Chairperson, this is a section 75 measure and, as hon members know, the Government's programme for the transformation of the South African higher education system is in fact identified in Education White Paper 3, A Programme for the Transformation of Higher Education, and in the Act that this House, or its predecessor, had to pass, namely the Higher Education Act of 1997.
The purpose of this legislation was to establish the basis for higher education institutions to change the way in which they operate and especially to take account of broad, system-wide interests. But we wanted a South African system of higher education rather than a fragmented, racially organised higher education system.
Therefore the bringing into being of this Act has proved to be a challenge. Worldwide the changing of education systems has been a very complex undertaking at the best of times, but more so for a system which needs to address the inequalities of the past while making sure that we are in a position to meet the demands of the 21st century.
This is the second amending Bill that I have introduced since the promulgation of the Higher Education Act in December 1997, because there are shortcomings in the 1997 Act and we have to be honest about it. Shortcomings should be corrected, particularly if mischief takes place outside and the mischief itself has to be removed.
The Bill before the House seeks to address some of the shortcomings that have become obvious in the course of the implementation of the Higher Education Act. It has become clear that certain higher education institutions, both public and private, have become imperialistic and colonialistic. They have extended the scope and range of their operation in a way that is not consistent with the spirit of the original Act and may not be in the best interests of the system as a whole.
An example that I will give hon members, if they will allow me, is the type of development that we are currently witnessing. The past few years, in particular the past three years, have seen a vast proliferation of satellite campuses of public higher education institutions throughout the country, often without due regard to the effect these campuses have on sister institutions, or to the quality of education and infrastructural provision that students receive.
When I impose a moratorium on this, I impose it because a very well-known institution in Gauteng was going to buy a property in Bisho to set up a university-type satellite institution there, drawing students away from Eastern Cape institutions. This is not in the best tradition of the development of higher education, particularly since this Gauteng institution had to meet the needs of the locality and of the rest of South Africa.
So there is a kind of colonialism taking place that we have to be aware of and therefore deal with, because the Act imposes an obligation on me to determine higher education policy after consultation with the Council on Higher Education. This is what I have done and the Council on Higher Education has made proposals in Towards a New Higher Education Landscape, which is the result of work done by the Council on Higher Education. I commend this ``shape and size'' report because it is baffling to listen to people on the radio or on television opining without having read the report, or taking part in debates elsewhere without having read the report. It is a very important report because it makes the best case for higher education in South Africa.
The amendment to section 3 of the principal Act gives the Minister the discretion, under very specific conditions, to determine policy for public as well as private higher education institutions. The conditions are those embodied in the co-operative governance model to which Government is committed. This is how the Education White Paper 3 captures the co- operative governance model. This is what it says:
Co-operative governance assumes a proactive, guiding and constructive role for Government.
This is not a laid-back role as we think.
It assumes a co-operative relationship between the state and higher education institutions. One implication for this is, for example, that institutional autonomy is to be exercised in tandem with public accountability. Another is that the Ministry's oversight role does not involve responsibility for the micromanagement of institutions.
I am under great pressure to micromanage institutions, which I, in fact, refuse to do.
A third implication is that the Ministry will undertake its role in a transparent manner.
Therefore, what members see under subsection 3 is the acquisition of authority to do things in the public interest, not to micromanage. One must always refer to the public interest. Therefore, it is a South African solution for South African issues that we are raising. We are not talking about Mongolia, the United States or the United Kingdom. The powers of intervention by the Minister are much greater in the United Kingdom. Those who have the nostalgic view that anything that happens in the United Kingdom is the best of all possible worlds, well, I can tell them that the intervention powers of the secretary of State for Education in the United Kingdom are much greater than here. So the model we are proposing is consistent with our approach.
There have been objections in the other House to this amendment, and I hope hon members will not regurgitate the objections made in the National Assembly. I hope they will find very creative and innovative ways of objecting to this provision. One objection is that it gives me enormous powers that are contrary to the principle of institutional autonomy. It is alleged that the amendment will provide the Minister with what we call ``Draconian powers'' to overcome, by executive decree, the private Acts of universities.
The main thrust of this objection is that the proposed new subsection contravenes the principle of autonomy which is upheld by the preamble to the 1997 Act. This is misleading since no principle, in the sense of a statement having universal or unconditional application, is in fact built into the preamble. There is no such thing as absolute autonomy anywhere in the world. Certainly it is not in the preamble to the 1997 Act. The principle to which the Government is committed, and to which I am committed, is the principle of academic freedom, which cannot be equated with institutional autonomy, namely the right to write and research, by reference to what one honestly thinks in good faith to be the product of one's research, however controversial, difficult or impertinent it may be. That is the academic freedom which South African institutions are not notorious for exercising, and certainly were not notorious for exercising before 1994. But, for us, academic freedom is enormously important.
The 1997 White Paper says that academic freedom is one of the fundamental principles that must guide the process of higher education transformation in South Africa. So, academic freedom, which is a fundamental right protected by the Act, has to do with the pursuit and practice of academic work, be it teaching, research and community service - of which there is very little - without interference. On the other hand, the concept of autonomy - which is very important - is concerned with the relationship which holds between the state and higher education institutions, in particular the ways in which the state manages or steers the public higher education system. So the concepts of academic freedom and autonomy are not identical.
In education our approach has been to entrench the principle of academic freedom. Some of the professors, in the exercise of their academic freedom, write the most extraordinary things about the Government and the President, although these may have nothing to do with their research or the work they are doing. One must bear this with all the equanimity and tolerance one can generate. But all higher education institutions must have limits or conditions imposed on their autonomy. This is a practice of all publicly funded education systems everywhere in the world. I must remind the Democratic Alliance of the fact that the 1997 Act explicitly says that higher education institutions in South Africa have conditional autonomy. It makes it quite clear, out of an honesty which is rare in governments, that no principle of autonomy can exempt either a higher education institution or the system as a whole from meeting the transformation goals that the Government is committed to and which the community expects.
There is a clear indication that the higher education system is moving only slowly towards meeting the goals and objectives of transformation. In fact, some institutions are not moving at all. They set up satellite campuses outside the main, beautifully green campuses, because the blacks can go to the Vaal Triangle, which is far away from those very sylvan surroundings of the institutions. That is not in fact meeting the needs of transformation because transformation is really the internalisation of the change that is required. So we support the analysis of the Council on Higher Education that we must have transformation. It is clear that the higher education system is not meeting the national transformation needs.
On gender grounds, the appointment system in higher education institutions is appalling. Where are the senior professors who are women, black, white, green or indifferent? Where are the senior lecturers who are women? Where are the consultants in the teaching hospitals who are women? It is only easy to find women in higher education under a microscope compared to the glory of looking at this House and the National Assembly. Therefore, the amendment gives the Minister of Education the discretion to address that laissez faire - leave alone - development that has characterised higher education recently. It does so while fully respecting the principles of academic freedom and co-operative governance, and I am firmly committed to that.
Now to move to the second key area addressed in the amending Bill, and this is a very serious matter. It is common cause that a number of higher education institutions are facing serious financial problems. Some institutions are beginning to grapple with the financial difficulties in very clear, original ways while others have posted such large overdrafts with financial institutions that these are threatening the very survival of these institutions. They are businesses that can be liquidated under the Companies Act. The Government has to take steps to protect the substantial investment that the taxpayer has made in South Africa's public higher education system.
Therefore, the proposed amendments to section 40 of the 1997 Higher Education Act are designed precisely to do that. Public investment in higher education is considerable. Nearly all the land, buildings and much of the teaching and research equipment on the 36 public universities and technikons in South Africa have been purchased with the assistance of substantial government funding. Therefore, the amendment recognises that public universities and technikons have to enter into legally binding contracts. However, it says that before they enter into contracts, loan or overdraft agreements, which involve either the construction of a permanent building or any other immovable development, the purchase of immovable property and the long-term lease of immovable property, they must do something - the council must agree.
Do members know that at one higher education institution the vice chancellor built an enormous administrative block, totalling about R12 million without the council knowing about it? One cannot have this kind of development in which individuals decide on behalf of institutions, however leading luminaries they may be. They may be graduates of leading universities of the world, but we want transparency. The Minister's approval must be obtained if certain limits are exceeded by the raising of a loan or overdraft. The limits, which I will come to in my reply to the debate, are very reasonable.
Objections have been raised to the effect that these new requirements will significantly alter the right of institutions to enter into legally binding contracts and will have a severe impact on the institutions. The response is straightforward. The Minister clearly has an obligation to ensure that public funds are employed properly and responsibly everywhere, in historically white or historically black universities.
In response to the second part, many other countries have requirements of this kind without affecting the higher education institutions. For example, in the United Kingdom, the higher education funding council, which operates as an agent of the government, lays down a detailed set of conditions that must be met. There, if they exceed 4% of total income, they must report this to the council first. We talk about 5% here.
So I ask this House to remember that the conditions we are laying down are less onerous and stringent than they are in the United Kingdom.
Finally, the amending Bill strengthens the regulatory framework for the operation of private higher education institutions. There is an overwhelming demand from our public in South Africa - the real public, not the chattering classes only - that there must be a real regulation of private higher education institutions, particularly overseas institutions that are coming here to make a profit out of our educational system and not to participate in the great development of South Africa. If they are coming here to make profits, then we must treat them separately, differently, from South African private higher education institutions.
That is what we are trying to do: distinguish between the local and foreign institutions. No country, particularly a Third World country, can afford to sit back and watch its future and the sustainability of its higher education system threatened by foreign institutions that are looking for new markets, which is what they are doing. It is a market thing; it is treating education as a commodity. We take a slightly different view.
Therefore I commend this important Bill, as we commended it to the National Assembly, and I hope that the Council will bear in mind the very significant improvements it will make to protect the public interest as far as higher education is concerned. [Applause.]
I call upon the hon member D M Kgware to address the House. [Interjections.] I am told there have been some changes. I now call upon Mrs J Witbooi to address the House.
Chairperson, hon Minister and hon members, the New NP has a few concerns regarding this Bill, and the first one is clause 2. This clause makes provision for the Minister, in terms of the policy, and in the interest of the higher education system as a whole, to determine the scope and range of operations of public higher education institutions, private higher education institutions and individual public or private higher education institutions.
With regard to clause 4, although the amendment stems from a desire to address the financial irregularities at some institutions, the impact of the proposed amendments on those institutions that do not make themselves guilty of financial mismanagement should be considered. The solution, in our view, lies in good governance by all higher education institutions.
Our concern with regard to clause 7 is that this amendment is most probably unconstitutional, since it infringes on the right to establish and maintain educational institutions. If there are valid reasons for which an application by private education providers may be refused, these must be expressly set out and prescribed. They may then be tested against the limitation provision in section 36 of the Constitution. The New NP cannot support this Bill.
Chairperson, hon Minister, hon special delegates, hon colleagues, it is with understandable trepidation, this being exam time, that I have to state that the DP also does not support the Higher Education Amendment Bill.
Some of the salient features of the Bill are as follows. Firstly, the Bill seeks to extend the power of the Minister of Education in determining higher education policy. Secondly, the process of the filling of vacancies in the council is to be left in the hands of the Minister. Thirdly, the higher education institutions may not enter into a loan or overdraft agreement without the prior approval of the council and, in some instances, without the Minister's concurrence. Fourthly, the Bill is further amended to make provision for the registration of private higher education institutions, registration requirements and the determination of applicants for their registration.
On the technical side, the Bill also seeks to amend the Act so as to prevent the abuse of terms such as ``university'', ``technikon'', ``rector'', ``chancellor'' and ``vice-chancellor'', applicable to private higher education institutions, thus making it an offence for those outside the periphery of registered private higher education institutions to use these terms, and to allow the council of a public higher education institution to change its name without the approval of the Minister.
Like my colleague from the New NP, I must also express some concern on behalf of the DP, especially with the amendment of section 3 of Act 101 of 1997, in terms of which the Minister of Education may determine the scope and range of operations of both public and private higher education institutions, including individual public and private higher education institutions.
The amendment to section 40 in particular is also a matter of concern. The proposal that ministerial approval of loans and overdraft agreements become obligatory attacks the ramparts of the independence and autonomy of the council of an institution, thereby emasculating its ability to govern the institution properly and effectively.
Let me hasten to add that the DP acknowledges the absolute necessity to address serious financial misdemeanours committed at certain institutions, but do we have to harass those institutions that are steering clear of nefarious financial practices? It would be a fallacy to suggest that only a ministerial veto can ensure sound governance at a higher education institution.
In any case, the Minister does have his finger on the pulse already, by virtue of the fact that the Council for Higher Education is obliged to report to the Minister, and the Minister plays an important role in the appointment of members of the Council for Higher Education. So it is not as if the Minister is going to be left in limbo. The Minister will be kept au fait with all that is going on at any public higher education institution.
When one further considers the fact that the existing Act prescribes proper record-keeping and full reporting to the Minister on all matters affecting financial affairs, we find it difficult to accept the amendment to section 40.
Owing to these serious concerns, the DP chooses to withhold its support for this Bill. [Interjections.]
Chairperson, hon Minister, colleagues, special delegates, let me start by indicating that the committee met on the 10th and looked into the Higher Education Amendment Bill. Of course, it is true that at the meeting only one party indicated its concern, and that was the New NP. However, we all accepted the Bill without amendment. That is the position of the committee.
Higher education is one of the greatest challenges confronting society in the new millennium. Higher education is faced with the challenge of preparing itself to fulfil its mission adequately in a world which is transforming, and to meet the needs and requirements of the 21st century society, which will be knowledgeable, by means of information and education.
Its paramount mission is to serve the human being and society through its work of research and inquiry, its courses of study and training, and its partnership with various social actors. Higher education is called upon to make a key contribution to the opening up and highlighting of new paths for a better future for society and the individual in order to give direction and shape to that future. For this standpoint, it has a twofold mission and that is, firstly, to participate actively in the solving of major global, regional and local problems such as poverty, hunger, illiteracy, social exclusion, the exacerbation of inequalities at national and international levels, the widening of the gap between industrialised and developing countries, and protection of the environment; and, secondly, to assist in drawing up proposals and recommendations to promote universal respect for human rights, equal rights for women and men, justice and the application of democratic principles within its own institutions in society and foster understanding among nations, religions and cultural groups.
Given the important role of higher education, it has become necessary for us as a country to rethink education as a whole - and that has been done. The levels or forms of education, including higher education, can no longer be regarded as truly final. Its structures and courses should not remain fixed at the same place, but should also evolve in order to respond to the evolution of our society.
We know very well what happened when the programme to transform education in our institutions of higher learning was implemented. We saw in the newspapers some people running around criticising that type of a thing. That indicated that within our society there were still people who are not yet ready to accept change and that the question of changing the mind-set also needs to be addressed. People need to read progressive documents, not only old documents of the past, but also documents on research that has been done so that one can equip oneself with the actual information. We still remember what happened in 1976 with regard to education, and that kind of scenario should always be kept in mind whenever we look into education.
This is particularly true given the gross distortions and inequities that existed prior to 1994. These included a lack of equity in the distribution of resources to institutions, enormous disparities between historically black and historically white institutions in terms of facilities and capacities, skewed distribution of students in certain disciplines with no more than a handful of black students in fields such as the sciences, engineering and technology. In addition, the governance structures were characterised by fragmentation, inefficiency and ineffectiveness. Since the enactment of the Higher Education Act, significant progress has been made in addressing the above distortions and broadening access in higher education. Yet, despite the broadening of access, inequalities still exist. The reasons for these inequalities are numerous, including geographical, economic and social factors, in particular those affecting women, the rural population and various disadvantaged groups such as the disabled.
In some of the provinces, for example, there are no institutions of higher learning. Many children have to go to universities in other provinces. This has enormous financial implications for their families because, not only must they cover tuition fees, but they must also cover accommodation expenses. The sad thing about this is that most of our talented matriculants come from poor families. Many of them will not be able to get bursaries, which means that higher education is denied them, purely because of their social and economic status. Every matriculant should have the right to go to university, and their decision whether to go to university or not should be a free choice and not forced upon them by virtue of their social and economic status or geographical location. This will help us to understand the situation in higher education. I would like to make a special appeal to all of us as public representatives. There are documents that we have been given and we have received reports from the Department of Education, and we have gone through some documents on the review of education. It is up to us now as public representatives to educate our structures on the ground, particularly in the provinces, so that we start to understand the content in those particular documents - that is our duty.
I am addressing this to members of the opposition. Whenever we have a debate, we make a point without actually having read the information in the research document, and that is why we sometimes clash with one another. I would like to make a special appeal to colleagues that, yes, it is time for local government elections, but let us not turn education into a cheap politicking tool. Let us go into the implementation of these programmes of transforming higher education to assist the Government in terms of such implementing. [Applause.]
Mr Chairperson, a very famous philosopher in the 12th century once said: ``Please God, make me virtuous, but not yet.'' I get the impression here that people from the New NP and the DP want to be part of this process, but they want to speak for special vested interests. Therefore the hold of the special interests denies them the capacity to be part of the great movement.
They want to speak for all the people with outstretched or semioutstretched hands. But they do not define all the people in the way that we would like to. They go into the townships and they want to get the township votes now that ethnic mobilisation by the New NP is taking place. They will go to the townships to get votes from the blacks, but they will not go to the schools and universities where racial incidents are taking place. They will not go and talk about transformation and the need for tolerance and understanding.
The implication of what is taking place here is that the historically black universities need treatment and they need control of their financial matters, but that is a myth. I regret to say it is a racist myth, because if one looks at the details of what is happening, one will see a new world of segregative provisions for halls of residence in one university because they think that typically the slave-hearts would like it that way. The powers of intervention that I have at present are enormous, and I say this to the faint-hearted. Through the purse, the allocation of resources - the only allocation that I make, is the 14% of the education budget to higher education - I can control what they do. I do not wish to do that, because it is nontransparent. Under this provision here, I have to consult the Council for Higher Education. I would like to say to Mr Raju that the Council for Higher Education is not a know-all organisation. It does not know what is going on in every institution. In fact, the small staff that I have know what is happening in virtually all the institutions. The council is an advisory body that represents interests. Therefore I will consult them, as I am consulting them on language policy and on the shape and size of our education. They have written their report in this regard, and by January I shall write my response to them. I have not decided on my response, unlike some opinion-makers, but I am going to follow the attempt laid down there. I am not saying that I will reject it, but I am now looking at the 61 submissions made on this.
I say to the DP and the New NP that they have to look very concretely at this. The New NP does not state reasons why they object. They assert what they are doing. Mr Raju, on the other hand, reverses the arguments raised in the National Assembly with no evidence of engagement with issues at all.
I have been open to meeting them to debate the difference between autonomy and academic freedom, and there is a real difference. We should go through chapter and verse to look at these real distinctions. We must advance the whole issue of academic freedom.
I would like to tell Mr Kgware that part of the refashioning is to look at the interests of Mpumalanga and the Northern Cape. There are so many satellite institutions set up. There are at least three universities and technikons in Mpumalanga. It is highly irresponsible that there should be satellite institutions without reference to a framework, because we are not a rich country.
Businesspeople give endowments to the historically white universities, but they do not give endowments to the historically black universities. They are not interested in places like Mpumalanga and the Northern Cape. We will have institutions of higher learning, providing we can rationalise, providing we have power to change and move. Now, finally, I must tell hon members and this House that there is no free ride or entitlement to higher education. The Constitution does not say that everyone has a right to higher education. It depends on their needs.
We are spending R270 million - that is a real redress - a year, to provide for the grants and the loans to students. These are all done through universities and technikons. No student in need who has academic potential should ever be denied a scholarship or a bursary, but beyond that we cannot go. Beyond that we have the two Bills. We have to invest money in Abet and in technical high schools. However, we must not give the impression that there is a free ride to higher education. We must support those institutions that object to students who have no academic capacity who insist on studying there for four or five years.
I end by saying that this is a very important debate. It allows us to look at other issues of higher education. When my proposals go to the Cabinet, I undertake that I will also bring them to this House, as I promised to the National Assembly, and we will have a debate here, in this House, before any final decisions are taken. That is the spirit in which we will work. That is the spirit in which this amending Bill will be operated by me and by my successors, because we must take into account the actual needs of our country, rather than some ideological interest that one may have - one's commitment to private higher education institutions, or one's commitment to those who give money to one's party for the purposes of fighting elections.
This is not our interest. Our interest is in the best interests of our young people, and particularly the institutions that exist in our country. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Bill agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution (New National Party and Democratic Party dissenting).