National Assembly - 19 September 2002
THURSDAY, 19 SEPTEMBER 2002 __
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
____
The House met at 14:00.
The Speaker took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayers or meditation.
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS - see col 000.
QUESTIONS AND REPLIES - see that book.
APPRECIATION TO SOUTH AFRICA FOR HOSTING OF WORLD SUMMIT ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
The President of the Republic, with leave, conveyed the appreciation of the international community for the manner in which South Africa hosted the World Summit on Sustainable Development and expressed his gratitude to the people of South Africa.
NOTICES OF MOTION
Mr N M NENE: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that I shall move on behalf of the ANC:
That the House -
(1) notes remarks by the Minister of Finance, Trevor Manuel, that the interest rate hikes are a blunt and probably ineffective response to price rises, particularly with regard to food;
(2) believes that -
(a) the major causes of inflationary pressures in the South African
economy at present are external shocks, namely pressures on the
rand in global currency markets and rising oil prices; and
(b) the interest rate increases do not address these causes, are
punitive towards many ordinary consumers and may have a
detrimental impact on growth;
(3) further believes that there is an urgent need to address the issue of the impact of the rise in food prices, particularly on the poor;
(4) welcomes the call for a wider debate on the development of more effective tools to deal with rising prices; and
(5) further welcomes the Government’s commitment to deal with the impact of the food price rises on the poor.
[Applause.]
Mr R J HEINE: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that I shall move:
That the House - (1) notes that the hon the Minister of Communications yesterday assured the House that Telkom does not make donations to political parties, and that the donation of R57 760 given to the ANC was in fact intended for the Whippery of Parliament; and
(2) therefore calls upon the ANC to refund the amount to Telkom and apologise to Telkom for misleading them as to the purpose of the money, and to apologise to this House for misusing Parliament for fundraising purposes.
[Applause.]
Mr M A MZIZI: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that I shall move on behalf of the IFP:
That the House -
(1) notes with joy that a three-month-old baby girl was reunited with her mother after she disappeared in the early hours of Saturday, 14 September this year, from their room in Khayelitsha in the Western Cape;
(2) further notes that child abuse and abduction have become common occurrences in South Africa;
(3) appreciates that the child was found by a Good Samaritan on the N2 roadside and taken to the Masigcine Children’s Home in Mfuleni;
(4) urges residents of all communities to follow the good example of the residents of Driftsands; and
(5) hopes that the police will make every effort to investigate the incident thoroughly.
Mr L CHIBA: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that I shall move on behalf of the ANC:
That the House -
(1) notes - (a) that Iraq has agreed to unconditionally allow United Nations weapons inspectors back into that country; and
(b) that despite this announcement, the United States administration
continues to display an aggressive stance and continues with its
planning for a military onslaught against the people of Iraq;
(2) further notes that former President Nelson Mandela has accused the United States of wanting to bully world leaders by acting unilaterally against Iraq;
(3) believes that -
(a) unilateral action by the United States against Iraq will lead to
further tensions and a possible rise in terrorist actions; and
(b) international tensions and conflicts must be addressed
multilaterally and under the aegis of the United Nations;
(4) welcomes the announcement by Iraq allowing United Nations inspectors into that country unconditionally; and
(5) reiterates its call that the United States desist from its plans for the military invasion of Iraq.
[Applause.]
Mr J DURAND: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that I shall move on behalf of the New NP:
That the House -
(1) notes the request by the DP to meet with the Minister of Intelligence, Lindiwe Sisulu;
(2) calls on the DP during that meeting to -
(a) shed light on its own propaganda tricks, through which it is
carrying out its questionable activities to promote its own
cause;
(b) explain the function of Mr Ryan Coetzee as DP spin doctor,
whilst at the same time receiving state remuneration; and
(c) explain the role and activities of former security apparatchik,
Mr Russel Crystal, who is now employed by the DP and working
specifically for the hon Mr Leon; and
(3) further notes that -
(a) the DP has at last been shocked into the reality that they are
also exposed to crime like the rest of the country, but somehow
expect preferential treatment, which is not available to the man
in the street; and
(b) conspiracy theories and paranoia are classic elements of far-
right groupings.
[Applause.]
Ms ANNELIZÉ VAN WYK: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that I shall move on behalf of the UDM:
That the House -
(1) condemns without reservation the occurrence of another shooting in a court building, this time in an East London magistrates’ court;
(2) notes that the shooter was appearing in court for the verdict in a case where he had been accused of attempted murder, and that the shooter wounded his accuser, killed a friend of the accuser, and then killed himself;
(3) expresses its disgust at the continued failure by the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development to provide adequate security at court buildings, and specifically at the fact that a person accused of a serious violent crime managed to bring a gun into court; and
(4) calls upon the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development, as well as the Minister of Safety and Security, to urgently address the issue of court security, recognising that this trend must be nipped in the bud before it becomes commonplace and undermines the whole concept of justice.
Ms L MABE: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that I shall move on behalf of the ANC:
That the House -
(1) notes that -
(a) the Minister of Finance, Trevor Manuel, and his delegation will
attend the annual general meetings of the World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund in Washington from 27 to 29
September 2002;
(b) these institutions are reviewing their current role and
repositioning themselves to play a positive role in the
sustainable development of all the countries of the world; and
(c) the hon Trevor Manuel will advance the agenda for Africa's
development and that of all developing countries in his capacity
as a chairperson of the IMF and the World Bank's Development
Committee;
(2) believes that this reflects the commitment of the ANC-led Government to fight poverty and work for economic prosperity on the African continent; and
(3) wishes the Minister of Finance, Trevor Manuel, and his delegation every success in their mission.
[Applause.]
Miss S RAJBALLY: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that I shall move on behalf of the MF:
That the House -
(1) notes that -
(a) recent statistics have displayed a horrific rate of persons
affected by asbestosis;
(b) the media has brought to the public eye a number of asbestos
grounds that are affecting residents; and
(c) many deaths have been reported as a result of this and the
number of deaths continues to escalate;
(2) calls for an end to the delay and for immediate action to be taken; and
(3) notes that we are here to protect our people and not to kill them. Mnr C AUCAMP: Mev die Speaker, namens die AEB gaan ek voorstel:
Dat die Huis -
(1) sy afkeur uitspreek oor die wyse waarop mnr Mugabe die regsproses in Zimbabwe omgeskep het in ‘n instrument van gelegitimeerde staatsterreur, wat duidelik blyk uit die -
(a) arrestasie van regter Fergus Blackie op 'n klag van
regsverydeling oor 'n uitspraak wat hy as regter gemaak het;
(b) lang vonnis van mnr Phillip Pretorius op 'n klag van moord nadat
hy, terwyl hy weggejaag het van dreigende plaasbesetters, een
raakgery het; en
(c) feit dat nog nie een persoon aangekla is oor die moord op 13
boere en 31 plaaswerkers in Zimbabwe die afgelope twee jaar nie;
(2) kennis neem van wat mnr Wilfred Mhanda, leier van die Zimbabwe Liberation Platform - self ‘n ware Zanu-PF-oorlogsveteraan - gisteraand op die TV-program Third Degree gesê het, naamlik:
... silent diplomacy with Mugabe is perceived by Zimbabweans as
silent support; and that the only thing they ask from South Africa
and other countries is to say openly: What Mugabe is doing, is
wrong ...;
(3) ‘n beroep op president Mbeki doen om presies dit te doen, soos hy vandag so duidelik gedoen het toe hy oor steniging in Nigerië gepraat het. (Translation of Afrikaans notice of motion follows.)
[Mr C AUCAMP: Madam Speaker, I shall move on behalf of the AEB:
That the House - (1) expresses its condemnation of the way in which Mr Mugabe has transformed the justice system in Zimbabwe into an instrument of legitimised state terror, which is evident from the -
(a) arrest of Justice Fergus Blackie on a charge of defeating the
ends of justice regarding a judgment handed down by him in his
capacity as a judge;
(b) lengthy prison sentence of Mr Phillip Pretorius on a charge of
murder after he, while speeding away from threatening farm
occupiers, knocked one of them down; and
(c) fact that not one person has yet been charged with the murder of
13 farmers and 31 farmworkers in Zimbabwe in the past two years;
(2) notes what Mr Wilfred Mhanda, the leader of the Zimbabwe Liberation Platform - himself a true Zanu-PF war veteran - said on the TV Programme 3rd Degree last night, namely, that:
... silent diplomacy with Mugabe is perceived by Zimbabweans as
silent support; and the only thing they ask from South Africa and
other countries is to say openly: What Mugabe is doing, is wrong
...; and
(3) calls upon President Mbeki to do just that, as he has done so clearly today in respect of stoning in Nigeria.]
Ms N MAHLAWE: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that I shall move on behalf of the ANC:
That the House -
(1) notes that Langa, the first township in the Western Cape, is celebrating its 75th anniversary from 15 to 24 September 2002;
(2) further notes that - (a) Chief Langalibalele the 2nd, the Minister of Finance the hon Trevor Manuel and a representative from Old Mutual lit the torch marking the 75th anniversary; and
(b) Minister Ronnie Kasrils and Paul Coleman planted trees in honour
of Chief Langalibalele the 1st, Innie Silinga and Johnson
Ngwevela; and
(3) commends the Langa Development Trust for organising this event as it forms part of celebrating the common heritage of our people and contributes to our common destiny as a nation united in diversity.
[Applause.]
Mrs B N SONO: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that I shall move on behalf of the DP:
That the House -
(1) notes that - (a) inflation has risen above 10, while food price inflation has risen above 17%;
(b) the unemployed and lower income earners are facing real
hardship, with malnutrition rising amongst children; and
(c) four interest rate hikes in one year have put people's homes at
risk as they struggle to meet bond repayments;
(2) expresses its distress at the disastrous impact of spiralling prices on families; and
(3) calls on the Government to consider introducing the DA’s proposed basic income grant to at least help the poorest of the poor.
Mr N S MIDDLETON: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that I shall move on behalf of the IFP:
That the House -
(1) notes that Mooi River Textiles in KwaZulu-Natal posted a profit in its first four years;
(2) further notes that a groundbreaking agreement between labour and management in this factory earlier this year led to the preservation of jobs in the textile factory;
(3) also notes that the average production rate in the factory, since the agreement was entered into, has reached 25%; and
(4) encourages Mooi River Textiles’ management and labour to continue with their commitment to the preservation of jobs and the local economy through their hard work and successful implementation of this agreement.
Ms N L HLANGWANA: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that at the next sitting of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:
That the House - (1) notes that the refurbished Mafikeng Prison was recently opened after it had been closed down five years ago because of its dilapidated state;
(2) acknowledges that the prison will assist in reducing the burden of overcrowding in our prisons;
(3) further acknowledges that prison labour was utilised in the refurbishment of Mafikeng Prison, thereby entrenching the rehabilitation goals of the Department of Correctional Services by giving 54 prisoners on-the-job training in bricklaying, plastering, welding, carpentry, painting, tiling and plumbing; and
(4) believes that -
(a) the reopening of this prison has led to the creation of
employment opportunities for the people of Mafikeng and those
living in the surrounding areas; and
(b) this reflects the determination of the ANC ...
[Time expired.]
Mev M E OLCKERS: Mevrou die Speaker, hiermee gee ek kennis dat ek namens die Nuwe NP sal voorstel:
Dat die Huis -
(1) daarvan kennis neem dat -
(a) die Departement van Onderwys, in samewerking met nie-
regeringsorganisasies, binnekort met 'n effektiewe kindergerigte
MIV-bewusmakingsveldtog sal begin;
(b) Suid-Afrikaanse kinders nou op een van hul gunsteling TV-
programme, Takalani Sesame, kennis sal maak met die handpop,
Kami, wat MIV-positief is;
(c) dié program, wat kinders tussen sewe en agt jaar teiken, ook oor
die radio uitgesaai sal word, wat beteken dat kinders sonder
toegang tot elektrisiteit of TV-stelle ook by die
bewusmakingsveldtog sal baatvind; en
(d) daar erkenning gegee word aan jong slagoffers van MIV/Vigs wat
met die siekte saamleef en dikwels verwerping ervaar; en
(2) glo dat hierdie veldtog ‘n groot bydrae sal lewer om jong kinders se onkunde oor MIV/Vigs uit die weg te ruim.
[Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans notice of motion follows.)
[Mrs M E OLCKERS: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that I shall move on behalf of the New NP:
That the House -
(1) notes that -
(a) the Department of Education, in collaboration with non-
governmental organisations, will commence in the near future
with an effective HIV-awareness campaign aimed at children;
(b) South African children will now, on one of their favourite TV
programmes, Takalani Sesame, make the acquaintance of the hand
puppet Kami, who is HIV positive;
(c) this programme, which is aimed at children between the ages of
seven and eight, will also be broadcast on the radio, which
means that children who do not have access to electricity or TV
sets will also be able to benefit from this awareness campaign;
and
(d) recognition is given to young victims of HIV/Aids who are living
with this disease and frequently experience rejection; and
(2) believes that this campaign will make a great contribution towards eliminating young children’s ignorance regarding HIV/Aids.
[Applause.]]
HERITAGE DAY
(Draft Resolution)
The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Speaker, I hereby move without notice:
That the House -
(1) notes that South Africans will be celebrating Heritage Day on 24 September 2002 with the theme “Celebrating our national symbols and national institutions”;
(2) believes that -
(a) the celebration of Heritage Day is the celebration of a society
that is arising out of the struggles of our painful past to
become a new nation, united in diversity; and
(b) through these celebrations, the Government and people of South
Africa are working together to build a nation united in
diversity; and
(3) calls on South Africans from all walks of life to work towards a prosperous nation and the unity of all people for a brighter future.
Agreed to.
QUESTIONS TO THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT
(Draft Resolution)
The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Speaker, I move the draft resolution printed on the Order Paper in the name of the Chief Whip of the Majority Party, as follows.
That, notwithstanding Rule 110(1)(b), Questions to the Deputy President will be taken on 25 September 2002, although the Deputy President is scheduled to reply to questions in the National Council of Provinces in the same week.
Agreed to.
EDUCATION LAWS AMENDMENT BILL
(Second Reading debate)
The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Takalani Sesame was, of course, sponsored by the national Department of Education.
Madam Speaker and hon members, I have pleasure in introducing the Education Laws Amendment Bill, which seeks to effect amendments to five other pieces of legislation. Some of the changes are minor, such as the technical amendment to the General and Further Education and Training Quality Assurance Act. I do not intend to deal with these. However, I would like to make a preliminary statement.
My experience with the manner in which the Bill was commented on, especially during the committee stage, raised some concern and distress. As public representatives who are charged with the responsibility to pass laws, we need to demonstrate a higher level of understanding about the legislative process if we are to assist the public to understand the laws we make and the decisions we take on their behalf. If we ourselves demonstrate ignorance of the draft laws, or we ignore their existence simply for the sake of gain, then we should not expect the public to respect what we do and to take the laws we make seriously. Therefore, as I open this debate, I feel obliged to request that we all at least agree on the basics and fundamentals, even if we may disagree and differ in emphasis and approach. I would like to outline some of these basics, and demonstrate how they apply to the Bill. Firstly, we must all agree that a major change in legislation is necessitated by a number of factors, one of which is the direction given by our courts through its judgments. I am singling out this particular factor of court judgments because I want to believe that we all agree that, fundamental to our constitutional order, is the principle of the independence of the courts, respect for their judgments, especially that of the highest court in the land, the Constitutional Court, and the need to respect these judgments.
If the court’s judgment implies that something that is being done is unlawful, either because the law is in conflict with the Constitution or because the mechanisms that are being employed do not have a basis in law, then the Government is obliged to correct this. I do not think anyone here differs on what I am saying. If we all understand this, then they will understand why we needed to legislate on the age of admission, as we do in this Bill.
This need arises from the Constitutional Court judgment in the Harris case, which supported the judgment of the High Court which argued that the statement of policy could only be binding on parties it was intended that it should be binding on, provided that it was expressed in legislation. An admission policy already existed prior to the judgment, and its existence was therefore not in question.
The issue was whether, in applying such a policy, we would not be discriminating against a specific child, therefore not placing the child’s interests first. Unfortunately, the Constitutional Court did not deal with this fundamental issue and, therefore, we still do not have the court’s view on whether any admission policy that prescribes an age of entry is discriminatory.
Our view is that we need such a policy in order to ensure equity and fairness, and this view still stands. However, since the court suggested that unless this was expressed in legislation, it would not be binding on third parties, and it was not clear whether it would even be binding on the provinces. So, we had to clarify the position.
I thought I should dwell on this a little bit, because it underpins two key amendments which this Bill introduces - the admission policy and the curriculum policy. Regarding the admission policy, we are seeking to do two things. Firstly, we are seeking to do what the court suggested we should do, namely to ensure that national policy is expressed in and through legislation. In the case of education, hundreds of policy directives have been promulgated as policy in the last five or six years. Now we will have to use regulations.
Secondly, we are also amending existing policy, providing that, as from 2004, children may be admitted to Grade 1 on condition that they will turn six by 30 June, a six-month reduction in the present position. In addition, we have allowed for extraordinary circumstances, but these are limited to ensure that they are effected in a fair and equitable manner.
With regard to the curriculum again, the country has a curriculum policy which is at present being followed in all the schools, including independent schools. The determination of a national curriculum for general and further education and its application to both public and independent schools is necessary and reasonable. I do not know of any country in the world with a unitary system such as ours which does not require all schools to follow a national curriculum. We must do so in pursuit of our goal, especially after the freedom of nation-building. We all know that even the right to private education is subject to some limitations, including adherence to the Constitution and, especially, that no education in private structures should be lower than that provided in public education.
So, far from ``dumbing down’’, to use the inelegant phrase coined by the Financial Mail, we are trying to lift the standards in all our schools. The curriculum is a centrepiece of education provision. We are therefore obliged to set minimum standards in order to achieve and arrive at some judgment of how independent schools compare with public education. We will not be legislating for a curriculum, as other countries, such as the United Kingdom, France, or Ireland - a country I know very well - do. We are issuing a curriculum statement. We have emphasised that the curriculum statement comprises minimum outcomes and standards, and we are therefore in no way prescribing to schools or teachers what they should do and how. This is the essence of outcomes-based education.
As professionals, teachers must develop the learning programmes which will achieve the prescribed outcomes. Independent schools can therefore, like all schools, explore every possible way to achieve the minimum outcomes and standards we are prescribing, or even exceed them.
I have spent some time explaining this, because I have been concerned about the manner in which some people - not those who are professionally involved in this - have distorted this particular area. These two amendments arise from the proper and normal process of legislation, and are not based on anything other than giving legislative expression to an already existing situation.
The same applies to the aspect of assessment of learner achievement. Our wish is to have a national framework for assessment, which will allow us to publish a national set of results, confident in the knowledge that these are based on common processes and standards. This is not intended to stifle innovation, where it exists, although I am excited to learn that some of these people who speak about innovation actually represent innovation rather than the dull hand of tradition and obsequiousness.
We do not want to abolish innovation in relation to assessment procedures. There is no threat to the future of legitimate assessment bodies who have worked with us to support and develop the assessment of a national curriculum. At the same time, we cannot allow the existence of foreign bodies which offer pupils a qualification based on a foreign syllabus with a dubious value in the marketplace.
I now wish to address the amendments dealing with a process that is very important - the employment of teachers. I am aware that there has been considerable confusion in this regard and we must, in fact, assert confidence in our young people so that they know there is something predictable about their futures.
Let me try to explain. The process for the appointment of new teachers undoubtedly needs review. Currently, we have a cumbersome process of appointment, which is not in the interests of either the schools or the applicants. Anyone who knows anything on the ground will know that it does not serve the interests of young people. Many schools, especially those in rural areas and townships, fail to attract suitably qualified candidates for advertised posts, leaving them with large numbers of unfilled vacancies. Presently, the only way they can fill these posts is if they receive applications from prospective candidates. Surely, we will never ensure that these schools receive candidates of quality if we use only one method of recruitment? Many members of the House argue that we must create incentives for people to teach in rural areas. Let me explain, therefore, that we are beginning to negotiate with the teacher unions. It will take a very long time to negotiate, and there is no guarantee that an entirely voluntary system will work.
The present method of recruitment, if it continues to be the only way, will not only be a disincentive, but also an obstacle. This needs to be looked at from the side of the prospective employee also. Students coming straight from higher education institutions, whether they are white or black, are required to complete numerous application forms, and send them to schools which they know nothing about. This procedure does not favour any of the parties concerned, and prevents the rapid appointment of teachers that is required in the face of possible teacher shortages. It also discourages young entrants from entering the profession, as it creates a perception that finding employment as a teacher is a difficult and cumbersome process. We also have serious problems of racial representivity in school staff rooms which, we are all agreed, must be addressed. Governing bodies have failed to use their powers to promote the necessary speed and changes in this regard. The amendments which have been introduced seek to address all these problems without deviating from the principle of governing body participation in the appointment of educators.
The provisions do not get rid of the processes, let me assure the House. Outlined in the relevant section of the South African Schools Act is the process of the recruitment and appointment of teachers. Those who wish to use the existing procedures are free to do so, and where the province has identified applicants who match the post, then consultation between the governing body and the province is made possible by this amendment. First- time applicants are also free to apply directly to schools.
Where these process are seen to be effective, they can continue, provided they are not used to exclude people on the grounds of race. After eight or nine years of freedom, we cannot allow anyone to be excluded on the grounds of race. We must allow, therefore, an alternative route for schools and applicants who are not well-served in this process.
The new draft provides for one application to the relevant provincial department of education, which will then match applicants to vacancies and make offers to suitably qualified applicants. Anyone offered a job on this basis is free to turn down the posting. Only in cases where the province has invested bursary money - and we are encouraging the provinces to raise the bursary moneys in the training of teachers - will there be a limitation on the powers of governing bodies.
In these cases, which are very rare, the nine provincial departments will be required - not I in Pretoria - to identify the post to which they wish to appoint the trained person, and to consult with the governing body in regard to the requirements prior to making the appointment. This will only apply, as I said, to a limited category of teachers, and should not be seen as a threat to the functions of a school governing body. A province cannot spend public money on training teachers and then find that they are not being appointed, especially in mathematics, science and indigenous languages, by governing bodies in schools where they are most needed, as determined by the province.
I am confident these provisions will bring about greater efficiency and fairness in the system. The state as an employer has a stake in protecting its interests in the employment processes, including ensuring that the rights of prospective employees are protected, as required by all labour legislation.
The development of performance standards for teachers is an important matter that arises from the incapacity code which this House approved two years ago. At that time, I was keen to prescribe the standards as to what happens when a teacher is incapable of performing his or her functions. I was persuaded that these should be collectively negotiated with the unions. I agreed to allow 12 months for this to happen, after which I indicated that I would return to Parliament if no agreement was reached. I regret to say that, two years later, there is still no agreement. I now intend to determine these regulations. We cannot allow a situation where teachers who are incapable of doing their jobs are allowed to continue teaching. I hope and understand the House will agree with this.
The banning of initiation ceremonies must be separated from the provision of positive orientation programmes by institutions. We have defined these very carefully. No one in this House will accept the idea that practices which strip our children of their dignity and humanity can continue in the name of tradition.
Finally - here is the promotive function of Government - the registration of private providers of higher education and training, which is a scandal, is urgently needed. We have done this for private higher education providers. Now we see, in the dramatic increase that we have found in further education and training, that we have a responsibility to ensure minimum standards to stop the fly-by-nighters and to protect gullible or desperate students.
I have been accused of many things, including stripping governing bodies of their powers. I have no intention of doing that. We have set up the commission of inquiry to ensure that governing bodies will perform the work for which they were originally set up. They will be stronger, have better training and will, therefore, meet the expectations of the original founders of governing bodies, which is a central programme of the ANC, and Blade Nzimande here fought very hard to ensure that we have them.
I commend this legislation to the House. [Applause.]
Mr R S NTULI: Madam Speaker, hon Minister, hon members, this Bill sets out to amend five education Acts to enable the Minister of Education to regulate, inter alia, the following policy areas for public and independent schools, namely a national curriculum statement; the appointment of a certain category of teachers; a national process for assessment, monitoring and evaluation for quality education; initiation practices in schools; norms and minimum standards for school funding; and the admission age of a learner to public and independent schools. Moreover, the Bill seeks to increase the Minister’s power to regulate with the force of legislation on ``any matter which may be necessary or expedient to prescribe in order to achieve the object of this Act’’.
The DA is concerned about the Government’s propensity to rule by regulation. There is a danger that the substance of laws can be placed in regulations determined by ministerial discretion, and not through the parliamentary process. As a general principle, regulations are not subject to the same procedural scrutiny as laws. They are malleable by people in power and therefore less transparent.
Regulations should contain only operational details. They should not change policy or set principles that have not been the subject of democratic debate. The regulations clause certainly goes beyond operational and technical details. We want to express our concern in this regard.
The effective lowering of the age of admission by six months will bring South Africa more in line with international practices. Yet, there is little indication that account has been taken of current population trends, enrolment patterns and availability of Grade R facilities. The lowering of the age of admission, we submit, while being essentially a progressive step, could have serious enrolment consequences for schools serving communities with limited preprimary facilities. This challenge will also have significant implications for human resources and physical facilities.
I would like to make a few comments about the implications of ministerial discretion with regard to a national curriculum statement. I agree largely with what the Minister has said and, in this regard, I would like to mention that the proposed amendment to the Bill reflecting a movement away from the concept of prescribing a national curriculum to a national curriculum statement applicable to public and independent schools, as agreed to by most parties, is very welcome. A fully prescribed national curriculum for both independent and public schools would have had the impact of creating a homogeneous educational environment and, at the same time, would have lead to the demise of centres of good practice, excellence and, above all, the innovation that currently exists.
We believe that in line with the notion of comparable standards, as indicated in the Constitution and the South African Schools Act, a national curriculum statement reflects the assertion in the revised curriculum statement for Grade R to Grade 9, which we interpret to mean that each school will be free to decide on the content and appropriate method to be used in working towards the achievement of the concepts, skills and values embedded in learning outcomes. The constitutional requirement is that independent schools should maintain standards that are not inferior to standards at comparable public institutions. This will be in line with the Minister’s own statement in a letter to the Financial Mail of 5 July 2002, and I quote:
Under the outcomes-based curriculum, only the outcome standards are prescribed, while the content and method by which the learners achieve these are determined by the professional in charge.
Hence, the provision in the Bill in this regard certainly makes sense. The DA regards the human rights and dignity of all children as fundamental and as non-negotiable principles. Therefore, we welcome the prohibition of corporal punishment and initiation practices. We view initiation practices as abusive, primitive and unconstitutional.
The proposed changes to the Employment of Educators Act are of major concern to us, because these changes will remove the right of selection and recommendation from the school governing bodies. Instead, the provincial education departments will have the right to match applications to vacancies.
The DA understands the problems of teacher shortages, especially in certain critical subjects like mathematics, science and accounting, and, in particular, in historically disadvantaged communities. We definitely have a problem there. We appreciate that a two-pronged or multipronged strategy is needed to sort out these problems, but in a democratic, open society like ours, the end does not necessarily justify the means.
To contextualise our principled opposition to the limitation of the powers of SGBs, we need to reflect on the foundational rationale of the new system of education ushered in by the South African Schools Act - Sasa - and, in tandem with it, the Employment of Educators Act of 1998 as amended. In doing so, we question the intention of the Ministry of Education and enquire now after the motives of the Government regarding the governance of public schools, the role of parents and other stakeholders and, more particularly, the SGBs.
The Education White Paper No 2 of 1996 contains the Ministry’s proposals regarding the basis of a new system of education. The Ministry espoused the principle of ownership of a school by the community it serves; of a genuine partnership between a local community and a provincial department of education; and of limiting the role of provincial education departments in school governance to the minimum required for legal accountability.
The role of the SGBs in the appointment of educators to vacant public posts was thus stated clearly in paragraph 3, on page 28 of the White Paper. I shall now quote extensively from the White Paper as follows:
… appointments will be made by departments of education on the recommendation of and in consultation with school governing bodies. This balances the prerogative of governing bodies with the necessity for government decision, while providing strong safeguards against arbitrary administrative action. The Ministry of Education appreciates that the responsibility of making teaching staff appointments would be the clearest indication of the extent to which real devolution of decision- making power to the school level has taken place. All public school governing bodies …
And here comes the central statement -
… would have the authority to recommend the appointment of teachers to their respective provincial education departments.
The DA welcomes the letter and the spirit of the Ministry’s position on the role and functions of SGBs as cited above. We say ``Hallelujah’’. I have quoted extensively not from a DA document, nor from a document from the Association of School Governing Bodies, but from the department’s White Paper No 2 of 1996. Now the Ministry and the ruling party want to move away from their own foundation document regarding procedures to be followed when appointing teachers.
During the public hearings all but one stakeholder strenuously opposed this clause. Similarly, the opposition parties opposed this clause during our deliberations at the portfolio committee meetings. The ruling party refused to take on board our recommendations to bring the SGBs into the picture, as indicated in the foundation document. The pertinent question then arises: What is the practical value of legislation if the stakeholders of legislation are against it?
The DA believes that this clause erodes one of the most important rights of the school governing bodies - the right to recommend to the department educators who would teach their children. This right is the basis of what is virtually a covenant between the state and school communities, in return for which governing bodies have been prepared to accept massive responsibilities for the governance and financing of their schools.
Furthermore, this amendment retains the potential to give rise to endless disputes from both governing bodies and unions concerning the filling of posts. In addition, the process which is being suggested gives rise to a number of practical and managerial difficulties, which could result in lengthy delays in the filling of posts.
The DA, for the above reason, opposes this Bill. [Applause.]
The DEPUTY MINISTER FOR PROVINCIAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT: Madam Speaker, can we assume then in this House that the speech of the hon Ntuli, who has just left the podium, will not be recorded in Hansard, as this is the speech of the DA and not the DP? [Interjections.] We do not have such a party in this House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! That is true, hon member. We do not have the DA in this House and, in fact, the matter has been raised previously. However, we do understand that the hon members are referring to the DP plus the hon member from the FA. It would actually help if we could be accurate about who is in this House.
Prof S M MAYATULA: Madam Speaker, hon members, the Bill before us has evoked such controversy that I would like to start off by clearing up a few issues.
Some people have alleged that they were not given enough time to make presentations before the committee. To put the record straight, I would like to report as follows. On 21 July, the portfolio committee put advertisements in the Sunday Times, the City Press and Rapport, inviting comments from the public, with a reply date of 31 July. The Bill was certified at that stage. Any person requesting a copy of the Bill through the Department of Education, as indicated in the Gazette of 26 June 2002, was given a copy of the certified version of the Bill.
On 13 August public hearings were conducted. About 18 organisations sent their written submissions; of these, 15 accepted our invitation to appear before the committee, but only 14 made their oral presentations. What more could one expect? This Bill has accommodated most of their concerns. I would like to thank them for their time and valuable contributions.
I will now highlight a few clauses of the Bill. There has been a general acceptance of the lowering of the admission age in both public and independent schools, from age six turning seven to age five turning six by June 30 in the year of admission to Grade 1. However, in special cases, parents can make representations to the department for admission at a younger age if this is in the best interests of the learner.
Those who had fears that clause 3 - curriculum and assessment - was giving powers to the Minister to determine the content of the syllabus and control examinations have been accommodated. The Minister will determine a national curriculum statement indicating the minimum outcomes or standards, and a national process and procedures for the assessment of learner achievement. Surely, if we agree that we are one nation, we cannot help but support a Bill that calls for minimum standards and brings about portability between schools?
Xa bendikwazile ukusa umntwana wam kwizikolo ezizimeleyo, ezibiza iimali ezinkulu, ndaza ndawudla umsebenzi, ndanyanzeleka ukuba ndimse kwizikolo zikaRhulumente, kufuneka umntwana wam akwazi ukulunga nalapho, angabi nangxaki. Kukwanjalo xa ndiwine ilotto, ndafuna ukusa umntwana wam kwisikolo esizimeleyo, ndimthabathe umntwana wam eXhora, ndimse kwisikolo esiseRhawutini kuba ndiwine iloto, makakwazi umntwana wam ukufika alunge kweso sikolo. NguRhulumente yedwa onakho ukuyigada loo nto, ngokugcina umgangatho wemfundo kuzo zonke izikolo zeli lizwe ukwizinga eliphakamileyo. (Translation of Xhosa paragraph follows.)
[If I was able to send my child to a private school that cost a lot of money, and unfortunately lost my job, and was forced to send him or her to a public school, my child should be able to fit in well and cope in the school. Similarly, if I have won the lotto and want to send my child to a private school in Gauteng from a rural school such as eXhora, the same type and standard of education should exist there. It is the responsibility of the Government to safeguard the situation by making sure that education in all the schools of this country is of a high standard.]
To show that the determination of the curriculum by the Government is not peculiar to South Africa, I would like to share with the House the National Education Act, BE 2542 (1999) of the Kingdom of Thailand. Section 15(1) of that Act states, and I quote:
Formal education shall specify the aims, methods, curricula, duration, assessment and evaluation conditional to its completion.
On educational standards and quality assurance, section 47 of the same Act states, and I quote:
There shall be a system of educational quality assurance to ensure the improvement of educational quality and standards at all levels. Such a system shall comprise both internal and external quality assurance. The system, criteria and methods for quality assurance shall be as stipulated in the ministerial regulations.
Surely, we are not even close to what is being said there? But people are already filled with misgivings.
Clause 4 of this Bill proposes that a learner should be accompanied by his or her parent or a person designated by the parent at disciplinary proceedings. It is important to note that ``parent’’ in the principal Act is defined as including a guardian for those learners who do not have parents. The Bill has been further amended to protect the SGBs against parents who deliberately do not accompany their children in order to frustrate the disciplinary procedure.
Clause 5 deals with the prohibition of initiation practices in all schools as these impinge on a learner’s human rights and his or her human dignity.
Clause 10 - the first appointment or appointment after a break in service of an educator - is the most important and most misunderstood proposed amendment in this Bill. It is at the core of transformation. Some of us received a number of telephone calls and letters from concerned members of the community. Fortunately, once we had discussed and clarified the issues with them, they were satisfied and agreed on the relevance and importance of this clause.
They wrongly believed that this clause was replacing the current way in which posts are filled in the education sector, as the hon Ntuli was also saying. They believed that there would no longer be any Government bulletins for educator vacancies; that prospective educators would no longer go through interviews; that the school governing bodies would no longer be involved in the selection of teachers in their schools; that all first-appointment or appointment-after-break-in-service educators would come through this route and this route only; and that these educators would be forced to go to those schools. There are many other misconceptions that they harboured.
This cannot be further from the truth. This proposed system will run parallel to the current one, as contained in section 6(3)(a). This clause addresses a small, specific group, ie educators who are being appointed for the fist time or after a break in their service. We are probably talking about less than 1% of about 400 000 teachers in our country. As we speak, we have a number of these newly qualified teachers who are roaming our streets in desperate need of assistance to find jobs. Some of these prospective teachers have never seen a bulletin on teacher vacancies.
On the other hand, in the rural areas a number of schools are crying out for teachers. Some of them have been without maths, science and commerce teachers and teachers of other subjects for more than a year. Even in our former Model C schools, there are those that genuinely want to incorporate other race groups in their staff complements, but do not know how to go about it. Even after advertising through the bulletin, they have not been successful.
Andithethi ukuba kunokuthi kanti zikhona izikolo, ezikade zimhlophe, ezinabantwana abaliqela abamnyama kungoku nje, apho iititshala ezimhlophe ezikwezo zikolo zisacinga ukuba kulilungelo lomlungu ukuba atitshe umntwana, kodwa, kuba kusekho abantwana abamnyama kwezo zikolo, zicinge ukuba akulunganga ukuba kubekho umntu omnyama otitshayo kwezo zikolo. Izikolo ezinjalo ke zona zinokuba ziba nexhala xa kusiza into eza kuchukumisa kwiinto ezinjengezo. (Translation of Xhosa paragraph follows.)
[There may be former white or Model C schools that have admitted some black learners, where white teachers still think that a white person is entitled to teach a child, but, although there are now black learners at those schools, it is not a good thing for black teachers to be employed there. Such schools should be concerned when new legislation is passed that impacts on their status.]
The main aim of this amendment is to receive and process applications from first-time applicants or applicants returning after a break in service, and to match them with vacant posts after consulting the relevant school governing bodies.
This clause will also create a window of opportunity for a number of young, newly qualified educators who are currently volunteering their services, free of charge, at a number of schools. The provincial education departments will get to know them and help them where possible, provided they submit their profiles to the province. Is this asking too much?
Let us open our hearts and love them enough to invite them to our schools, irrespective of their backgrounds. Their main sin is that they do not have experience. All they need is to be given a chance to prove themselves. This Bill will provide the mechanism. The hon Ntuli is concerned about regulations, saying regulations do not come before this House. If we are legislators, as I think we are, we know that if the hon the Minister for whatever reason oversteps the mark in regulations, we are there to bring him to order, because there is no regulation that can go beyond what is in the Act. And when we talk about regulations, we find that they follow any Act in any case.
But there is this general fear - I do not know what it is - in that people are so concerned whatever direction we move in. When we talk about lowering the age of admission then, despite the court having said that we have to do so, the hon Ntuli says: ``No, you cannot do it, because of a lack of resources and facilities’’. The fact of the matter is that the court has pronounced on this and there is not much we can do about it, because the court has the power, as an independent body, to keep us in line with our Constitution. [Applause.]
Mr A M MPONTSHANE: Madam Speaker, the President said in his closing remarks
that South Africans are known to say: I will show you the way''. I am
inviting everybody now to listen to what we are going to say. The age-old
question in education discourse has always been: Who owns schools? Is it
Government, is it the communities, or is it both? If it is both, who should
control the schools? This approach to educational discourse is evidently
not very helpful. It lends itself to adversarial us’’ and ``them’’
instances. It should be neither total onslaught nor total strategy.
The IFP has always been guided by its policy of pluralism. In terms of this policy, which underpins the IFP’s vision of education in South Africa, we feel that we must allow for variety, parental choice and diversity in the education field. On the basis of our policy we would and will, to borrow Voltaire’s expression, ``defend to the death’’ the right of independent schools to exist. The IFP is definitely not in a hurry to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
I think that it has been very important to state our policy right from the start, given the heat that has been generated by the Education Laws Amendment Bill. Some of this heat has been justified, but most of it has been the result of either latent fears of imagined deprivation or pure ideological leanings. We reject both.
Let me now come to the real stuff, the clauses of the Bill. The IFP is satisfied with the following clauses. Clause 2 deals with the admission age of learners to Grades R and 1, namely four turning five and five turning six by 30 June in the year of admission, respectively. We are, however, concerned about the fact that the ratios of learners to educators are the highest in a substantial number of schools in the rural areas.
In respect of clause 3, we are satisfied that the new phrase ``curriculum and assessment’’ to determine standards and outcomes does remove our original fears of the strangulation of independent schools. As far as our reading of this clause is concerned, there is nothing that prevents independent schools from utilising a different curriculum to reach the same outcomes and standards as determined nationally for all schools. The original phrasing of this clause aroused fears in certain quarters that this clause would strangle the independence of independent schools, and I submit that we now believe that the amendment to this clause removes those fears.
While we support the existence of independent schools, together with the educational excellence which they represent in the midst of widespread educational mediocrity, we are concerned about the prohibitively high school fees which these schools charge. But this, of course, is a separate debate.
Let me deal now with the clauses that have generated even more heat. Clause 10 deals with the first appointment or appointment after a break in service of an educator. The memorandum to the Bill states that the reason for the introduction of this clause is to enable provinces to assign teachers to schools which are in the rural areas. We support this, but something else in the clause has raised the political temperatures of the different parties. The clause says: 6A.(1) Despite section 6(3)(a), in the case of a first appointment or an appointment after one or more years’ break in service to any provincial department of education, the employer may -
(a) receive applications from first-time applicants or those
returning after a break in service ...
The word ``may’’ suggests that there is an existing process in addition to the one which is being introduced. We all know that. But what is the problem with the existing process? Ask any official and he will tell you that the current process is very cumbersome in that it is unnecessarily long. Without any exaggeration, it takes about six months or even a year to get a post-Level 1 educator employed. In the meantime the child, who is the main focus of our educational endeavours, suffers.
The IFP held a two-day workshop and we listened to the frustrations of educators with regard to the present system, ie that it takes about four months for the provincial department to produce a bulletin. One copy goes to the region and if the region has 1 000 schools, it will take another five months for the region to produce the bulletin for the 1 000 schools. That is why we say we welcome this clause, because we see it as running parallel to the existing employment procedures. We support this process which runs parallel with, and not in opposition to, the process in the original Act where governing bodies retain their right to recommend the employment of teachers.
The awarding of loans or bursaries to educators in terms of which they voluntarily enter into an agreement with the employer to be transferred to areas where they are most needed, as contained in clause 11, is a welcome development. But as long as the infrastructure in rural areas remains poor, a large number of teachers will not be attracted to these areas.
In conclusion, in spite of our major concerns over some of the clauses, the IFP wants to do the right thing and supports this Bill. [Applause.] Dr B L GELDENHUYS: Chairperson, the previous speaker indeed showed the way, but he did not go all the way as far as clause 10 is concerned and I intend to go all the way. [Interjections.]
This could have been a very fine piece of legislation were it not for the provisions of clause 10. The objectives of clause 10 are laudable. There should be an equal spread of qualified teachers across the country and new recruits should be appointed as soon as possible, but the manner in which this Bill intends to achieve these objectives is wrong. For example - and the hon the Minister referred to this in his speech - incentives for teachers to teach in the rural areas would have been a much better option, and I hope that that idea will materialise as soon as possible.
In the matter between the governing body of the Settlers Agricultural High School and the head of the education department of the Limpopo province, in which the department was instructed to reappoint the nominee of the governing body, Justice Bertelsmann established a crucial principle. He said:
As important as the rights of educators, and in particular those belonging to previously disadvantaged communities, are, the paramountcy of children’s rights and interests must not be overlooked.
Every piece of education legislation should be guided by what Justice Bertelsmann referred to as the ``paramountcy of children’s rights’’, and measured against this guiding principle the content of clause 10 fell short.
A further logical conclusion arising from this judgment is that the school body is best equipped to determine what is in the best interests of the child. And any appointment by the Department of Education, made in terms of clause 10, of which the school governing body does not approve, may then be tested in court based on Justice Bertelsmann’s judgment, making the contents of this clause null and void for all practical purposes. This clause should therefore have been deleted, as was proposed by the New NP and supported by all the other opposition parties.
There is another reason why this clause should be deleted. Governing bodies form a cornerstone of our educational system and their powers should not be tampered with. Clause 10 indeed takes away the power of a governing body to nominate a specific candidate for a post in cases of new recruits or applicants who have a break in service of one or more years. Now the Charter of the ANC says that the people shall govern, but my impression is that the Minister or the Department of Education wants to govern. [Interjections.]
It would be appreciated if the hon the Minister could shed more light on the meaning of clause 10, because I got the impression when the previous speaker spoke that even he was under the impression that we have a parallel procedure here. During the committee stage it was presented as an enabling clause, in terms of which a school governing body may follow the procedure as outlined in the clause, but is not compelled to do so. It was presented to the committee in this context. In other words, if governing bodies choose to do so, they may still make recommendations for new appointments in terms of section 6(3)(a) of the Employment of Educators Act.
But my submission is that governing bodies have no option but to follow the new procedure as outlined in clause 10 as regards the appointment of new recruits. The ``may’’ refers to the employer and not to the governing body. So if the employer, and that is the Department of Education, decides to follow the procedure as outlined in the new clause 10, then the governing body will have no option but to follow suit. This is how I interpret this clause, but I stand to be corrected by the Minister.
Lyfstraf word in hierdie wetsontwerp deur klousules 15 en 28 verbied. Ek vra nie dat lyfstraf weer ingestel moet word nie, maar al wat ek weet is dat ‘n gebrek aan dissipline dit feitlik vir onderwysers onmoontlik maak om hulle dagtaak na behore te vervul. Volgens prof Isak Oosthuizen van die Potchefstroomse Universiteit, wat ‘n omvattende studie in dié verband gedoen het, is dissipline in skole besig om landwyd ineen te stort. Volgens hom is die leemte wat gelaat is deur die verbod op lyfstraf nog nie na behore deur alternatiewe dissiplinêre maatreëls gevul nie.
Miskien is daar twee redes hiervoor: òf onderwysers is nie behoorlik ingelig oor die alternatiewe strafmaatreëls soos uiteengesit in die handleiding van die departement nie, òf hierdie maatreëls help nie. So tussen hakkies, ek stem nie met die gevolgtrekking in die handleiding saam dat lyfstraf lei tot groeiende sosiale geweld nie. Hulle het my amper doodgeslaan op skool en ek kan nie onthou dat ek al ooit skuldig was aan sosiale geweld nie.
Miskien moet die Minister ‘n ondersoek laat doen oor die ineenstorting van dissipline op skoolvlak en die suksesvolle implementering, al dan nie, van die handleiding oor alternatiewe maatreëls. Respek is een van die waardes wat in die hersiene kurrikulum beklemtoon word en miskien moet dit juis ook gekwalifiseer word as respek vir gesag, wat op die ou end kan help dat dissipline op skoolvlak herstel word. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[In this Bill corporal punishment is prohibited by clauses 15 and 28. I am not asking for the reinstatement of corporal punishment, but I do know that a lack of discipline is making it virtually impossible for teachers to perform their daily task properly. According to Prof Isak Oosthuizen of Potchefstroom University, who has conducted a comprehensive study in this regard, discipline in schools is starting to collapse throughout the country. According to him, the void left by the ban on corporal punishment has not yet been adequately filled by alternative disciplinary measures.
There may be two reasons for this: either teachers have not been properly informed of the alternative punitive measures set out in the department’s manual, or these measures are ineffective. By the way, I do not agree with the conclusion in the manual that corporal punishment leads to growing social violence. They virtually beat me to death at school and I cannot remember ever having been guilty of social violence.
Possibly the Minister should order an investigation into the collapse of discipline at school level and the successful, or unsuccessful implementation of the manual on alternative measures. Respect is one of the values that is emphasised in the revised curriculum and perhaps it should also be qualified as respect for authority, which in the long run could help in re-establishing discipline at school level.]
As I indicated at the beginning of my speech, the New NP cannot support this Bill on account of clause 10.
Mrs D G NHLENGETHWA: Chairperson, hon members, by proposing these amendments we in the ANC want to steadily transform the education system, bring unity, have close working relationships with schools, parents, school governing bodies and learners, and promote the best interests of the child.
This Bill seeks to address cases in which a learner has to attend disciplinary proceedings in that the learner must be accompanied by a parent or guardian. A parent may nominate a person to attend on his or her behalf. If the parent ignores the invitation and decides not to attend, this Bill allows the presiding officer to continue with the proceedings in the parent’s absence.
The Bill also promotes the best interests of the minor learner when giving evidence as a witness. A governing body is allowed to appoint a competent person, an intermediary, to assist the minor learner in testifying at such proceedings. The school governing body is required to do this if it appears that the witness may suffer undue mental stress in giving evidence without assistance. This also applies in cases in which a minor learner testifies in disciplinary proceedings that involve an educator.
There are also amendments in this Bill that prohibit initiation practices in the education system. Usually these practices are conducted on newly admitted learners or students. According to the report of the Human Rights Commission, these practices are still being conducted in schools. An initiation practice forces a person to do what he or she does not want to do. For example, a new learner in a particular school is not allowed to take a shower. He or she must use the outside tap and wash without soap. He or she may be ordered to crawl like a crocodile or imitate the sounds of different animals.
All these violent practices lead to harm, and humiliate and undermine the fundamental rights and dignity of a person. That is wrong. Disciplinary action must be taken against a person found guilty of such misconduct. As the ANC, we condemn these violent practices because they create hatred and that is against our policy.
Regarding clause 10: ``First appointment or appointment after break in service of educator’’, the media misinterpreted this clause, and this has confused the public and some of the members to my left. They lobbied each other, saying that this clause must be deleted. We in the ANC see this clause as very important in bettering the lives of our people.
Asikakhohlwa njalo ngebantfu baseNingizimu Afrika, ngekutsandza kwabo i-ANC babeme emigceni lemidze, lilanga lalishisa mhlazana bavotela i-ANC. Ngaloko sibona kutsi bothishela labaceceshwe ngemifundzate yaHulumende ababonelelwe, labo labasengakawutfoli umsebenti nanyalo. Labanye babo sebadzimante bakhetsa kudayisa ema-pholisi emishwalense. Tsine-ke njenge ANC sitsi akube khona indlela lelula yekucasha labo bothishela batekwati kubuyisela imali yaHulumende khona itekwati kuchubeka isite labanye.
Lenguculo itsi thishela lomusha nalofuna kubuyela ekufundziseni angasifaka sicelo semsebenti eTiko leTemfundvo. Litiko leTemfundvo litabe selihlala phansi libonisane nekomiti yalo yesikolwa kutsi lapho kumatima khona ngekutsi kudzingeka thisela, nome ngusiphi sifundvo lesite thishela bavumelane abuyiselwe lowo thishela ayewufundzisa. Loko kutakwenteka kungakahanjwa lomgudvu wesigaba 6(3)(a) kuloMtsetfo Wokucashwa Kwalabafundzisako. (Translation of Swati paragraphs follows.)
[We are not forgetful of the love the people of South Africa showed by standing in long queues for a long time in the scorching sun because they wanted to vote for the ANC. So, our proposal is that priority should be given to those teachers who got their training through Government loans, especially those who are still searching for jobs. Some of them have resorted to selling insurance policies. We, the ANC, propose that a certain strategy should be put in place to make it possible for those teachers to be employed so that they can pay back the Government loans which should continue to help other students.
This amendment states that a new teacher or former teacher who wants to be re-employed should forward his or her application to the Department of Education. In turn, the Department of Education will then sit down with the national school boards association and discuss the matter in order to place that teacher in a school that has a shortage of the skills that the teacher has, and see to it that the teacher is employed in that particular school. That could even be done without following the procedures embodied in section 6(3)(a) of the Employment of Educators Act.]
We are not interfering with section 6(3)(a). The power of the SGB will always be there, I would like to say to Mr Aucamp. In this clause there is nothing that erodes the powers of the SGB. Thishela utawucashwa bese utfunyelwa esikolweni lapho adzingeka khona. [A teacher will be employed and then deployed to wherever the teacher’s skills are needed.]
I want to give an example. I am one of the victims who waited for the bulletin and applied. I underwent 16 interviews at different schools, but none of the interviews resulted in an appointment. This was because of my involvement in politics. My rights were violated. I was denied a post. Through this amendment there are many victims outside like me - who are qualified, who used Government study loans - who can be helped. We want to address those incidents.
An applicant, like any other applicant in the private sector, has the
discretion of either accepting or declining the post. There is a cry
outside that the clause aims to force teachers to go to rural areas.
Teaching posts are not in rural areas only, and this is a may''
provision, not amust’’ provision.
This process will also assist in the fair distribution of well-qualified educators, so that there will be good, quality education all over the country. This kind of exercise will encourage many young people from all over South Africa to opt for the teaching profession.
In conclusion, I would like to remind all parents, guardians and care- givers that all children aged between seven and 15 are required by law to go to school. If a child is going to school for the first time in 2003, the child should be registered now - in September 2002 - at the school nearest his or her home. To register one will need to produce the child’s birth certificate or ID and an immunisation card.
Once registered, the school may ask the parent to pay school fees. If the parent cannot afford to pay school fees, the parent may apply for partial or full exemption. No child should be turned away from a public school because his or her parent cannot afford to pay school fees. No child should be excluded from any school activity or feeding scheme because he or she does not have a school uniform.
I also want to thank those who stood up and responded to the President’s call for ``the year of volunteers’’, especially women who felt the pain and gave love to orphans, homeless children, poor people and pensioners. I also thank those women who assisted in the nutrition schemes by feeding the children. [Applause.]
Mr T ABRAHAMS: Chairperson, the Education Laws Amendment Bill, in the form in which it was introduced, sparked a fair measure of immediate public concern. The telephones calls some of us received and the flurry of letters by post and e-mail attest to the keen interest South Africans have in the education of their children. This reaction in itself proves that South Africans as a nation are attuned to the need to prepare South Africa’s future leadership.
The wide range of organisations that delegated representatives to express their opinions at the portfolio committee hearings and the quality of their contributions were encouraging. While we value and welcome all inputs, it would be useful if individuals would follow the lead of these representatives and study a Bill before commenting on it.
It is a fair guess that many of the concerns that were expressed by the representatives who made submissions have been addressed by way of amendments to the Bill that were agreed to in the committee. The UDM supports the amended versions. We voted accordingly in the committee.
Throughout the committee meetings, the UDM argued for the total deletion of clause 10, which allows the employer to appoint newly trained educators and those who are returning after a break in service to posts at schools. The main grounds for this argument revolve around concerns about the possible sidestepping of school governing bodies without consultation, the possibility of political appointments being made, and the lack of choice being allowed the affected educator.
In consideration of the enormity of the need which exists on the ground, however, the UDM has decided instead to lend its support to the amendment to this clause proposed by the ANC. It is recognised that unless something drastic is done to address the problems attendant on sending qualified educators to institutions where their skills are desperately required, the best interests of a successful education system cannot be served.
In this context, the argument is noted that all school governing bodies do not necessarily function with equal efficiently and that there is a need for intervention by the department to ensure that children in poorly staffed rural and urban schools are given a better education dispensation. Some callers who spoke about this matter mistakenly understood the change to mean that all educators would be redeployed by the department. This, of course, is certainly not the case. Clause 10 provides that there will be consultation - and assurances have been given by the director-general - before new graduates and returning educators are appointed at schools.
The position we have taken on clause 10 we are now adopting as far as clause 11 is concerned as well. This clause determines how recipients of bursaries will be appointed.
Despite having taken a strong position on these two clauses in the committee and in the spirit of the accommodating manner in which the parties in the committee, particularly the chairman of the committee, dealt with the Bill as a whole, the UDM now offers its full support to the Education Laws Amendment Bill as amended. [Applause.]
Ms C DUDLEY: Chairperson, hon Minister and colleagues, everyone in this House would probably agree that when democracy finally dawned in this country, public education was probably in more need of thorough transformation than any other sector.
There was and is an urgent need for norms and standards that will ensure equity of provision and ensure that the past control and manipulation of social and political behaviour will not be repeated. In this respect, the Education Laws Amendment Bill is necessary. However, there has been mounting concern that the framework for educational transformation within this Bill could itself easily become a tool for social engineering.
The centralist tendencies of the ANC are strongly evident in the Ministry of Education, and the efficacy of the outcomes-based methodology that is central to the new curriculum has been widely questioned, just as its very specific reference to what and how children learn raises questions around programmed conformity.
The ACDP proposed that clause 3 of this Bill be amended to read:
The Minister may, by notice in the Gazette determine -
(a) a national curriculum statement indicating the minimum academic
standards and limited to broad terms such that it allows for
sufficient freedom of conscience, belief, religion and
interpretation;
(b) assessment guidelines for learner achievement so as to maintain
a national standard with assessment instruments being determined
by the provinces and independent examination boards.
The ACDP also proposed that clauses 9, 26, 27 and 30 be amended in line with this. Although the Minister insisted that what was contained in the ACDP proposal was the intention of the department, the ANC, the DP, the UDM and the IFP collectively voted against it, and the curriculum statement and process for the assessment of learner achievement contemplated in the Bill will be applicable to both public and independent schools. In an era when diversity is generally perceived to have value, a single national curriculum and assessment tool are seen by many as the department’s progress towards imposing a single state-controlled national examination system, which the Minister has promised. At the same time clause 10, which addresses a very real concern and will help facilitate the placement of teachers, will also further undermine the powers of school governing bodies and allow the Minister to impose placements on communities without their approval.
This Bill, which exercises more control over independent schools and undermines school governing bodies, is of serious concern to communities, but it especially threatens faith-based, independent and home schools. It is for these reasons and in the interests of freedom, democracy and diversity that the ACDP will vote against this Bill.
Nk P N MNANDI: Sihlalo, Ngqongqoshe Kader Asmal, bahlonishwa, Maqabane nezihlobo, mangiqale ngokuthatha leli thuba ngidlulisele ukubonga kubo bonke labo abasabela ngobuningi babo ngenkathi uKhongolose ehlaba umkhosi ethi lo nyaka ngunyaka wavolontiya. Ngibonga kuyo yonke imiphakathi ebambe iqhaza elikhulu ekulungiseleni izikole zakithi.
Ngenyanga kaNtulikazi, kulo nyaka, siye saphuma njengeKomidi lezeMfundo savakashela izikole zaseFree State. Sabona khona othisha abangasebenzi, abaye basukuma baba ngamavolontiya bafundisa izingane ezikoleni futhi kwathiwa umsebenzi wabo uyancomeka ngendlela emangalisayo. Phambili mavolontiya phambili! [Ihlombe.] Khona eFree State futhi sithole othisha abamhlophe befundisa ezikoleni zasemapulazini, sathola namabhunu amapulazi elibambile iqhaza ezikoleni, ikakhulukazi ekukhipheni izinqola zamafutha ezithutha izingane. Hak Freyisitata! [Ihlombe.]
Mangingene ngqo kulo mThetho esiwuchibiyela namhlanje. Ozakwethu sebesine bazibethela. Nami-ke ngizosika kwelijikayo. Inkinga esinayo yile, sithi la eMzansi Afrika wonke umuntu unelungelo lokufundela umsebenzi awuthandayo. Kodwa sinenqwaba yentsha eqome ukufundela ubuthishela ekade yaqeda kodwa kuze kube namhlanje ayikaze ilibone ifasitela. Kumanje sihleli nenkinga yokuthi umNyango wezeMfundo awukwazi ukusinika isabelo salab’othisha ngoba abaxhumani nomNyango wezeMfundo, baziyela ngqo ezikoleni.
Ucwaningo olwenziwe luthi cishe bangange-20 000 kuya kwezinga-30 000 abaswele umsebenzi. Iningi labo liseLimpopo, eMpumakoloni naKwaZulu-Natali, lab’othisha abangasebenzi. Kuthi kusenjalo kube nezikole ezingakhoni ukugcwalisa izikhala ezikoleni ngenxa yokuthi azimtholi uthisha ofanele isikhala. Kwenye inkathi amanye amagoverning body awabaqashi nhlobo othisha abasha, bathi bafuna nje kuphela othisha abanesipiliyoni. Umangele-ke ukuthi umntwana lo uzosithathaphi isipiliyoni esaphuma ekolishi.
Kulobo bumnyana nansi-ke nengculazi, ayishayi iyaqhoboza. Yona-ke ayazi nasipiliyoni. UmNyango wezeMfundo wona uboshwe izandla umthetho othi othisha abaqashwe kuphela ngamaGoverning Bodies, impicabadala le. Yingakho- ke sithi namhlanje umNyango wezeMfundo awunikezwe amandla okuvulela lab’othisha izikhala zomsebenzi ngoba iningi labo bafunde ngemali kaHulumeni. Abanye-ke kule Ndlu bathi kunokunikeza umNyango wezeMfundo la mandla okuqasha othisha abasha, siwaqeda nya amandla amagoverning bodies. Cha, akunjalo.
Okokuqala ngiyazibuza ukuthi obani abalwa lapha bethi akube khona amagoverning bodies ezikoleni? KwakunguKhongolose, hhayi la amanye amaqembu. Amagoverning bodies asazoqhubeka abaqashe othisha. Othisha abasha kuphela abazoqashwa umnyango. Nalapho umnyango uzoxoxisana namagoverning bodies. Uthisha oyothunyelwa esikoleni kuyobe kunguthisha ohambisana nesidingo kanye nesikhala leso esikhona. Okunye okusikhathazayo thina singuKhongolose ukuthi iningi lezindlu zothisha bezikole zethu azifani nezikole zethu. Uthi uma ubona izingane egcekeni lesikole, uzibone zinhlanga zonke ujabule. Kodwa uma usubona othisha endlini yabo bona babe uhlanga olulodwa vo. [Ihlombe.]
Kuwona lo mthetho siphinde sithi othisha abafundisayo abazithuthukisa ngemali kaHulumeni, uma sebeqedile umNyango wezeMfundo awube nalo ilungelo lokumthatha phela lowo thisha umuse esikoleni adingeka kuso. Kungani sisho kanje na? Yingoba sinenkinga ezikoleni zasemakhaya. Azinabo othisha abaqeqeshwe ngokwanele. Lo mcimbi uzophonsa itshe esivivaneni sokuthuthukiswa kwezindawo zasemakhaya. Nakhona-ke belu ukuthi kuyacaca ukuthi namhlanje sibona lawa amanye amaqembu ethi abangaqashwa lab’ othisha abasha njengoba besengishilo ukuthi baqhamukaphi, kuyacaca futhi ukuthi bangothisha bebala elimnyama. Bamnyama iningi labo. Ukuba bebemhlophe iningi labo, ngiyakholwa ukuthi lo mthetho ubuzoshaywa ngo-Elethu lapha kule Ndlu.
Ngicela ukuthatha naleli thuba futhi ngisekhona la ukuba ngikhumbuze imiphakthi yonke yakuleli ukuthi okokuqala uHulumeni oholwa uKhongolose ukubekile wangangabaza ukuthi izingane azibe nelungelo eligcwele lokuthola imfundo, ingabi bikho neyodwa ingane ekhishwa esikoleni ngenxa yokungabi namali, ngenxa yokungabi nanyufomu, ngenxa yokungabi nezinye nje izimfanelo ezidingakalayo. Akungagodlwa futhi izincwadi ngoba ingane ingayikhokhile imali yesikole. Akumele nakancane nakancane ukuthi ingane ihlukunyezwe ngokungabi namali. Kodwa siyabona ezikoleni lokhu kusaqhubeka. Sizocela-ke imiphakathi, othisha namagoverning bodies ukuthi lolu daba awalubheke, axhase uHulumeni.
Akukho mali uHulumeni ayithathayo ezikoleni. Yonke imali enqunywa esikoleni, inqunywa ngabazali behlangene namaGoverning Bodies. UHulumeni akafuni ngisho isenti lesikole. (Translation of Zulu speech follows.)
[Ms P N MNANDI: Chairperson, Minister Kader Asmal, hon members, comrades and friends, let me start off by taking this opportunity to thank all those who responded to the ANC’s call that this year should be made the year of the volunteer. I would like to thank all communities who played a major role in tidying up our schools. In July this year we visited Free State schools as the Portfolio Committee on Education. We saw many teachers there who were unemployed. Others had volunteered to teach children in schools and we were told that their work was very commendable. Forward volunteers, forward! [Applause.] In the Free State, we found white teachers who taught in farm schools and Boer farm owners who participated in the running of schools, mainly through providing vehicles for transporting children. Haak Vrystaat! [Applause.]
Let me address myself to this Act that we are amending today. My colleagues have put their views across to their hearts’ content. I will also take my turn. Our main problem is this: We in South Africa say that everyone has a right to be trained for their chosen career. At the same time we have massive numbers of young people who chose to be trained as teachers. They have long since finished their studies but to this day they have never been employed. We now have a problem in that the Department of Education is unable to allocate funding to cater for those teachers because they do not communicate with the department, they approach schools directly.
Research findings indicate that about 20 000 to 30 000 teachers are unemployed. Most of these unemployed teachers live in Limpopo, the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal. At the same time, there are schools which are unable to fill vacancies because they cannot find suitable teachers who could fill those vacancies. In certain instances, school governing bodies vehemently refuse to employ new teachers and say that they only want to employ experienced teachers. That is surprising, because where would a young person fresh from college gain that experience?
Difficult as that situation is, there is also this devastating problem of HIV/Aids. It does not discriminate as to whether one is experienced or not. The Department of Education is unable to do anything because the law states that it is only the governing bodies that employ teachers. This is a real dilemma. That is why today we say that the Department of Education should be given the power to create opportunities for those teachers, because most of them were financed by the Government in their studies. Some members in this House are saying that instead of giving the Department of Education this power to employ new teachers, we are completely sweeping away the powers of governing bodies. No, that is not true.
I ask myself: Who fought here for the establishment of governing bodies? It was the ANC and not the other parties. The governing bodies will continue to employ teachers. It is only new teachers who will be employed by the department. Even in that situation, the department will consult the governing bodies. A teacher will be sent to a school in accordance with the needs of the school and will be suitable to fill that vacancy. Another concern to us, as the ANC, is that most of our school staff rooms are different to our schools. One becomes happy when one sees children of all races in the schoolyard. But when one goes to the staff room, one finds that the teachers are of one race only. [Applause.]
In this Bill we also say that once those teachers who are teaching and who use Government money to improve themselves have completed their studies, the Department of Education should have the right to place them where they are needed most. Why do we say that? It is because we are faced with a problem in rural schools. Those schools do not have adequately trained teachers. This proposed action will contribute to the development of rural areas. Today other political parties are saying that these new teachers should not be employed. I have already stated where those teachers come from and it is clear that they are black teachers. Most of them are black. If the majority of them had been white, I am convinced that this Bill would have been passed with a resounding majority in this House.
Whilst I am still here, I would also like to take this opportunity to remind all communities in this country that the ANC-led Government unambiguously stated that all children should have the right to education and that not a single child should be taken out of school because of a lack of fees, uniform and other requirements. Books should not be withheld from children if they have not paid school fees. A child should not be harassed at all if he or she has not paid school fees. However, our observation is that that practice still continues in schools. We would like to appeal to communities, teachers and governing bodies to look into that matter and to support the Government.
The Government does not take money at all from schools. All fees are decided upon by parents in schools together with governing bodies. The Government does not require even a single cent from schools.]
Dr C P MULDER: Chairperson, I have listened to the previous speaker, the hon Ms Mnandi, and I am sorry to say that even on an issue like education it seems that we are really miles apart, and that is a tragedy. In her speech the hon member made a number of references to the whole question of school governing bodies. Somebody should tell the hon member that school governing bodies consist of the parents in that community. So what is the problem? That is the way it should be, and how can she have a problem with the parents from her own community?
Ek wil vandag sonder huiwering aan die agb Minister sê dat die onderwysprofessie in Suid-Afrika in die moeilikheid is. Daar bestaan ‘n groter wordende krisis in die onderwysprofessie en daar is verskeie redes hiervoor. Een van die oorsake is die hopeloos onvoldoende markverwante salarisse wat onderwysers verdien. Tweedens bestaan daar `n duidelike huidige en toekomstige krisis in die beroep omdat onderwysers die professie nie meer aantreklik vind nie, en toetreders al minder en minder word. Heeltemal te min onderwysers word opgelei teenoor dié wat die beroep tans verlaat.
Die meerderheid skole het nie eers beheerliggame nie, en dié skole wat wel oor beheerliggame beskik se situasie word aanhoudend verder bemoeilik deur nuwe wetgewing wat deurgevoer word. Enige nuwe maatreëls wat hierdie groeiende krisis vergroot kan nie deur die VF ondersteun word nie, en ons sal daarteen stem.
Alhoewel positiewe bepalings in die wetsontwerp vervat is, en ons kennis
daarvan neem, is daar ook bepalings wat hierdie krisis in die
onderwysprofessie vergroot. Daarna is reeds verwys, spesifiek wat betref
klousule 10. n Mens kan van alle kante na klousule 10 kyk, maar die
slotsom kan nie anders wees as dat die bevoegdhede van skoolbeheerliggame
verminder word nie, en dít is nie aanvaarbaar nie. Inteendeel, as ons die
skoolbeheerliggaam en die gemeenskap wil bemagtig, dan kan n mens dit nie
doen nie.
Siende dat ek baie min tyd oor het, wil ek ten slotte na klousule 11 verwys. Wanneer daar later op beurshouers die verpligting geplaas word om diens te doen dáár waar die departement dit goed ag, dan is dit seker reg, maar `n mens kan ten minste vra dat beurshouers aanvanklik in kennis gestel word oor dit wat vir hulle vorentoe wag.
Die VF kan nie hierdie wetgewing steun nie, en ons wil vir die Minister sê dat die onderwyskrisis by die dag groter word. Daar sal dramatiese stappe geneem moet word, en dit moet baie vinnig geskied. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Today I will tell the hon the Minister without hesitation that the teaching profession in South Africa is in trouble. There is a steadily growing crisis in the teaching profession, and there are several reasons for this. One of the reasons for this is the hopelessly inadequate market- related salaries earned by teachers. Secondly, there is clearly a present and future crisis within the profession because teachers no longer find the profession attractive and there are fewer and fewer new entrants to the profession. Hopelessly too few teachers are being trained compared to those leaving the profession.
The majority of schools do not even have governing bodies, and the situation in those schools that do have governing bodies is constantly being hampered by new legislation that is being passed. Any new measures that would cause this growing crisis to escalate cannot be supported by the FF, and we will vote against them. Although some positive provisions have been embodied in the Bill, and we take cognisance of them, there are also provisions which are exacerbating the crisis in the teaching profession. This has already been referred to, specifically with regard to clause 10. One can examine clause 10 from all angles, but one can come to the conclusion that the powers of governing bodies are being reduced, and that is unacceptable. On the contrary, if we want to empower the school governing body and the community, then we cannot do that.
Since I have very little time left, I would like, in conclusion, to refer to clause 11. When bursary holders are eventually obliged to perform their duties wherever the department deems fit, that is probably acceptable, but one could at least ask that bursary holders be informed in advance of what awaits them in the future.
The FF cannot support this legislation, and we want to tell the Minister that the teaching crisis is escalating by the day. Drastic measures will have to be taken, and this must happen very quickly.] Mrs M A SEECO: Chairperson, development in education is taking place too quickly and if principals do not run their schools, the schools will run them down. It is for that reason that education laws have to be attended to regularly to ensure that they keep pace with modern times.
We accept that the admission age for both public and private schools has been lowered, depending on the circumstances prevailing in the area of the school, as well as the circumstances of the learner. Our experience has shown that learners who have gone through early learning centres and/or the Grade R class, experience no problems in assimilating lessons. We welcome the fact that the Minister will only determine or describe the national curriculum statement. Educationists will add the flesh, in keeping with the values and principles determined by the Minister.
Our philosophy has always been that the dignity of an individual should not be impinged upon. No one should ever be treated in a demeaning and inhumane manner. Initiation practices and corporal punishment in schools are unacceptable as they border on barbarism in some instances. The result has been maiming or death in those rare, yet unfortunate, circumstances. We ask: Why do it in the first place? It is not necessary!
We note the concern that the Minister will feature more than the MECs responsible for education in the provinces. We note that education at all levels, excluding tertiary education, is a concurrent competence between the national and provincial spheres of government. We hold the view that regulations may be made by the MECs and agreed upon at the meetings of the Council of Education Ministers. The UCDP supports the Bill. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Dr M S MOGOBA: Chairperson, the amendment of a piece of legislation is usually informed by problems on the ground that the present legislation cannot address.
There is currently a fear that this amendment may be aimed primarily at the reduction of the powers of some school governing bodies. If this were true, it would be unfortunate in the extreme. This does not seem to be a valid fear as the Bill, in fact, addresses a variety of educational problems, for example the admission age of a learner to a public school. It also seeks to abolish initiation practices that humiliate and violate the human dignity of the learner.
The above measures, in my opinion, should bring more good than evil. One of the matters that is addressed by this Bill is the problem and plight of rural schools that need a simpler and more practical method of employing educators. If many rural schools are not adequately staffed, and urban schools have the monopoly on good teachers, then this problem must be solved. It could be solved by paying an incentive allowance to teachers in rural schools. This, of course, is an expensive option.
Many newly qualified teachers are unemployed, and many school governing bodies are acting as gatekeepers to keep some teachers out. Some governing bodies do not want to transform schools that have traditionally kept some pupils and teachers out. If this allegation is true, then we must correct it. How can we explain to young teachers who are unemployed that there are vacancies that they cannot fill because of their race classification? There are many young teachers with one or two degrees who have been unemployed for more than two years. Some are even considered unfit to teach their own languages, like Zulu and English.
I want to say that we would like to affirm the powers of the school governing bodies. We would like to affirm fair play, integrity and justice, and school governing bodies should be encouraged to maintain the unique character of schools and a level of professionalism, competence and acceptable behaviour. The PAC will support this Bill.
Ms E GANDHI: Chairperson, hon Minister, colleagues and comrades, in the past week I received a number of telephones calls, letters and messages from a number of people expressing concern about the fate of private schools. They raised the following issues: Firstly, that the legislation is going to erode the powers of the governing bodies in respect of the appointment of teachers or educators; and, secondly, that this legislation will take away the freedom of private schools in designing their own syllabuses. They see this as a violation of their rights as they believe that they cannot accept a curriculum designed by this Government. They wish to have the freedom to design their own syllabuses.
The third issue is that the Minister is usurping their powers and that he alone is going to design a curriculum for the whole country. They say, and I quote: ``The Bill supposes a perfect, almighty education Minister who will make no serious mistakes and is able to provide the one and only best education for every child in this country.’’
Unfortunately, the experiences of the apartheid era have taught some people to look for ulterior motives in every piece of legislation or policy drafted by our Government and to doubt the integrity and ability of our Minister. This is tragic and unfortunate, especially as it is being instigated by some hon members of this august House.
This Bill clearly states, as my colleagues have already pointed out … [Interjections.] I would like to know who they could be too.
This Bill clearly states, firstly, that the Minister will only intervene in making appointments in the case of newly qualified educators and those who wish to return to education after a break in service. Secondly, it does not prevent the governing bodies from making their own appointments. Thirdly, it stipulates that these appointments will be made only after consulting the governing body about the specific requirements of the post, ensuring that the applicant to be appointed has the relevant requirements and the prescribed qualifications.
What further safeguards would be required to ensure that the best interests of our children are served? I would really urge those members of Parliament who are mobilising members of the community against this piece of legislation to look at the broader picture. The Minister’s first and foremost responsibility is to ensure that the best interests of the children of our country are served.
We have constitutional and legislative imperatives to ensure equity, quality and access to education. These can only be facilitated by ensuring that every school has an educator in every class, and that every school has educators with all the required skills to be able to impart all the requirements of the curriculum, including maths, languages, science and so on.
The present position, as my colleagues have already outlined, is that some schools have many maths and science educators while others have none. By assigning the new and former educators on a fair basis this imbalance will be corrected. I am convinced that the people who called me and wrote to me do not wish to obstruct transformation or to retain the past imbalances, and will therefore reconsider their objections once they understand the provisions of the Bill.
The second issue they raised was the question of the curriculum. They believe that the Minister is going to impose a syllabus on private schools. The reality, again, is that every child’s interests have to be taken into account. Children should be able to move from one school to another without having to start their education afresh because each school has a different curriculum and standards. There has to be some country-wide uniformity. Every child has the right to a quality education.
The Minister, through this Bill, will be able to ensure a minimum degree of uniformity and a minimum standard. Beyond that, schools will have the flexibility to decide on the details, the content and the standards, provided they do not fall below the level set by the Minister in regulations.
I want to emphasise that, unlike the erstwhile apartheid regime, people today have the right to comment on just about everything that is being done by the Government. In this case the National Education Policy Act stipulates in section 6 that all regulations can be made only after consultation. So, yes, people will still be able to comment.
I would like to assure those who are fearful of transformation that we are as interested in the education of our children as they are, and we love our children as much as they do. We need to transform our education from the narrow authoritarian orthodox apartheid education to a democratic, empowering education which would include ethical and spiritual values, diverse cultural traditions, creativity, critical thinking, co-operation, teamwork, personal responsibility, community-mindedness and a genuine love for learning.
In our democratic South Africa we need support from all sectors to work towards this model of education, and to ensure that every child has the opportunity to obtain quality education and that every child over the age of five and under the age of 15 is at school and is given the opportunity to grow up into a patriotic, honest, respectful, responsible South African citizen. We support this Bill and we think that the aforementioned can be achieved through this Bill. [Applause.]
Miss S RAJBALLY: Igama lamakhosikazi! [In the name of women!] Chair, hon Minister, the MF is aware of the necessity to implement efficient policy in all sectors, especially education. The amendments made in terms of this policy are welcomed, noting that they allow for certain technical adjustments and for the proper implementation of the Act.
In noting the dilemma that the Education department was faced with in relation to the age at which pupils start school, the MF strongly supports the clarity that the amending Bill will provide in that it will shed light on the subject. The MF feels that the age of admission for students to Grades R and 1 is appropriate. We strongly support the idea of an educated nation, and if a child is ready for such education, why hold him or her back from getting it? The MF supports the implementation of the common national process for the assessment of learner achievement in the Republic as it is felt that doing this will ensure an equitable process among provinces. The unacceptable practices of a number of school governing bodies have been noted. The MF is firmly in support of this being brought under control by the introduction of a code of conduct which may not to be breached.
The recommendations made with regard to the employment of educators are necessary and adequate. We need an educated South Africa. We need to reach our rural communities that have minimal resources to access education. Furthermore, the performance of educators needs to be monitored so as to ensure that our people are receiving the best educators, who work hard to perform their duties effectively and efficiently. The MF supports the Education Laws Amendment Bill. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Mr C AUCAMP: Hon Chairperson, do you see what I have here in my hand? It is a rubber stamp, and that is what the Portfolio Committee on Education has become.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: That looks more like a desk stamp.
Mr C AUCAMP: We had a session of public hearings in which 14 of the 15 organisations across the board raised serious problems. Then we had half a morning of deliberations, but with the ANC’s proposals already on the table as were those of the other parties. A week later the chairperson said: ``We are old enough to vote.’’ And not one single amendment proposed by any opposition party was accepted.
Twee aspekte van hierdie wet het van die begin af alles gedomineer. Eerstens is daar die assessering en kurrikulering van privaatskole. Hierdie wetsontwerp reguleer nie net die standaard nie, maar ook die inhoud van privaatskole se kurrikulum. Daarmee word die grense van die Grondwet oorskry. Dit gebeur dat geen onderskeid getref word tussen openbare en privaatskole nie. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[Two aspects of this Act dominated everything from the beginning. First, there is the assessment and curriculisation of private schools. This Bill regulates not only the standard but also the content of the curriculum of private schools. This transgresses the boundaries of the Constitution. This results in no distinction being made between public and private schools.]
And by subjecting private schools to the same process of assessment, the very reasons for their existence are jeopardised. With this Bill the Minister has placed public and private schools in the same category. May I ask the Minister whether he is going to do the same with regard to financing as well? [Interjections.]
Wat betref personeelvoorsiening in openbare skole, ondanks die bestaande wet dat beheerliggame kandidate aanbeveel, kan die departement nou self plasing maak en aanstellings doen. Al vereiste is dat hulle vooraf die beheerliggaam moet raadpleeg oor die vereistes van die pos en nie oor die aanstelling nie. Dertien uit die 15 organisasies en al die opposisiepartye in die komitee het beswaar gemaak. Die AEB het die uitspraak van regter Bertelsmann hieroor laat sirkuleer. Die DG en die regsadviseurs van die Departement ontken dat bestuursliggame se magte ingeperk word. Dis net nog ‘n roete wat gevolg kan word. Al die partye het gevra dat in die wet ingeskryf word. Die ANC weier. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[With regard to staff provision at public schools, despite the existing Act which stipulates that governing bodies recommend candidates, the department can now do placements and make appointments itself. The only requirement is that they must consult the governing body beforehand about the requirements of the post and not about the appointment. Thirteen out of the 15 organisations and all the opposition parties in the committee objected to this. The AEB circulated the judgment of Justice Bertelsmann on this issue. The DG and the law advisors from the Department deny that the powers of governing bodies are being curtailed. This is merely another course which can be adapted. All the parties asked that this be written into the Act. The ANC has refused.]
I challenge the hon the Minister today to declare openly in his reply that not a single teacher will be forced on a school against the wishes of the parents, as represented by the governing body. If he cannot do so, then the committee was consistently brought under a misapprehension. If he can, why not state it in the Bill?
The AEB opposes this amending Bill here and, when the time comes, throughout the country. [Time expired.]
Mr P J NEFOLOVHODWE: Chairperson, Azapo supports this Bill, because it is common knowledge … [Applause.] … that throughout the history of mankind, educational institutions, regulations and governing bodies have been established to serve the interests of society and the interests of particular countries at a given moment in time. It is for this reason that we support this Bill because we know that all countries, whilst maintaining broad and general educational programmes, have nevertheless developed their own peculiar syllabuses to suit their particular needs.
When we studied the Bill we were, however, disturbed by the fact that there were no specific provisions for the evaluation of teachers. But we were pleased to note that in terms of the Bill the Minister will be able to regulate this, because teachers must agree that they must also be evaluated for there to be good governance and proper education.
Azapo supports the intention of the Bill when it comes to the appointment of new teachers and the deployment of these teachers, particularly to areas in need. The lowering of the age of admission to school is also welcome. However, with regard to this particular amendment to lower the age of admission, we submit that this should be accompanied by the following: the provision of more classes and other educational facilities; the investigation and assessment of the availability of Grade R facilities; and, the assessment of teacher-pupil ratios, as they will be affected by the new intake.
In short, these changes have significant implications for human resources and physical facilities. Azapo supports this Bill. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Mr R P Z VAN DEN HEEVER: Chairperson, one of the problems in the analysis done by many people of the Education Laws Amendment Bill is that they merely looked at the amendments, without looking at the principal Acts which are not recorded in full in the amending Bill.
I want to start by referring to the South African Schools Act, which is one of the principal Acts with which the Education Laws Amendment Bill deals. The South African Schools Act was, in essence, a compromise, if you will, between a superschool-governance apartheid structure enjoying all the resources of both the government and a capitalist society and a very mundane, illegitimate school-committee system in black schools which had been abandoned by parents and students because of the discriminatory, servile and patronising manner in which it operated under apartheid.
One of the huge leaps of faith that was made by the South African Schools Act was to place on one level in our schools a system of legitimate co- operative governance that would accommodate a highly organised governance system in which parents were involved with enthusiasm, on the one hand, with, on the other, education institutions, which had been crippled by decades of discriminatory rule and in which parents and students had abandoned the undemocratic school governance system.
In having to manage a co-operative governance system which tries to accommodate widely divergent backgrounds and histories in school governance, the Government clearly had to be able to rely on the ongoing goodwill of parents, teachers and learners to make the new governance system work. This has unfortunately not happened, particularly because opposition parties like the DP, the FF, the AEB and the ACDP have clearly demonstrated, on countless occasions, that they are simply not interested in an equitable, patriotic and nonracial public school system which takes active parent involvement in school governance into account while also allowing Government to make the necessary interventions required to advance the transformation and democratisation programme in an education system scarred by racism. [Interjections.]
Examples of the undermining and what I call unpatriotic role played by negative opposition parties are the following: Firstly outright opposition to honour values in education like the building of respect among students for the national symbols of our new democratic order such as the flag, the national anthem and the new coat of arms; secondly, an insistence on a form of Christian National education being forced down the throats of everyone, instead of cultivating an understanding and a mutual respect for the diversity of cultures and religions as Curriculum 2005 requires; thirdly, an insistence on introducing single-language Afrikaans-instruction institutions to the exclusion of speakers of other languages; fourthly, regular challenges in court to the right of Government and the Minister of Education in particular to manage the difficult transformation in the education process in the interests of all schools in the country; and, fifthly, blatant and opportunistic attacks in public and the media on the powers of South Africa’s first national black Ministers of Education.
In 1995, almost at the birth of our fledgling democracy in this country, there was an unsavoury episode in this Parliament when opposition parties refused to grant powers of policy-making to the Minister of Education by means of the then National Education Policy Act. Opposition parties first walked out of the portfolio committee when the Bill had to be voted on. Then they took the Bill to the Constitutional Court, even before Parliament had debated and voted on the Bill. They then proceeded to boycott the debate in Parliament on that Bill.
Now, if ever there was a day of ignominy in this Parliament, a day on which the essence of this institution as a democratic Parliament was blatantly undermined, it was that day, 13 September 1995, on which predominantly white opposition parties refused to debate a Bill which would give a black Minister of Education power over white schools. [Interjections.] Unfortunately for the opposition parties, their desperate bid to try to hoodwink the Constitutional Court into declaring that Bill ultra vires boomeranged on them, because the Constitutional Court clearly rejected the notion that a national Minister of Education should not have the power to declare national policy on education. [Interjections.] Now why do I bring up that disgraceful incident?
Mr M J ELLIS: Mr Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I believe that there is something implicitly racist in what the hon member is saying. He is suggesting, in fact he is implying, that the opposition parties voted against a Bill in 1995 because we were voting against a black Minister. I believe that there is something implicitly very racist about that, Mr Chairman, and I would like you please to consider it very carefully.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! I think the Speaker has ruled previously that we are entitled to make comments in this House but that we should steer away from any statement that would implicitly indicate a racist tone. I would like to advise that we keep to the guidance offered by the Speaker, because inasmuch as one is entitled to make criticisms that are of a factual nature, I do not think it would be in order to paint the opposition party with a uniform paint brush. I would like to suggest that we follow the guidance of the Speaker.
And, Mr Van den Heever, one other matter that is of concern is the statement you made of opposition parties ``trying to hoodwink the Constitutional Court’’. I believe, once again, that when it comes to the highest court of the land all members who feel aggrieved with any legislation that is passed have the right to approach that court, and it is for the court then to determine whether it will judge for or against.
Hon member, you may now continue.
Mr R P Z VAN DEN HEEVER: Thank you, Chairperson, I accept your ruling.
Mr M J ELLIS: Mr Chairman, thank you very much indeed for your ruling, but I am not quite sure whether you were asking the hon member to withdraw those remarks or whether you were just cautioning him. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: I did caution him and the hon member indicated that he was willing to be guided, and therefore I accept the bona fides of his position.
Mr R P Z VAN DEN HEEVER: Now, why do I bring up that incident in connection with the National Education Policy Bill during this debate here today? It is because we are still dealing with the challenge of the opposition to the National Education Policy Bill.
In clause 9 of the Education Laws Amendment Bill we are saying that the Minister may make regulations to prescribe a national curriculum statement, to prescribe a national process for the assessment of education in public and independent schools and to prescribe the admission age of pupils to public and independent schools.
The reason it became necessary to redefine the powers of the Minister, in terms of making regulations, was not to rub the noses of the opposition party in the dirt about the powers of the Minister. A loophole had, in fact, been discovered in the powers accorded to the Minister of Education by the National Education Policy Act, when in the Talya Harris school- admission-age case the Constitutional Court found that policy determined in terms of this Act did not bind provinces, parents or independent schools.
It is common legislative practice in parliaments all over the world to tighten legislation when unforeseen loopholes are exploited by those who want to operate outside the system. Clause 9 of the Education Laws Amendment Bill is therefore not being introduced because of a desire for a glut of powers by one Kader Asmal, nor is it a way for Minister Asmal to centralise power, or a devious scheme or plot on his part to bypass Parliament. In fact, we are not dealing with an Asmal piece of legislation per se. We are merely correcting an oversight which occurred during the original formulation of the National Education Policy Act, an oversight which led to the authority of the Minister being undermined. And in the Education Laws Amendment Bill we are doing the responsible thing as Parliament in tightening up a particular clause in the National Education Policy Act to avoid chaos in our education system.
With regard to clause 10, the hon Nhlengethwa clearly indicated from personal experience the immense problem that new teachers often experience in getting a teaching post. In spite of 16 interviews, she was out of a job for three years, while, I am sure, had there been some departmental co- ordination she could have gone into a job much more easily. It is this deficiency that we are addressing through this particular clause.
As I have already said, our members must learn that when we are dealing with an amending Bill, they must not only read the particular amendment but also the principal Act. The principal Act that is amended in clause 10 is the Employment of Educators Act. Clause 10 of the amending Bill clearly says that section 6(3)(a) of the Employment of Educators Act will remain in place. And what does that section say? It says, and I quote: ``any appointment in any post at a public school may only be made on the recommendation of the school governing body.’’
This amendment does not tamper with that status of the school governing body at all. In fact, it merely adds a new layer to make the system more flexible. In this amendment we are dealing with a limited number of posts and a particular category of employees. There will be adequate consultation with the relevant school governing body. The applicant who will be appointed must match the requirements of the post, and the applicant must have the prescribed qualifications for the post. Furthermore, such appointments will only be made after all other processes to fill the post have failed.
Dit is nie waar soos wat agb Aucamp suggereer, dat die meeste insette tydens die openbare verhore gekant was teen wat die opposisie, die ``gewraakte klousules’’ in die wetsontwerp noem nie. Ons het baie van die verteenwoordigers van openbare en onafhanklike skole tydens die verhore selfs gevra watter bewoording hulle in sommige gevalle verkies.
Ek kan spesifiek onthou dat verteenwoordigers van onafhanklike skole
byvoorbeeld aangedui het dat hulle tevrede sal wees met die gebruik van die
woorde, Curriculum Statement'' - en ons het dit so verander. Baie van die
instansies het aangetoon dat ons die kwessie van assessment’‘van die
kurrikulum verder moet omskryf, sodat dit duidelik is dat ons hier te doen
het met minimum standaarde en prosesse - en ons het dit gedoen.
En kom ek sê vir die soveelste keer: Die Curriculum Statement het te doen met minimum standaarde, en die assessering het te doen met minimum standaarde. En as daar bo en behalwe daardie minimum standaarde ander kwessies in die kurrikulum behandel word - mits dit binne die Grondwet van die land is - sal dit toegelaat word. So ek weet nie waaroor die groot bohaai is nie.
Ek weet ook nie waaroor die groot lawaai is rondom die kwessie van die onderrig van waardes in die kurrikulum nie. Hoe kan ouers bevrees wees oor die bou van waardes van mederespek vir mekaar se taal, geloof en kultuur in ons land?
Agb Aucamp het selfs so ver gegaan in die portefeuljekomitee om te sê dat die Minister wil ‘n bepaalde godsdiens voorskryf. Watter loutere snert, onsin en bog! Dis die apartheidsregering wat Christelike nasionale onderwys … (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.) [It is not true, as the hon Aucamp suggests, that most of the inputs during the public hearings were opposed to what the opposition calls the ``clauses complained of’’ in the Bill. During the hearings we even asked many of the representatives of public and independent schools what wording they would prefer in some cases.
I can specifically remember that the representatives of independent
schools, for example, indicated that they would be satisfied with the use
of the words Curriculum Statement'' - and we changed that accordingly.
Many of the institutions indicated that we should further define the issue
ofassessment’’ of the curriculum, so that it is clear that we are
dealing here with minimum standards and processes - and we did that.
And allow me to say for the umpteenth time: The Curriculum Statement deals with minimum standards, and the assessing deals with minimum standards. And if there are other issues dealt with in the curriculum above and beyond those minimum standards - as long as they are in accordance with the Constitution of the country - that will be allowed. So I do not know what all the fuss is about.
I also do not know what all the fuss is about around the issue of the teaching of values in the curriculum. How can parents be apprehensive about the building of values of mutual respect for one another’s language, religion and culture in our country?
Hon Aucamp even went so far as to say in the portfolio committee that the Minister wants to prescribe a specific religion. What absolute rot, rubbish and nonsense! It is the apartheid government, with regard to Christian National education …]
Mr C AUCAMP: Chairperson, on a point of order: Is it in order for the hon member to make a statement in this House that is not true? That is not what I said. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon Aucamp, that is not a question for the Chair to be able to pronounce on. Mr Van den Heever, you may continue. [Interjections.]
Mr M J ELLIS: [Inaudible.]
Mnr R P Z VAN DEN HEEVER: Dis die apartheidsregering se beleid wat mnr Mike Ellis wat so baie hier kraai stilswyend op sy dag aanvaar het wat Christelik-Nasionale onderwys in die kele van almal wou afdwing. Ons demokratiese regering respekteer dat Suid-Afrikaners ‘n verskeidenheid van geloofsoortuigings het en dat die doel van ‘n gesonde opvoedingstelsel is om respek vir die onderskeie gelowe by ons kinders aan te kweek. [Tussenwerpsels.]
Die apartheidsregering wou Afrikaans in die kele van leerders in Soweto gaan afdruk het - met rampspoedige gevolge. Ons Regering sê: Alle leerders het die reg tot moedertaalonderrig en dat maniere gevind moet word om alle tale te bemark. Dit is die demokrasie wat die ANC na onderwys en vir almal in ons land gebring het. [Tyd verstreke.] [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Mr R P Z VAN DEN HEEVER: It was the apartheid government’s policy which Mr Mike Ellis, who has so much to say here, silently accepted in his day which sought to force Christian National education down everyone’s throat. Our democratic Government respects the fact that South Africans have a variety of religious convictions and that the purpose of a sound education system is to nurture respect for the various religions among our children. [Interjections.]
The apartheid government wanted to force Afrikaans down the throats of learners in Soweto - with disastrous consequences. Our Government says: All learners have a right to mother-tongue education and ways must be found to market all languages. That is the democracy which the ANC has brought to education and to everyone in our country. [Time expired.] [Applause.]]
The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Chairperson, I have been in this House for eight and a half years, and education seems to bring … [Interjections.] Stop that starling-type chattering there. Go to the electric wires. [Interjections.] No, no, no. I represent a much more democratic voice. I have very limited time. I will have to ignore the chattering from here.
Nothing brings out the worst in members quite like the education debates do. I regret to say this because there are unarticulated premises on which they operate. They will not articulate the real reasons why they want to do this. [Interjections.]
I feel sorry for the hon Ntuli. He says he knows what is happening that is wrong in schools. He knows which governing bodies are not working. He knows that black teachers are not employed in Vryburg where 60% of the children are black. He knows that in the Pretoria West school where there are problems there are no role models for the black children. Let us be quite frank about this. He knows what is happening. The others stand for privilege. [Interjections.] He does not stand for privilege. But then he looks schizophrenic. He is like Cervantes’ Don Quixote. He attacks a windmill and thinks he is fighting the soldiers there. [Laughter.]
And the hon Boy Geldenhuys is the Sancho Panza in that story. We will come to Sancho Panza in a moment. This is shameful; it is a degrading thing. The hon Ntuli knows that this is not a new clause, a clause that says the Minister may make regulations ``on any matter which may be necessary or expedient … to achieve the objects of this Act.’’ This is not a new matter. It is in the present South African Schools Act. We are just continuing it, because we want a literate - not for lawyers to determine - piece of legislation. But why is there this example of bad faith then?
The hon Dudley does know the Bill, but she quotes two extracts which are taken verbatim from the Natal Witness of 23 August. [Laughter.] What does one do in a situation like that? Verbatim from the Natal Witness! Whoever wrote her speech? [Interjections.] The DP should know much better that what we have done is to meet the situation as it arises.
The hon Ntuli talks about our White Paper, which is our pride and joy. John Maynard Keynes said: ``When the facts change, I change my mind.’’ The facts have changed. We cannot get young people in the profession. I agree with the hon Mulder. I will engage with him on a motion we put down. But how can we build up the schools system? How can we give better salaries? How can we give incentives? That is the kind of debate we need in this House. [Applause.]
This farmer from Greytown - what does he know about education, where we can grapple with it? That is why there may have been teachers who have for gotten everything in the meantime. The hon Ntuli then has to really grapple with his own situation. He is between a rock and a hard place. [Interjections.] He has to work it out and join a party that looks at liberal humanitarian measures. [Applause.] In the same way, therefore, I am surprised that the hon Mpontshane says: ``I will fight to the death for independent schools.’’ I would prefer it if he fought to the death to improve schooling in KwaZulu-Natal; to get more classrooms in KwaZulu-Natal; to ensure that teachers do their work in KwaZulu-Natal. [Applause.]
We will not give way to the idea expressed in the article in the Financial Mail that we are bringing down private schools to the level of public schools. We will not accept that. There are remarkable things happening in state schools. There are remarkable things happening in primary schools, not only at the foot of Table Mountain but across the board. Remarkable things are happening in our former Afrikaans ex-Model C schools in terms of curriculum development, approach, and our values system.
I am not sure all these schools that we want to take pride in subscribe to the constitutional values of South Africa. I think it is very important that we recognise that change is taking place in our country. Those hon members do not reflect that change. They are fighting … [Interjections.]
An HON MEMBER: Oh, rubbish!
The MINISTER: You may say it is rubbish. They are seemingly fighting for privileges. [Interjections.] Real privileges. Because we must use the assumption of the education system to ensure that the education system meets the needs of our people. [Interjections.]
Now, I want to say to Mr Geldenhuys that it is quite true that there are two parallel systems. At the end of the day if the school governing body system does not work, there are the other systems we are talking about: first-time appointments and teachers who have been paid for and trained by a provincial administration. So let us get away from this idea.
He asked me questions here, and questions were asked particularly by those who are chatting to each other, such as: Why do I not do this and that in the provinces? I have no power to do so. That is a constitutional arrangement. At the same time, he is saying that we are centralising power. I am not acquiring any power here. Everything that is being done about the curriculum statement is in the existing legislation. I cannot deflect him from this. Ignorance has no bounds.
I am sorry that, in fact, the hon Cassie Aucamp has said that I must give him a guarantee that no one will be appointed against the wishes of the governing body. The governing body is not a stony edifice that blocks all progress. The governing body must take into account the fact that the school system in South Africa has undergone fundamental changes. If we do not reflect that in the composition of the staff, in the associated staff there, in the teaching staff, then the state has a right to ensure that the constitutional principles are carried out. [Applause.]
We have no choice in the matter. That is why I cannot give the hon Aucamp that guarantee. If he wants to threaten me with the courts of law, we will see him in court. We are appealing against the judgment in the Settlers Agricultural High School case. We are going to encourage the appeal there. However, the judge did not say that the school governing body is the sole repository of what is in the best interests of the child. He did not say that. We will appeal against that ruling, because we feel public policy is not necessarily determined in the way he set out to do it.
In the same way, I am sorry that the hon member Geldenhuys is equivocal about corporal punishment. He might have been bashed and punished. We say, ``What is wrong with you? You might have been a better person if you had not been bashed in school.’’ [Laughter.] I am quite clear about that. [Applause.]
So what I am saying, therefore, is that we must cherish all the children of the nation equally. This is an attempt to do so. This is an attempt to remove the obstacles that stop us from cherishing all the children of the nation equally. [Interjections.] I would like a more responsive approach from the parties here so that they are able to understand that, in fact, we are not trying to remove choice and privilege. We are not trying to remove, ultimately, innovative things. One must remember that innovative things also happen in state schools. A state school system is a public good. This is what we must develop further. This is what we must advance, and this Government is committed to that. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Question put: That the Bill be read a second time.
Division demanded.
The House divided:
AYES - 146: Abrahams, T; Ainslie, A R; Asmal, A K; Baloyi, M R; Bloem, D V; Bogopane, H I; Cachalia, I M; Carrim, Y I; Chauke, H P; Chiba, L; Chikane, M M; Cindi, N V; Cronin, J P; Davies, R H; De Lange, J H; Diale, L N; Dithebe, S L; Dlali, D M; Doidge, G Q M; Dyani, M M Z; Fihla, N B; Gandhi, E; Gerber, P A; Gomomo, P J; Goniwe, M T; Goosen, A D; Gumede, D M; Hajaig, F; Hanekom, D A; Hlaneki, C J M; Hlangwana, N L; Hogan, B A; Jassat, E E; Joemat, R R; Kalako, M U; Kannemeyer, B W; Kasrils, R; Kekana, N N; Kgarimetsa, J J; Kgauwe, Q J; Kgwele, L M; Komphela, B M; Kota, Z A; Kotwal, Z; Lamani, N E; Lekgoro, M K; Lekgoro, M M S; Lishivha, T E; Louw, J T; Louw, S K; Lucas, E J; Luthuli, A N; Lyle, A G; Mabe, L; Mabena, D C; Magazi, M N; Magubane, N E; Mahlangu, M J; Mahlawe, N; Malebana, H F; Maphalala, M A; Masala, M M; Masithela, N H; Masutha, M T; Mathibela, N F; Maunye, M M; Mayatula, S M; Mbete, B; Mbombo, N D; Mbuyazi, L R; Mnandi, P N; P N; Mnguni, B A; Mnumzana, S K; Modisenyane, L J; Mohamed, I J; Mohlala, R J B; Mokoena, D A; Molebatsi, M A; Moloto, K A; Moonsamy, K; Morobi, D M; Moropa, R M; Morwamoche, K W; Mothoagae, P K; Mpahlwa, M B; Mpaka, H M; Mpontshane, A M; Mshudulu, S A; Mthembu, B; Mtsweni, N S; Mzizi, M A; Mzondeki, M J G; Nair, B; Ndzanga, R A; Nel, A C; Nene, N M; Ngaleka, N E; Ngcengwane, N D; Ngubeni, J M; Nhlengethwa, D G; Njobe, M A A; Nqodi, S B; Ntombela, S H; Ntshulana-Bhengu, N R; Ntuli, B M; Ntuli, J T; Ntuli, M B; Ntuli, S B; Nzimande, L P M; Oliphant, G G; Oliphant, M N; Omar, A M; Phadagi, M G; Phala, M J; Pieterse, R D; Rabinowitz, R; Rajbally, S; Ramgobin, M; Reid, L R R; Ripinga, S S; Saloojee, E; Schneeman, G D; Schoeman, E A; Seeco, M A; Sekgobela, P S; September, C C; September, R K; Sigcawu, A N; Sigwela, E M; Sikakane, M R; Sithole, D J; Solomon, I G; Sonjica, B P; Sosibo, J E; Sotyu, M M; Thabethe, E; Tolo, L J; Tsheole, N M; Vadi, I; Van den Heever, R P Z; Van der Merwe, S C; Van Wyk, A (Annelizé); Van Wyk, J F; Vezi, T E; Zita, L; Zondo, R P.
NOES - 39: Aucamp, C; Bakker, D M; Blaas, A; Da Camara, M L; Doman, W P; Dudley, C; Durand, J; Ellis, M J; Farrow, S B; Geldenhuys, B L; Gibson, D H M; Gore, V C; Gous, S J; Greyling, C H F; Heine, R J; Jankielsohn, R; Kalyan, S V; Le Roux, J W; McIntosh, G B D; Morkel, C M; Mulder, C P; Nel, A H; Ntuli, R S; Odendaal, W A; Olckers, M E; Opperman, S E; Pretorius, I J; Rhoda, R T; Schippers, J; Schoeman, R S; Semple, J A; Simmons, S; Sono, B N; Southgate, R M; Uys, P; Van der Merwe, A S; Van Deventer, F J; Van Jaarsveld, A Z A; Waters, M.
As the result of the division showed that there were fewer than one half of all the members of the House present as required for a vote to be taken on a Bill, decision of question postponed in terms of section 53(1) of the Constitution.
CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR APPROVAL BY PARLIAMENT OF PROTOCOL ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF TOURISM IN THE SOUTHERN AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY IN TERMS OF SECTION 231(2) OF THE CONSTITUTION
There was no debate.
Protocol on the Development of Tourism in the Southern African Development Community approved.
CONSIDERATION OF THIRTEENTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS - PUBLIC SERVICE AND ADMINISTRATION Report adopted without debate.
CONSIDERATION OF FOURTEENTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS - HEALTH
Report adopted without debate.
CONSIDERATION OF FIFTEENTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS - PRESIDENCY
Report adopted without debate.
CONSIDERATION OF SIXTEENTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS - PROVINCIAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Report adopted without debate.
CONSIDERATION OF SEVENTEENTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC
ACCOUNTS - PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
Report adopted without debate.
CONSIDERATION OF EIGHTEENTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS - SAMDI
Report adopted without debate.
CONSIDERATION OF NINETEENTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS - MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Report adopted without debate.
CONSIDERATION OF TWENTIETH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS - SPORT AND RECREATION
Report adopted without debate.
CONSIDERATION OF TWENTY-FIRST REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC
ACCOUNTS - WATER RESEARCH COMMISSION
Report adopted without debate.
CONSIDERATION OF TWENTY-SECOND REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC
ACCOUNTS - COMMISSION ON GENDER EQUALITY
Report adopted without debate.
CONSIDERATION OF TWENTY-THIRD REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC
ACCOUNTS - ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND TOURISM
Report adopted without debate.
CONSIDERATION OF FOURTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Report adopted without debate.
CONSIDERATION OF THIRD REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Report adopted without debate.
The House adjourned at 18:32. ____ ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
- The Speaker and the Chairperson:
(1) Assent by the President of the Republic in respect of the
following Bill:
(i) KwaZulu Cane Growers' Association Act Repeal Bill [B 48B -
2001] - Act No 24 of 2002 (assented to and signed by
President on 22 August 2002).
(2) The Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development on 23
August 2002 submitted drafts of the following bills, as well as
the memorandums explaining the objects of the proposed
legislation, to the Speaker and the Chairperson in terms of Joint
Rule 159:
(i) Judicial Matters Amendment Bill, 2002;
(ii) Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill, 2002;
(iii) Insolvency Second Amendment Bill, 2002.
In accordance with Joint Rule 159(2), the drafts have been
referred to the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional
Development of the National Assembly and the Select Committee on
Security and Constitutional Affairs of the National Council of
Provinces by the Speaker and the Chairperson, respectively.
TABLINGS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
Papers:
- The Minister of Foreign Affairs:
Protocol Relating to the Establishment of the Peace and Security
Council of the African Union, tabled in terms of section 231(2) of the
Constitution, 1996.
- The Minister of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology:
(a) Annual Report and Financial Statements of the National Museum of
Bloemfontein for 2001-2002, including the Report of the Auditor-
General on the Financial Statements for 2001-2002.
(b) Annual Report and Financial Statements of the National English
Literary Museum for 2001-2002, including the Report of the Auditor-
General on the Financial Statements for 2001-2002.
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
National Assembly:
-
Report of the Standing Committee on Private Members’ Legislative Proposals and Special Petitions on the proposed Unemployed Employable South African National Database Bill, dated 18 September 2002:
The Standing Committee on Private Members’ Legislative Proposals and Special Petitions, having considered the proposed Unemployed Employable South African National Database Bill, submitted by Nkosi M W Hlengwa and referred to the Committee, and having consulted the Portfolio Committee on Labour, recommends in terms of Rule 235(4) that permission to proceed with the proposed legislation be refused.
Report to be considered.
-
Twenty-Fourth Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, dated 18 September 2002:
The Standing Committee on Public Accounts, having considered the Report of the Auditor-General on the financial statements of the President’s Fund (the Fund) for the year ended 31 March 2001 [RP 99-01], reports as follows:
-
Audit opinion
The Committee noted that the Auditor-General expressed a qualified opinion on the financial audit and an unqualified opinion on the compliance audit.
Regarding the qualified opinion, the Committee noted that it is not feasible for the Fund to institute accounting controls over cash collections from donations prior to initial entry of the collections in the accounting records.
The Committee was assured by the Office of the Auditor-General that donations received by the Fund were properly recorded.
-
Government grant
The Committee noted that no grant was received by the Fund during the year under review. However, an amount of R190 million was voted during the subsequent year by the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development as a grant to the Fund in anticipation of the final reparation payments.
-
Future of Fund
-
The Committee noted that the Fund will continue to exist until a date fixed by the President by proclamation in the Gazette, whereupon all funds and property vested in the Fund immediately prior to that date will be transfe