House Chair, hon members, the legislative proposals before this House must be considered against the bigger picture of education and skills development in our country.
South African businesses say that they can't grow faster because job seekers lack the necessary skills. Their educational backgrounds are weak, and the private sector struggles to find the talent they need just to survive.
In a globally competitive environment, our education system makes it impossible for industries to thrive and prosper. We face an education crisis that has produced a comprehensive skills shortage, especially of intermediate and high-end skills.
In response to this, the government has created a system of 23 Sector Education and Training Authorities, called Setas, which are supposed to do the following things: to develop and implement a skills development plan for its sectors; to cater for the training of new entrants to the labour market; to be responsible for quality control; to pay out development grants; and, finally, to report to the Minister.
Supported by a 1% National Skills Development Levy on businesses earning more than R500 000 per year, Setas enjoy an annual operating budget of about R8,5 billion. But, after 10 years of the Seta system, we have an even less skilled workforce than when we started the system. So, the question is: What is the problem?
First of all, Setas rely on bureaucrats, rather than employers to identify the skills that businesses need, resulting in training structures that are unresponsive to the ever-changing environment of the market.
Secondly, many Setas are wasteful, inefficient bureaucracies that work better at dispensing patronage than encouraging skills.
Thirdly, many are characterised by spectacular financial mismanagement, as budgets are routinely underspent or siphoned off in irregular expenditures.
Fourthly, small businesses find the required paperwork onerous, and therefore opt out of the system because it wastes their time.
Most importantly, Setas fail to empower learners, as many do not complete their training courses. They require remedial education that the training does not always address. As a result, businesses have to retrain employees anyway.
So, what is the answer to our skills shortage? We propose that we scrap most of the Setas, save for some very good performers, and rather focus on our neglected Further Education and Training colleges, the FET colleges. By connecting them with learners and private industries, these institutions can respond meaningfully to employers and to the needs of learners.
Currently, South Africa's 50 FET colleges enrol an estimated 125 000 students, and I must point out that there is no agreement on the number of students, because there is no mathematical formula developed yet to arrive at a notion of a full-time equivalent student. So this means 125 000 students out of an eligible 2,8 million unemployed young people, between the ages of 18 and 24!
And I want to say that we get stuck on the numbers, but the magnitude of wastage is captured in this notion of 2,8 million unemployed, breathing South Africans who are struggling to find purpose in life by virtue of the system. So, what we need is about 1,5 million of these young people attending FET colleges - and we agree across all parties that it must be so - so that they can enhance their otherwise weak educational legacies.
These institutions, FET colleges, serve three purposes - very important ones: to give students a second chance to complete matric - particularly those referred to as "dropouts", which I don't think is a very good word to use; to give theoretical training to students who need to complete apprenticeships required by employers; and, thirdly, to offer postschool qualifications, certification and training through specialised courses.
This year, our government has committed R3,7 billion for FET colleges, but as we know, it is not nearly enough. We need to triple the amount and direct more of our unskilled young people to them. If FET colleges received the same commitment such as Setas and the underspent National Skills Fund, they could deliver mass skills training in a much more substantial way than our current system does.
One reason why FET colleges have thus far had spotty records as training institutions is because they are accountable to Setas, rather than to the industry. By working with industries directly, they could make sure that their training measures are suitable for the outcomes that learners and businesses require.
Businesses are best positioned to understand industry trends. By working hand in glove with FET colleges, they can achieve their goals more effectively.
In cases where FET colleges do not offer appropriate training, businesses should be incentivised to develop in-house or industry-wide training programmes. They could do this alone, or in conjunction with other industry actors, at a common training facility.
The government's role is to act as a facilitator, not the controlling agent. We should establish an independent national human resource development commission to advise us on best practices and policies. Beyond that, we need to do our part in creating outstanding FET colleges so that learners and businesses can benefit from them.
With this in mind, the DA supports the Skills Development Levies Amendment Bill, for it simply transfers the responsibility for skills development from the Labour Minister to the Higher Education and Training Minister. And please note this is a departure for the DA to support the skills levy.
Secondly, we support the Higher Education Laws Amendment Bill with the comment, which I would like to put across very strongly, that unless greater efficiencies are introduced in the speed with which the SA Qualifications Authority, SAQA, and the National Qualifications Framework operate, the Higher Education Laws Amendment Bill would be unenforceable.
Thirdly, after due consideration, the DA, however, does not support the Higher Education and Training Laws Amendment Bill, because it was never published in the Government Gazette for comment. Most of the important players in the Further Education and Training sector have not seen it.
Furthermore, the Bill creates management structures that make the provinces still responsible for the colleges, but where the Minister simply reserves the authority to direct these, prior to having the necessary changes made to Schedule 4 of the Constitution and to the Further Education and Training Colleges Act. We believe that this is a sleight of hand and should, as such, be opposed. Thank you very much. [Applause.]