Higher Education Committee Reports

Higher Education, Science and Innovation

09 May 2018
Chairperson: Ms September (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Committee adopted reports and minutes of meetings held.

The Committee was concerned with the issue of Gender Based Violence and asked if there was anything the Committee could do about this because this issue required serious attention. The Chairperson said the students should be invited to the meeting as well. They were meeting on 9 August 2018; the invitation for this would be shared with Members. A meeting would be held to discuss this matter and to engage with institutions about their policies on gender violence.

 

Meeting report

The Chairperson said the meeting would start with reports from 2017 and work towards 2018. It was suggested that the CPUT meeting be taken out because the additional material had not been sent.

Draft Report of the Portfolio Committee on Higher Education and Training on its oversight visit to the University of Cape Town (UCT) 9 November 2017

Dr B Bozzoli (ANC) referred to page 4 of the draft report and asked whether Professor Mamokgethi Phakeng: Deputy Vice-Chancellor, had not just referred to challenges experienced at the university.

The Chairperson asked Dr Bozzoli if she had attended the meeting.

On reflection Dr Bozzoli apologised and said that she had forgotten that she had not attended the meeting.

The report was adopted by the Committee.

Draft Report of the Portfolio Committee on Higher Education and Training on the Strategic Plan 2015/16 – 2019/20 and Annual Performance Plan (APP) 2017/18 of the Chemical Industries Education and Training Authority (CHIETA) on 22 November 2017.

The Chairperson said the CHIETA should be applauded because they had put together a very genuine report. This was the SETA that was taking a group of almost 300 students to China.

The Committee adopted the report.

Draft Report of the Portfolio Committee on Higher Education and Training on the 2017/18 Second Quarter Report of the Department of Education and Training on 8 November 2017.

Dr Bozzoli referred to page 4 stylistic thing last paragraph first sentence: ‘the development of a second draft performance reporting....

The Chairperson said that it could read as follows: ‘(1) the development of a second draft of performance reporting by TVET Colleges’.

Members agreed with this correction.

The Report was adopted.

Draft Report of the Portfolio Committee on Higher Education and Training on the 2017/18 Third Quarter Report of the Department of Higher Education and Training held on 21 February 2018.

The Report was adopted.

Draft Report of the Portfolio Committee on Higher Education and Training Consideration of the Budget Vote 15: Higher Education and Training with reference to the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS), The Council on Higher Education (CHE), The Quality Council for Trades and Occupations (QCTO) and the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA).

The Chairperson said she hoped that Members accepted that all the organisations were grouped together in one report. This was done because all the organisations mentioned were in meetings on the same day.

The Report was adopted.

Draft Report of the Portfolio Committee on Higher Education and Training on Consideration of the Budget Vote 15: Higher Education and Training

Dr Bozzoli asked if Members could consider going through the recommendations page by page slowly and carefully and approving each one.

Mr M Wolmarans (ANC) agreed that the meeting should work through the recommendation page by page. However, there were a few grammatical errors that had to be corrected as well. He asked that the meeting move towards the approval from page 27 to page 28 just before point 7.3.

Page 31

Mr A Van der Westhuizen (DA) referred to the sixth bullet on page 31: ‘The eradication of the 80 000 NATED certificates and diplomas should be prioritised’. The word ‘outstanding’ should be included in the sentence because the Committee definitely did not want all those diplomas to be eradicated. He asked further if the word ‘eradication’ was the best word to use in the sentence because it had been used in other places as well.

Dr Bozzoli said one would eradicate a ‘backlog’ not a ‘certificate’.

Mr Van der Westhuizen proposed the insertion of the words ‘backlog of’ before ’80 000’.

Members approved the amendment.

Page 32

Dr Bozzoli said there was something missing with regard to the universities and TVET colleges. This was accommodation. The Committee had pursued this with them quite frequently.

The Chairperson referred Members to the sixth bullet on page 29 wherein ‘accommodation’ was discussed.

Mr Van der Westhuizen referred to the third bullet under 7.5 and recommended that the word ‘it’ be replaced with ‘its’.  

Members agreed to this amendment.

The Chairperson referred to Mr Wolmarans and said that all grammatical errors in the Report would be dealt with. Some languages did not use the word ‘the’ and in this Report it had almost been left out entirely.

Mr Van der Westhuizen referred to the third last bullet on page 32, where the sentence seemed incomplete. It should say something to the effect that the human development strategy should be guiding the goals that the Department wanted to achieve. The fact that the word ‘contribution’ was repeated did not assist in clarifying the sentence. He recommended the following: ‘Consideration must also be given to the human resource development strategy’.

Mr C Kekana (ANC) said the Committee had to reconstruct erroneous sentences in the report, not the author.

The Chairperson said Mr Van der Westhuizen’s contribution was acknowledged but she found the sentence that made sense of the overall bullets here did not detract from the way this matter had been discussed.

Members approved of page 32.

Page 33

Members approved of page 33

Page 34

Mr Van der Westhuizen, on Community Education Training, said that in many provinces there were permanently appointed GET educators, and in other provinces all of them were employed on a part time basis. He believed that the Department should develop a workable model as one could not work with only full time or only part time employees at each Community Education and Training Centre (CET). Flexibility of part time or short-term appointments was needed. The core management functions and continuity had to be provided by permanently employed full time employees. Now that this was a centralised model, the Department should finalise such a model and then bring the CETs closer to the ideal model.

The Chairperson asked if Mr Van der Westhuizen was not covered in this regard by the second last bullet on page 34.

Mr Van der Westhuizen said that harmonising of service conditions was one thing, but he was actually looking for a staff establishment model. It should just be stated that the Committee wanted a staff establishment model for the CET sector, and then one could have the harmonisation of staff conditions of service.

Mr Wolmarans said the Chairperson had covered the issue when she had pointed out the second last bullet on page 34. He was also inclined to agree that the harmonisation of the structure, combined with the harmonisation of the conditions of services should be prioritised.

The Chairperson then clarified the two processes at play: the one was now that they had all been brought to National, the conditions of service had to be harmonised, which the DDG had told the Committee was being dealt with at the Bargaining Council. The other part was – which was what was worrying her – that it should rather be said: ‘as prescribed by the Act’.

Mr Van der Westhuizen offered the following clarification: ‘The implementation of an appropriate staff establishment model, for each CET college as well as the harmonisation of the conditions of service of CET educators should be prioritised’.

Ms S Mchunu (ANC) said that maybe Mr Van der Westhuizen should rephrase. She did get what he was saying; a system could not be run by part time staff. Perhaps he could rephrase his input so that the Department would not be over committed at the same time. She asked if Mr Van der Westhuizen could structure it so that the Department was not put in a difficult position.

Mr Wolmarans said that if ‘as prescribed by the Act’ was added then the over or under commitment that might arise would be taken care of.

The Chairperson asked Mr Van der if he wanted to make another attempt at phrasing the sentence.

Mr Van Westhuizen said ‘The implementation of an appropriate staff establishment model as per the Act and the harmonisation of the conditions of service of CET educators should be prioritised’.

Ms J Killian (ANC) said she did not think there should be argument about something the Committee basically agreed upon – that it was an unfunded mandate that became the responsibility of the Department. As was seen with the previous presentation, the staff structure was only being established now. The whole operation of CETs should still be properly assessed. The Department had inherited some colleges from provincial departments. She felt that the idea was captured adequately as it appeared in the Report. 

Mr Kekana felt that the paragraph should be left as it was at the moment. One should not try to do everything at once. It was important that people were paid properly.

Ms Killian asked if there should be a separate paragraph that said ‘The post-establishment of CET colleges should be concluded by the Department and the Minister should report back to the Committee’.  Here post-establishment had to be referred to because it was critical as this depended on policy.

The Chairperson asked the Secretary of the Committee to read the sentence as it stood at present.

The Secretary read ‘The implementation of an appropriate staff establishment model as per the Act and post establishment of CET colleges should be concluded by the Department, and the Minister should report back to the Committee’.

Ms Killian said she had a question around wording ‘the implementation of post-establishment’. She asked if what was being said was ‘the conclusion of the post establishment’.

The Chairperson said this was not being said. They needed to report back on the establishment. There was no assurance whether this had been done or not.

Mrs Killian said that one could then say ‘Progress on the implementation of post establishment’. Then there would be a progress report that the Committee would receive which would show an indication of which of the provinces and colleges had the requisite post-establishment and which of them did not have it.

Mr R Mavunda (ANC) asked for forgiveness for going back to the last bullet on page 34. He asked that ‘rural areas’ be added because there were those schools which had been merged and the infrastructure was left and those schools were not utilised.

The Chairperson asked if both could be taken out because there was under-utilisation everywhere. Paragraph would now read: ‘The identification of under-utilised public infrastructure country-wide to be used as public community learning centres (PCLC) to address the infrastructure challenges must be prioritised’.  

Members approved of page 34 with the amended paragraph.

The report was adopted with amendments.

Adoption of Minutes

Minutes of 14 March 2018

Minutes of 14 March 2018 were adopted with amendments of a typographical nature to be forwarded by Ms Kilian.

Minutes of 18 April 2018

The minutes of the 18 April 2018 were adopted.

Minutes of 19 April 2018

The minutes of the 19 April 2018 were adopted.

Minutes of 25 April 2018

Dr Bozzoli referred to the fifth point under the heading Discussion on page 3 ‘the recurrence of initiation practices at some of the former white colleges’. The problem she had with the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) presentation was that it was completely out of date and when they mentioned ‘the recurrence of initiation practices at white colleges’, the Department said this had been stopped. She asked if it was not wrong for the Committee to have comment on things that no longer existed.

The Chairperson said that the minutes reflected what had been given to the Committee.

Mr Van der Westhuizen asked if perhaps it should be said that ‘there was a claim that initiation practices were recurring’.

Ms Killian said the Committee could address the concern by saying the following: ‘The meeting noted with concern that at the time of the SAHRC Report, there was a recurrence of initiation practices at some of the former white institutions’. This would then accurately reflect the situation.

Minutes of the 25 April 2018 were adopted with amendments.

Minutes of the 2 May 2018

Minutes of 2 May 2018 were adopted.

Matters arising from the minutes

Mr Kekana said when the Committee spoke about the wrong things that were happening at institutions, the initiation for example, but the negative attitude towards women was a case in point. The issue of the repeated attacks on women was raised very strongly. He asked if there was anything the Committee could do about this because this issue required serious attention.

Ms Kilian supported Mr Kekana. There was a need for the Committee to receive a report on this matter and whether the trends reflected an increase in such activity. The University of Stellenbosch had a very committed gender activist, Amanda Gous, who had been following the issue of gender-based violence had established a centre where the figures of such occurrences were recorded. Perhaps the Committee should consider inviting them as well as the Commission on Gender Equality to the meeting. This Committee should be concerned with what was the prevailing culture at universities and in residences. She was very concerned about this because there have been reports of increased instances of rape and the Committee had to do something about this. She expressed her support for the proposal that a meeting should be held with the Gender Commission.

Dr Bozzoli suggested that on the minute of the 14 March 2018, the DHET should be asked when the forensic report on the erroneous payment would be ready. She did now know why it had taken so long, and it could not be delayed much longer. The Committee should insist on a report on this matter because there was not a ‘cloak of secrecy’ on this matter. A letter should be written to them (DHET) about this.

Dr Bozzoli said that CPUT’s input had not been received. She wanted to suggest that the Committee followed up with them because today was the deadline.

Dr Bozzoli said that the Committee should follow-up on the information requested in 6.2 (in document ‘Matters arising from minutes’). 6.2 stated: ‘The Department was requested to submit information on private CET colleges’.    

On 6.4, Dr Bozzoli said a deadline should be given to the Department to submit this information.

Her other concern was 1.3, the Public Protector’s Report on Tshwane’s South TVET College. It was noted that it was said that the Report was not submitted to Parliament, but was that matter not taken for judicial review. And if so where was it located in the process. She did not know why it was not submitted or if there was an intervention that prevented that, but the Committee needed to know the position on this matter.

Dr Bozzoli asked if the Committee could see the Public Protector’s Report. She found the response to the Committee’s concern shallow. 

Dr Bozzoli said there had been no response from the National Student Financial Aid Scheme about a meeting with them.

Ms Mchunu said there had been a resolution taken on 18 April to invite NSFAS to a meeting. Dr Bozzoli was not present at this meeting.

Mr Kekana said that it had been agreed that NSFAS had a huge job to do because it had to deal with the issue of ‘Free Education’. The Committee should resolve to support NSFAS as much as was possible and they should be asked for regular reports.

Mr Mavunda shared the sentiments of Mr Kekana. For the first time in the history of this country children would receive free education. Patience should be expressed with NSFAS.

The Chairperson said with regard to minutes of the 14 March 2018, her understanding was that the Department was taking the report on review. Apparently, the Public Protector had asked that the person be reinstated, but the Department was not happy with corrupt people being reinstated. So, the Department had taken the matter on review. She did not know when it would be heard. This was why the Report was not submitted to Parliament.

With regard to Mr Kekana’s point on abuse against women, supported by Ms Killian, the students should be invited to the meeting as well. They were having a meeting on the 9 August 2018; the invitation for this would be shared with Members. A meeting would be held to discuss this matter and to engage with institutions about their policies on gender violence.

About the decision on the Meeting on the 18 April 2018; the Committee had taken a decision call NSFAS to a meeting the week after next. NSFAS remained on the Committee’s agenda and they would appear before the Committee quarterly. The Committee would continue to do oversight to ensure that nothing stood in the way of any student completing her or his education.

A letter would be written to the Minister about the judicial review.

The meeting was adjourned.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this page: