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.]