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.]