Hon Deputy Speaker, Cabinet colleagues, hon chair of the portfolio committee and hon members, let me thank the portfolio committee for the processing of this piece of legislation. This Bill has several aims. Firstly, it puts in place measures to ensure the proper governance and administration of higher education institutions where this is not happening. In too many of our institutions we have uncovered serious instances of poor governance, maladministration or serious corruption.
As the Minister, I have the responsibility of ensuring that higher education institutions are able to discharge their constitutional obligations in terms of the provision of quality educational services, and to conduct research and other university functions. These obligations are compromised, from time to time, by a breakdown in the governance and management structures at educational institutions, prompting interventions by our department to restore good governance and management.
Since the inception of the Department of Higher Education and Training, I have been compelled to intervene at five higher education institutions by appointing independent assessors to investigate allegations of poor governance and financial maladministration that seek to undermine the effective functioning of our institutions.
This Bill institutes measures to strengthen the Minister's authority to intervene effectively where institutional authorities fail to ensure proper governance and administration. These measures are necessary, because the law, as it stands, appears to have certain limitations in that it can be open to interpretation that makes it difficult if not impossible for the Minister to intervene in some cases in which there is evidence of maladministration, corruption or poor governance.
The amending Bill provides me, as the Minister, with the authority to issue a directive to members of the boards of national institutes and councils of universities to take action where there are serious allegations of financial impropriety or mismanagement, and where action has not been taken, taking into account due processes, to appoint an administrator. There have been instances in which some university councils have not acted even when instructed to do so. This piece of legislation aims to compel institutions to be able to act where there are very serious allegations of maladministration or corruption.
The Bill further empowers an independent assessor to have access to information during an investigation. The powers of the independent assessor have been too weak; sometimes one could not even ask and be supplied with the relevant documents or any other proof that may be required.
I know that there have been some objections to the proposed amendments, claiming that I want to have extensive powers and undermine institutional autonomy. There is no such thing. We must always balance institutional autonomy against public accountability. Universities are public institutions funded by the taxpayers' money. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
Hon Speaker and members of this august House, the portfolio committee considered the Bill that was referred to it. All political parties that constitute our portfolio committee, as well as the interested and affected stakeholders that came to the public hearing convened by the committee, participated actively and constructively.
As the Minister has already alluded to, some of the contents of the Bill empower him to issue written directives to the boards of a national institute of higher education or whatever other institute that he may decide to establish in terms of the law. The directives will be aimed at correcting the morass that may be associated with these public entities, to deal with matters of financial impropriety or any other mismanagement, including unfair action or discriminatory practices that may be out of sync with the sacrosanct doctrine of legality.
One aspect that is very important in this respect is that, if a council refuses to execute a written mandate by the Minister, the Minister, in terms of this Bill, will be obliged to dissolve this belligerent public institution, such as a council. On this aspect, Dr Lotriet of the DA, of course, expressed concerns that it would seem this sanction is very strong, but we feel we cannot protect a corrupt council. If a council is corrupt and is unable to address the issues as would be raised in the directives, such council only deserves to be dissolved and a competent team of people appointed to continue with the mandate of this public entity. That is the only point on which we differed and I thought she would obtain the support of the head of the organisation.
One aspect raised in the Bill is that the tenure of the administrators can be extended. The Minister is permitted to extend the tenure by six months if the administrator cannot conclude his business within the original period of two years, as stated in the principal Act. The remuneration and allowances of the administrator will be determined by the Minister with the ratification of the Minister of Finance.
In this connection, there is an aspect which the committee included, which is that members who are complicit in illegality will be prohibited from serving in any other council so that these corrupt council hoppers do not have another opportunity. That is what the committee has actually put in there. Before the Minister takes such a step, there will be representations taken from the council so that they are able to express their concerns in relation to the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act of 2000.
The other aspect that the Bill introduces is to enable the independent assessor to go beyond the informal procedure of investigating whatever morass there may be, or allegations that might be raised against a council. The independent assessor may cause recalcitrant witnesses to adduce evidence before him or her under oath or affirmation, and may enter premises and secure evidence for purposes of exposing whatever corrupt practice that may exist in the institutions. It also places a legal duty on the independent assessor to afford an opportunity to any person whose good name and reputation may be adversely affected by the contents of the report of the independent assessor.
One other point which I must mention is that this Bill will also permit the Minister not only to establish these national institutes, but also disestablish them. So, when they are not needed in the future, disestablishing them is a simple exercise; there is no need for members to come back to Parliament to enact a law for that purpose. The Bill further amends the National Qualifications Framework Act in order to align the annual reports of the SA Qualifications Authority with the Public Finance Management Act for the purposes of accounting. So, they will begin to report on 31 August each year.
As I have said, all parties, that is, the ANC, Azapo, Cope - which is leaderless now because they walked out - and the IFP supported this Bill. The only basis for the DA not supporting this Bill is not because they do not agree with the substantive content of this Bill, but because Dr Lotriet and Dr Bosman required permission from their party because their party has obstructive tendencies.
They profess to be people that are committed to quality education in this country, yet when there are these progressive legislative improvements that we would like to introduce as Parliament, they disagree with everything. They think that we, South Africans, cannot see that they are not prepared to work together with any party that introduces things that will improve the lives of our people. It is on this basis that I would chastise the DA. Otherwise, however, the DA members who are in the committee are very progressive people. They work with us and make good proposals, but as for the party itself ... Thank you very much. [Laughter.]
Hon Speaker, I would like to thank the hon Malale for saying that we are very progressive; we believe that. We do believe, however, that this piece of legislation is not that progressive. The Higher Education and Training Laws Amendment Bill will provide the Minister of Higher Education and Training with additional powers to establish national institutes of higher education and to intervene in the higher education sector. It is important to note that these powers will also be of a far-reaching nature.
It has to be kept in mind that this Bill could have a significant impact on the relationship between the government and higher education institutions. And although it has to be acknowledged - as the Minister has indicated - that there are certain higher education institutions where governance and management have been problematic, the question has to be asked whether the extensive amendments are indeed required to address the problems. Does the existing legislation not provide the Minister with sufficient mechanisms to deal with these problems?
Another point of concern relates to the haste with which this Bill has been rushed through. This was also raised by some of the institutions that made submissions to the portfolio committee. No reasons were provided for the haste and one can only assume that it had something to do with the judgment in the Central University of Technology case. Hastily dealt with legislation is, however, not the best way to deal with this matter.
The Bill has to be analysed in the context of the relationship between government and higher education institutions and especially in relation to the main findings of the Council on Higher Education's report of the independent task team on Higher Education, Institutional Autonomy and Academic Freedom, in which it states that:
... government's steering of higher education has in recent years ... grown more directive, less consultative, and occasionally prone to a hierarchical decree ... Emphasised are the need to distinguish between constitutional imperatives and higher education policy choices; a renewed commitment to generally co-operative means of policy-making and implementation; a mode of regulation that is multilateral, engaged and iterative; and increased attention by government to processes that facilitate negotiated outcomes with individual institutions as part of the planning and funding of an integrated yet differentiated higher education system.
If one looks at the amendments proposed in this Bill, it becomes clear that these amendments make way for a more directive relationship between government and these institutions. The fundamental notions of co-operative government and institutional autonomy and the steering by government of the higher education sector, as envisaged in the White Paper, are being replaced by direct control and intervention.
It is also clear that the strong control and intervention approach will be applicable to the National Institute for Higher Education, as well as to all public higher education institutions. The following is an example of this problematic intervention. It can be found in the new section 49A. This refers to intervention by the Minister.
According to this, the Minister may issue a directive to the council of a public higher education institution to take such action specified by the Minister according to a number of actions as set out in the Bill. And, if the council fails to comply with the directive within the stated period, the Minister must - not may, must - dissolve the council and appoint an administrator to take over the functions of the council.
The problem is that these directives will be based on actions specified in section 49A(1), some of which are open to subjective interpretation by the Minister. For example, if the public higher education institution has acted unfairly, in a discriminatory or inequitable way towards a person to whom it owes a duty under this particular Act, then the Minister may issue a directive. This will be left in the hands of the Minister to interpret. An example could be that if a disgruntled staff member were to raise objections because he or she had not been promoted, the Minister could intervene in terms of this provision as the council "has acted unfairly or in a discriminatory or inequitable way towards a person to whom it owes a duty under this Act". This intervention could then give rise to a situation in which the Minister must, in terms of section 49A(1), dissolve the council.
The reality is that section 49A(1) will provide the Minister with extensive powers of control and intervention; in effect, directing every facet of governance, management and administration of the public higher education institutions. This will only encroach on the autonomy of higher education institutions. It cannot be in the interest of the public higher education sector and the country that the Minister has such extensive powers to control, intervene and direct. The DA will not support the Bill. Thank you. [Applause.]
Speaker, Cope distances itself from this Bill because, amongst other things, the ANC has introduced a different kind of Minister in our country who shoots first and aims later. It is not true that what the Minister has been doing, in terms of putting administrators in universities, is working. At all the universities that he claims he has introduced administrators to, the administrators still continue to fail our universities.
He lost a case against the Central University of Technology in the Bloemfontein High Court. This Minister does not understand the concept of co-operative governance in terms of which Ministers like Bhengu, Pandor and Asmal respected the institutions, as the ANC wanted to promote co-operative governance amongst stakeholders.
The Minister introduced administrators to manage the administration of universities for two years, with no stakeholders participating in running governance. It was this ANC that introduced that; this kind of Minister. He is so vindictive because he differs with certain institutions in this country. He continues to appoint unqualified council members who are unable to do oversight in the universities. He comes to this Parliament and requests to be given the authority to intervene and disrupt universities.
The whites of the past - the National Party, which used to sit this side of the House - did the same thing to suppress the independence of knowledge in this country. This is very dangerous. What is being done here is that we are giving Minister Blade Nzimande - when he doesn't agree with philosophy that is independent of institutions - the power to disband universities and disband councils. We cannot accept that. This will haunt us.
In the past, the apartheid regime used these institutions which claimed that they did not want the apartheid government to intervene in their programme of educating students. The apartheid government, like Minister Blade Nzimande today, interfered and rejected black students. This kind of Minister will take us in that direction.
It is this Minister who continually undermined ... It is true that some members in our executive undermine the laws of this country. It was this Minister who even marched in Rosebank and undermined the courts of this country when they were dealing with an issue. It is predominant in this Parliament that many of you are forgetting what Mandela fought for: freedom of speech. As Cope, we are not going to stop reminding you that this country does not belong to you. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Hon Speaker, I am not in the fighting mood the hon Bhanga is in. My colleague the hon Mpontshane serves on this committee and has been part of the consideration of this Bill at that level. He is away on oversight, and my brief is to support the Bill on behalf of the IFP. [Applause.] However, there are a few issues that I wish to raise on his behalf, which I think he raised in the committee as well.
On the face of it, the Bill seems to allow the Minister to step in and assist universities that may have lost their way. Yet, one has to question the extent to which the power to intervene in the day-to-day running of the universities is placed in the hands of the Minister. This can, we believe, jeopardise the independence of the institutions if the Minister acts on incomplete or inaccurate information, as demonstrated in the recent court case involving the Central University of Technology in the Free State.
The aim of this Bill must not threaten the autonomy of the institutions, but enhance the pursuit and practice of excellence in academic work. When serious breaches of procedure and financial management plague an institution, the Minister is bound by the Bill to intervene.
The placing of institutions under administration begs the question of what went wrong to cause the councils to become dysfunctional in the first place, thereby precipitating the intervention of the Minister. The root cause of dysfunctional councils may either revolve around cadre deployment or the employment of the wrong people to posts they are unqualified for. This undermines the governance and management of institutions. If council members do not know what they are doing, hon Minister, they are setting up the institutions, especially formerly disadvantaged ones, to fail.
The hon Minister must ensure that the lessons learnt from a dysfunctional institution are proactively applied to other more stable institutions to ensure that they do not go down the same road to terminal dysfunctionality.
The IFP believes that the Bill will give the Minister the capability of ensuring greater adherence to the education policies of our country. But the hon Minister must ensure that any intervention is absolutely necessary and not used as a political tool to disrupt institutional autonomy. Thank you. [Applause.]
I thank the hon member. I now wish to invite the hon Chili to the podium. Ms Chili will be making her maiden speech. You have the floor, hon member. [Applause.]
Hon Speaker, Ministers and Deputy Ministers, members, ladies and gentleman, the Higher Education Act has established councils as the highest decision-making bodies of public higher education institutions. These councils are responsible for the good order and governance of institutions and for their financial policy, performance, quality and reputation.
The role of a council should be like that of a captain of a ship, who will ensure that he or she steers the ship in the right direction to reach its destination, even during extreme weather conditions. It is the responsibility of the councils to see to it that the institutions of higher learning are well governed to achieve their strategic objectives and the country's national development goals. A council should always discharge its statutory responsibilities without favour or prejudice and hold the executive management accountable.
The findings of the independent assessors in the majority of the cases have pointed to the inability of councils to discharge their strategic and fiduciary responsibilities. At the Walter Sisulu University, the findings were that the council failed to influence, in any tangible way, the deteriorating financial situation of the institution; it failed to hold management accountable for failing to implement its resolutions; and it also failed to resolve the crisis in respect of the Student Representative Council constitution. At the University of Zululand, both the assessor report and the Higher Education Quality Committee audits found that the council interfered with the day-to-day running of the institution and had taken charge of matters that were ordinarily senate matters.
It is also not of assistance if councils are aware of their statutory responsibilities, but are not discharging them accordingly. If the core business of the institutions - teaching and learning, research and community engagement - is undermined by the ineffectiveness of councils, the Minister has to intervene.
As already alluded to by the chairperson of the committee, the hon Malale, the Bill before us also seeks to give the Minister the power to intervene in the case of poor or nonperformance or maladministration by a public higher education institution; to provide for the dissolution of the council as well as procedure for such dissolution; and to extend the powers of an administrator to temporarily take over the management, governance and administration of the council of a public higher education institution.
We have noted the proposal made by some stakeholders during the public hearings. Some proposed that the council should be suspended, not dissolved. We are concerned that some council members served more than one term in some of the institutions that are under administration and were aware of the continuing challenges, but failed to resolve them. Thank you. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
I wish to thank the hon Chili for her maiden speech. Madam, after your maiden speech, you cease to be a maiden. You become a veteran Member of Parliament. Thank you. [Applause.]
Hon Speaker, hon members, there have been concerns emanating from the higher education sector about what they consider to be the centralisation of too much power in the hands of the Minister, which could result in the erosion of institutional autonomy.
As Azapo, we have seen a bit of that with regard to previous pieces of legislation. We do not see that in this Bill. While we fully support institutional autonomy, we believe that public higher education institutions have to account for money that comes from the taxpayer.
University councils cannot be a law unto themselves. They have to abide by the statutes of their institutions and the laws of the land. The Bill introduces measures and steps that the Minister has to follow when giving directives. The Bill also gives more power to the independent assessor.
Azapo is satisfied that the powers given to the Minister are not unfettered; they are subject to the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act and other laws. Azapo also supports the restriction of council members who were implicated in wrongdoing in dissolved councils being appointed to other institutions.
Azapo will therefore support the Higher Education and Training Laws Amendment Bill. I thank you. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker, hon members, Deputy Ministers, Ministers, I would like to express appreciation for the opportunity that I have just received. I have noticed that the hon Bhanga has a talent. He must go to Jika Majika, because he always dances when he is at the podium, which is actually a debating platform.
It is true that the Vice Chancellor, Prof Mthembu, whined and tried to hide through the newspapers the maladministration and the dysfunctionality of the institution. Also, he was not running the institution properly. That is why all the reports of the independent assessors appointed by the Minister - KPMG and Adv Lube - said clearly that the institution could not function properly, and that it had failed. That is why this amending Bill will be of assistance.
One of the principles of White Paper 3 on higher education is to promote equal access and fair chances of success for all who seek to realise their potential through higher education, while eradicating all forms of unfair discrimination and advancing the redress of past inequalities.
Nawe Ndvuna, wati kahle kutsi kuletikhatsi letendlulile emanyuvesi abekhona kuto tonkhe tindzawo, kodvwa eMpumalanga naseNshonalanga Kapa kuphela kwetifundza lebetite emanyuvesi. Ngako-ke, loku ngiko lokutawuhlangabetana nalesidzingo , njengobe sekunaletakhiwomsebenti tesive temfundvo lephakeme, sekutaba lula kutsi tisitakale letifundza letimbili. Kodvwa-ke, lesikufunako kulesikhatsi sanyalo, kutsi kwakhiwe tinhlaka letitakwati kusebenta ngetindlela letifanele, tikwati kuchaza ngalokucacile kutsi tisetjentiswe kanjani timali tahulumende lebetabelwe letinhlaka. (Translation of Siswati paragraph follows.)
[Even you, Minister, know quite well that universities were everywhere in the past, but Mpumalanga and Northern Cape were the only provinces without them. Therefore, this will meet the need, since there are public higher education and training institutions in place now, it will be easy for these two provinces to get assistance. However, what we presently need is the erection of structures that will be able to function properly and to give account of how the government funds allocated to them were spent.]
It is very important that we take note of the fact that all these disadvantages were because not all the learners that came from other provinces - Mpumalanga and the Northern Cape - had equal opportunities to get an equal education. I normally call them "migrant students", because they come from other provinces. This costs a lot of money for their parents.
When the National Institute for Higher Education was established, the Higher Education Act did not make provision for the Minister to intervene in the event of the need to address governance and management and the related challenges of these institutions. The proposed amendments of the Higher Education and Training Laws Amendment Bill will address the inadequacy of this function. Clauses 38J to 38O of the Bill before us today seek, among other things, to empower the Minister to intervene where necessary, by issuing a directive to the board of the National Institute for Higher Education to take action specified by the Minister; to appoint an administrator; to dissolve the board of the national institutes; and to disestablish the national institutes.
The Minister would not be able to do all this if he was not given legal provision provided by this Bill. That is why, Minister, it is very important that I give you all the support necessary so that you are able to make sure these institutions are accountable for the public monies that they have been given.
The ANC welcomes the support and the extension of the powers of the Minister to issue directives to the National Institute for Higher Education. This amending Bill will go a long way towards resolving the challenges before they escalate to the point at which they would warrant investigation by the independent assessors, and, consequently, the appointment of an administrator.
Siyacaphela-ke, Ndvuna, kutsi lokubalulekile ngulokutsi akukafaneli kutsi nakunesidzingo sekusita, lusito lwentiwe ngesikhatsi sekunetikinga. Kodvwa kufanele kutsi, titsi tisacala nje tinkinga kuveta inhloko, lusheshe lungenele lusito kuletakhiwomsebenti tesive, kuze lukwati kucatulula letinkinga tisavela. Ngobe, lokutsi lucale kungenelela ngesikhatsi letakhiwomsebenti setivele tonakele kudla lenyenti imali yahulumende. Ngako- ke, kubaluleke kakhulu, Ndvuna, kutsi Lomtsetfosivivinyo ukunike onkhe emandla lowadzingako. (Translation of Siswati paragraph follows.)
[We are noting, Minister, that what is important is that, when a need to address issues arises, we shouldn't wait until the challenges have escalated. But we must immediately nip them in the bud because addressing them, once they have escalated, is very costly to the government. It is therefore very important Minister, that the Bill should give you all the powers that you need.]
This Bill must give you the support that you need. And, all the other progressive organisations have given you their support. That means that your early and timely intervention will make these institutions respond accordingly.
We also take note of what some of the stakeholders raised, in that they are concerned that this might give you, Minister, too much power to micromanage these institutions. But we know that, with your intellectual and Marxist analysis capacity, you will not be able to do so, because you are too highly intelligent to go and want to intervene in institutions just because of political hunger. You are not politically hungry. You are not like other people who don't want to swallow their pride and apologise in this august House. People should stop coming into this august House just to politicise issues; they should understand issues.
It is very important to take note that the hon Blade Nzimande, the Minister, has been given this responsibility because he is an intellectual. We believe that he will not encroach on the autonomy of these institutions and encroach on academic freedom. We know all these things because this is a democracy, and you are trying to ensure that we establish democratic institutions that will address the current status, unlike the institutions that were established by the former apartheid regime, which managed to segregate other provinces by not giving them opportunities for higher education and learning. In summary, the ANC supports the Bill. Thank you. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Hon Speaker, I would like to thank all the parties that supported this amending Bill. I also need to point out that this amending Bill further provides for the establishment of national institutes with a specific scope or application. It also aims to accommodate the establishment of, amongst other things, the planned national institute for humanities and social sciences, as the current legislation makes no reference to any such provisions.
Hon Wilmot James, I hope you will be pleased about this intervention because the correct emphasis on science, technology, engineering and maths has had an unintended consequence in our institutions. There is not enough attention being paid to strengthening the social sciences. In fact, in many institutions, social science, research and the teaching of social sciences are in decline, yet social sciences are very fundamental to the development of our country, our national identity, the development of culture and the promotion of critical thinking skills.
I would also like to say, though, that the DA cannot have their cake and eat it. They can't say that we are rushing this legislation through because of the Central University of Technology matter. I thought they would be taking credit because it was the DA that raised this matter. They can't, at the same time, then be celebrating that we lost in court, especially in the face of a very damning report by the independent assessor about the extent of maladministration in that university.
Again, as I said, they can't blame me for problems in our universities, but not want legislation that will give me power to effectively intervene. I have no interest in micromanaging universities. I also have no interest in closing space for there to be academic freedom and autonomy. I know knowledge production requires the freedom to think, but, at the same time, we can't be powerless Ministers unless the DA approves of what we do. We don't account to the DA; we account to this House.
The DA is silent about instances of abuse of autonomy in order to pursue antitransformation measures by some universities, because autonomy is not inherently progressive. It's progressive only if it is used to advance academic freedom, not to defend corruption, which some institutions do.
Engifuna ukukusho kwilungu uBhanga wukuthi akuve kubuhlungu uma iqabane selilahlekelwe yipolitiki. Ayivalelisi ipolitiki uma seyihamba. [Ihlombe.] Zolo lokhu uBhanga ubesho zonke lezi zinto esizishoyo kodwa ngoba useku- Cope namhlanje, ipolitiki isihambile, usekhuluma izilimi kuhle kwalaba bantu ababephuze leliya wayini uJesu aliphendula lingamanzi. [Uhleko.]
Siyabonga kakhulu niseseke kulo Mthethosivivinywa. Ngiyabonga. (Translation of isiZulu paragraphs follows.)
[What I want to say to hon Bhanga is that it is indeed sad for the comrade to lose political principles. When political principles leave you, they do not say goodbye. [Applause.] Not long ago hon Bhanga shared the same sentiments as us, but now that he is with Cope, the political principles are gone; he now speaks in tongues like those people who were drinking the wine that Jesus turned from water. [Laughter.]
Thank you very much for supporting this Bill. Thank you.]
Debate concluded.
Bill read a second time (Democratic Alliance, Congress of the People and Independent Democrats dissenting).