply for
experimental fishing permits for the catching of Patagonian
Toothfish (Dissostichus spp) in terms of the Antarctic
Treaties Act, 1996 (Act No 60 of 1996).
(b) Government Notice No 1768 published in Government Gazette
No 22516 dated 27 July 2001, the South African Ratification of
the Convention on Conservation of the Fisheries Resources of
South East Atlantic Ocean, made in terms of section 231 of the
Constitution, 1996 (Act No 108 of 1996).
(c) Government Notice No 1767 published in Government Gazette
No 22516 dated 27 July 2001, South African acceptance of the
FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and the FAO
Compliance Agreement, made in terms of section 231 of the
Constitution, 1996 (Act No 108 of 1996).
(d) Government Notice No 701 published in Government Gazette
No 22516 dated 27 July 2001, Determination of fees payable in
respect of applications for and issuing or granting of rights,
permits and licences, made in terms of section 25 of the
Marine Living Resources Act, 1998 (Act No 18 of 1998).
(4) The following paper is referred to the Select Committee on
Education and Recreation:
Report and Financial Statements of the Department of Education for
2000-2001, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the
Financial Statements for 2000-2001 [RP 125-2001].
(5) The following paper is referred to the Select Committee on
Social Services:
Report and Financial Statements of the South African Medical
Research Council for 2000-2001, including the Report of the
Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2000-2001 [RP 122-
2001].
TABLINGS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
Papers:
- The Minister of Home Affairs:
Report and Financial Statements of the Film and Publication Board for
2000-2001, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial
Statements of 2000-2001.
- The Minister of Foreign Affairs:
(1) Partnership Agreement between the Members of the African,
Caribbean and Pacific Group of States of the one part, and the
European Community and its Members States, of the other part,
signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000, tabled in terms of section
231(2) of the Constitution, 1996.
(2) Explanatory Memorandum on the Partnership Agreement.
- The Minister of Finance:
Government Notice No R.851 published in Government Gazette No 22653
dated 6 September 2001, Draft Regulations published for public comment
as required by section 91(4) of the Public Finance Management Act,
1999, made in terms of section 91(1)(b) of the Public Finance
Management Act, 1999 (Act No 1 of 1999).
FRIDAY, 5 OCTOBER 2001
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
- The Speaker and the Chairperson:
(1) Assent by the Acting President of the Republic in respect of the
following Bill:
(a) Close Corporations Amendment Bill [B 31B - 2001] - Act No
22 of 2001 (assented to and signed by Acting President on 3
October 2001).
(2) The Minister of Finance submitted the Wetsontwerp op die
Regulering van Provinsiale Belasting [W 51 - 2001] (National
Assembly - sec 76) to the Speaker and the Chairperson on 5 October
2001. This is the official translation of the Provincial Tax
Regulation Bill [B 51 - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 76), which
was introduced in the National Assembly by the Minister on 28
August 2001.
(3) The Minister for Agriculture and Land Affairs submitted the
Wetsontwerp op Bestuur van Landbouskuld [W 54 - 2001] (National
Assembly - sec 75) to the Speaker and the Chairperson on 5 October
2001. This is the official translation of the Agricultural Debt
Management Bill [B 54 - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 75), which
was introduced in the National Assembly by the Minister on 29
August 2001.
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
National Council of Provinces:
-
Report of the Select Committee on Economic Affairs on the Trade Practices Amendment Bill [B 34 - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 75), dated 3 October 2001:
The Select Committee on Economic Affairs, having considered the subject of the Trade Practices Amendment Bill [B 34 - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 75), referred to it, reports that it has agreed to the Bill.
The Committee further indicates its position that, during the deliberations, the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) assured the committee that processes were underway to involve SMMEs and Business adequately in all events so as not to cancel them out.
-
Report of the Select Committee on Economic Affairs on the Counterfeit Goods Amendment Bill [B 27 - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 75), dated 3 October 2001:
The Select Committee on Economic Affairs, having considered the subject of the Counterfeit Goods Amendment Bill [B 27 - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 75), referred to it, reports that it has agreed to the Bill.
-
Report of the Select Committee on Economic Affairs on the Companies Amendment Bill [B 35 - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 75), dated 3 October 2001:
The Select Committee on Economic Affairs, having considered the subject of the Companies Amendment Bill [B 35 - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 75), referred to it, reports that it has agreed to the Bill with proposed amendments, as follows:
CLAUSE 1
- On page 2, in line 20, to omit “writing, printing” and to substitute “non-electronic”.
CLAUSE 4
-
On page 3, in line 49, to omit “to their original form”.
-
On page 3, in line 50, to omit “or form”.
CLAUSE 13
-
On page 5, in line 33, after “photographic”, to insert “or”.
-
On page 5, in line 34, after “durable” to insert “or sustainable”.
CLAUSE 21
- On page 6, in line 51, after “therein” to insert “in a form capable of retrieving therefrom”.
CLAUSE 23
-
On page 7, in line 11, to omit “writing” and to substitute “non- electronic”.
-
On page 7, in line 11, to omit the second “in “.
CLAUSE 24
-
On page 7, in line 21, to omit “writing” and to substitute “non- electronic”.
-
On page 7, in line 21, to omit the second “in” and “or any other”.
CLAUSE 26
- On page 7, in line 38, to omit “sent by electronic mail” and to substitute “made available in electronic format”.
-
Report of the Select Committee on Land and Environmental Affairs on the Agricultural Research Amendment Bill [B 25B - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 75), dated 4 October 2001:
The Select Committee on Land and Environmental Affairs, having considered the subject of the Agricultural Research Amendment Bill [B 25B - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 75), referred to it, reports that it has agreed to the Bill.
-
Report of the Select Committee on Education and Recreation on the Higher Education Amendment Bill [B 61B - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 75), dated 5 October 2001:
The Select Committee on Land and Environmental Affairs, having considered the subject of the Higher Education Amendment Bill [B 61B - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 75), referred to it, reports that it has agreed to the Bill.
MONDAY, 8 OCTOBER 2001
TABLINGS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
Papers:
- The Speaker and the Chairperson:
(1) Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of the
South African Telecommunications Regulatory Authority for 1 April
2000 to 30 June 2000 [RP 109-2001].
(2) Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of the
Foundation for Education, Science and Technology for the year
ended 31 March 2000 [RP 116-2001].
(3) Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of the
National Supplies Procurement Fund for the year ended 31 March
2000 [RP 114-2001].
(4) Report of the Auditor-General on the Special Review of the
Deposit Account Administrated by the Department of Justice and
Constitutional Development and Related Matters [RP 100-2001].
(5) Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of
President's Fund for the year ended 31 March 2001 [RP 99-2001].
(6) Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of the
State President Fund for the financial year ending 31 March 2001
[RP 97-2001].
(7) Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of the
Health Donations Fund for the year ended 31 March 2001 [RP 96-
2001].
(8) Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of the
Social Relief Fund for the year ending 31 March 2000 [RP 95-2001].
(9) Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of the
Refugee Relief Fund for the year ended 31 March 2001 [RP 94-2001].
(10)Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of Urban
Transport Fund for the year ended 31 March 2000 [RP 90-2001].
(11)Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of the
High School Vorentoe Disaster Fund for the year ended 31 March
2001 [RP 87-2001].
(12)Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of the
Independent Development Trust (Main Fund) for the year ended 31
March 2000 [RP 76-2001].
TUESDAY, 9 OCTOBER 2001
ANNOUNCEMENTS: National Council of Provinces:
- The Chairperson:
Bill passed by National Council of Provinces on 9 October 2001: To be
submitted to President of the Republic for assent:
(i) Higher Education Amendment Bill [B 61B - 2001] (National
Assembly - sec 75).
- The Chairperson:
Message from National Assembly to National Council of Provinces:
Bills passed by National Assembly on 9 October 2001 and transmitted for
concurrence:
(a) Agricultural Debt Management Bill [B 54B - 2001] (National
Assembly - sec 75).
The Bill has been referred to the Select Committee on Land and
Environmental Affairs of the National Council of Provinces.
(b) National Parks Amendment Bill [B 38 - 2001] (National Assembly -
sec 75).
The Bill has been referred to the Select Committee on Land and
Environmental Affairs of the National Council of Provinces.
(c) Merchandise Marks Amendment Bill [B 33B - 2001] (National
Assembly - sec 75).
The Bill has been referred to the Select Committee on Economic
Affairs of the National Council of Provinces.
TABLINGS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
Papers:
- The Minister of Finance:
The Intergovernmental Fiscal Review for 2001 [RP 174-2001].
- The Minister for the Public Service and Administration:
(1) Report and Financial Statements of the Department of Public
Service and Administration for 2000-2001, including the Report of
the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of Vote 24 -
Public Service and Administration for 2000-2001 [RP 15-2001].
(2) Report and Financial Statements of the South African Management
Development Institute for 2000-2001, including the Report of the
Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2000-2001.
(3) Report and Financial Satements of the Public Service Commission
for 2000-2001, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the
Financial Statements for 2000-2001 [RP 128-2001].
- The Minister of Correctional Services: Report and Financial Statements of the Department of Correctional Services for 2000-2001, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of Vote 6 - Correctional Services for 2000- 2001 [RP 148-2001].