Higher Education Laws Amendment Bill [B24-2010], Skills Development Levies Amendment Bill [B25-2010], Higher Education & Training Laws Amendment Bill [26-2010]: consideration

Meeting report

Higher Education Laws Amendment Bill (HELA), Skills Development Levies Amendment Bill (SDLA Bill), Higher Education &Training Laws Amendment Bill (HETLA Bill): Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) briefing
Ms Mary Metcalfe, Director General, Department of Higher Education and Training, briefed the Committee on the legislation that was before the Committee. She noted that the purpose of the Bills was to clarify the existing policy, rather than change it.

She outlined some of the Acts that fell under the responsibility of the Minister for Higher Education and Training, in terms of Proclamation 44 of 1 July 2009 and Section 97 of the Constitution.

Ms Metcalfe said it was necessary to clarify some of the terms used in the Bills, which were defined. She noted that, for the purposes of the Bills and the Acts that they sought to amend, an “adult” meant a person who was sixteen years of age, or older. “Adult basic education and training” included all learning and training programmes for adults from level 1 to 4, where level 4 was equivalent to a Grade 9 qualification in a public school, or a National Qualifications Framework (NQF) level 1.

The Constitution enshrined the right to basic education, as well as the right to further education, and the State had a responsibility to make this progressively more available to the public.

Ms Metcalfe then outlined some of the challenges that faced the Adult Basic Education and Training (ABET) Act, which included the fact that education was a concurrent function, as well as the possible consequences of the proposed Constitutional amendment. She said that the Committee may need to rethink who an “adult learner” was contemplated to be. She drew the distinction between a 22 year old full-time student, who is both an adult and a learner, and the adult learner described in the ABET Act, and submitted that the Committee should regard adult learners as adults who had not been provided with basic education in the past.

Ms Metcalfe then outlined some of the debates that were ongoing in the sector. She referred to an article published in the Mail & Guardian on 23 July, by Andrew Miller. He outlined three different possible groups who should be considered as adult learners. The first included rural people, over 40 years of age, who perhaps wanted basic literacy skills so as to read government notices, newspapers and the Bible. The second was identified as consisting of younger, more urbanised adults who wanted to rewrite a matric-type exam, so that they could enter higher education institutions. The third group was identified consisted of young adults who wanted a rapid learning programme that would allow them to access trades and the world of work.

Ms Metcalfe argued that the post-school education and training systems (PSETS) should cater to all of these groups, and a common concerted effort should be made to include all adult education systems into a cohesive system.

Ms Metcalfe then outlined the National Skills Development Strategy III and its approach to adult education. It recognised the need to raise the base of an individual’s education, by filling in the learning gaps left by incomplete or inadequate schooling, thus enabling learners to enroll in other tertiary programmes of education. This strategy was directed at facilitating the achievement of at least an NQF Level 4 qualification.

Ms Metcalfe then outlined some of the proposed amendments that were to be made in the Higher Education and Training Laws Amendment Bill (HETLA Bill). These included the extension of the scope of qualifications possible, to Levels 2 to 4 of the NQF. This would result in policy changes, as the main focus and capacity to deliver qualifications to adult centres were currently mainly within the Level 1 of NQF.

Discussion
The Chairperson asked whether there was any necessity to limit the provision of the service of education on age grounds. She also asked for clarity as to whether there was a need for Parliament to pass a bill that would supercede the current legislation.

Ms Metcalfe answered that the ABET Act already was a part of existing legislation, and that the Committee therefore did not have to pass anything new in this regard. In addition, she said that in respect of age, an “adult” was already defined, for the purposes of the education legislation, as a person over 16 years of age, but it must also include an individual who had not had basic education fully provided in the past. The right of an adult to basic education was unchanged. This education was at the same level as an NQF Level 1 qualification.

Mr Eben Boshoff, Chief Director, Department of Higher Education and Training, added that there was no plan to redefine the concept of basic education, and that the ABET Act would not affect this. This Act provided a structure for institutions that would provide education at an NQF Level 1. He said that the inclusion of the term “Basic” in the title had caused confusion, but he assured the Committee that there was no change in existing legislation, but rather that the legislation provided some structure on the potential policy.

The Chairperson asked what the Department was proposing should be amended, in each of the Higher Education Laws Amendment Bill (HELA Bill) and the HETLA Bill. She asked for specific references to the Basic Education provisions.

Mr Boshoff answered that the purpose of the three Bills before the Committee, being HELA, HETLA and Skills Development Levies Amendment Bill (SDLA Bill) was to consolidate existing legislation, and not to change it. Secondly, all three Bills aimed to clarify the concepts and qualifications that were dealt with in different legislation, and to bring them into one set of legislation, which would make the legislation more user friendly. Adult education was one of the concepts being dealt with. The purpose of this discussion was to bring this concept as a focus point of the Minister of Higher Education and Training.

Mr S Makhubele (ANC) noted that there was a possible Constitutional amendment in the pipeline, and asked how this would affect the Amendment Bills.

Ms Metcalfe answered that the Committee should not be anxious about any proposed Constitutional amendment, as this would supercede any legislation currently under discussion. The Committee should not concern itself with this possible amendment, as it was a matter still for the future, and had no direct bearing on the Bills under discussion at the moment. These three Bills should be considered on their own.

Ms Metcalfe also stressed that the amendments in these Bills were intended to make their principal Acts more explicit and specific, and to tighten any generalities. In addition, ABET would refer to adult training up to Grade 9. At the moment, ABET was too vague a term, but the Bills would remedy this.

Mr A Mpontshane (IFP) commented that he was happy with the proposed amendments. He thought that the specific discussions around the Bills was useful to facilitate a better understanding of the intricacies of the Bills.

Mr W James (DA) commented that he was also satisfied with what was being proposed. He had thought that the transfer of adult education to the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET or the Department) had resulted in some confusion, but that the Department was not trying to over complicate the legislation, and that any complications would be worked out through the policy.

Ms F Mushwana (ANC) added that she was happy with the removal of the term “Basic” from the definitions in the Bill.

The Chairperson then moved the discussion on to evaluation of the three Bills, Clause by Clause.

Higher Education Laws Amendment Bill [B24-2010]
The Bill was read page by page, and Members were asked to comment on any particular clauses that they wished to question.

In regard to Clause 3, Mr Boshoff noted that subclause (1), in line 26, would be omitted and replaced with the proposed new amendment (see attached document entitled “Amendments Proposed to Higher Education Laws Amendment Bill [B24-2010]: Clause Three”).

Members acceded to this proposed amendment.

Members also agreed to the remainder of the amendments.

Members then adopted the Bill, with amendments.

Skills Development Levies Amendment Bill [B25-2010]
The Committee went through this Bill, clause by clause.

Members adopted the Bill, without amendments.

Higher Education and Training Laws Amendment Bill [B26-2010]
Clause 1
Mr Mpontshane asked whether that the word “basic”, which still appeared in the phrase “Adult [Basic] education and training”, in line 1 on page 3, would be omitted.

Mr Boshoff indicated that the inclusion of levels in this clause was intended to bring them in line with the NQF levels, and that in future only NQF levels would be mentioned in the legislation. This was intended so that the legislation became more user-friendly.

The Chairperson drew attention to the title of the Act as it would appear after it was passed, which was stated on the third page of the Bill. She said that line 8 on that page should make reference to “Act No. 67 of 2009” and not to 2008.

Mr Boshoff commented that in Clause 1(d), if the term “learner” were to be omitted, and replaced with “another person”, it would cause labour problems, as there were persons who were employed under the current wording of the definition.

Mr James commented that he was satisfied with the Bill, and that it would not result in unqualified teachers being able to teach.

Ms N Vukuza (COPE) commented that she was not entirely happy with leaving the wording of “learner” as outlined by Mr Boschoff, as it seemed to be an unnaturally tortuous way of dealing with the labour legislation, but was confident that this would be seen to.

Mr James raised concerns around Chapter 3A, Clause 20C(2). He said it was unsure whether the Minister was to be the employer of all educators, and asked specifically whether the Minister, or the Council of a Further Education and Training (FET) College would be the employers.

Mr Boshoff replied that this legislation was not aimed at FET Colleges, and that the Minister would remain the employer of all educators in ABET centres, in terms of their conditions of service. He stated that the person who would deal with the day to day facilitation of employment would be the Head of Department, but that the Minister would remain the employer in terms of the conditions of service.

Clause 12
The Chairperson noted that an amendment was to be made to Clause 12, at line 20 on page 18, and referred Members to the draft that intended to replace 12(a) (see attached document entitled “Amendments Proposed to Higher Education and Training Laws Amendment Bill (B26-2010): Clause 12”)

Members adopted the Bill, with the amendments.

The meeting was adjourned.