Hon Speaker, Cabinet colleagues, Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Higher Education and Training, hon members, I believe that the Further Education and Training Colleges Amendment Bill before us today is an important piece of legislation towards strengthening and repositioning the further education and training, FET, college sector to be at the centre of skills development in our country, especially to absorb the millions of our youth who have finished school or have completed a certain minimum number of years at school.
This legislation must be seen within the context of many other measures being undertaken by my department to strengthen and realign institutions in the postschool education and training landscape, especially the closer alignment of FET colleges with employers, in both the public and private sectors, the sector education and training authorities, Setas, as well as the universities and trade unions.
Hon Speaker and hon members, you are well aware that the establishment of the Department of Higher Education and Training, following the proclamation by the President in 2009, necessitated the shifting of the functions of both adult education and training as well as FET colleges from the provincial education departments to our department. This shift in functions is proceeding and will go hand in hand with the implementation of the amendments to the Bill. We have also set up the appropriate transition mechanisms. I also wish to inform you that this Bill has been preceded by expressions by all nine MECs of education of unanimous support for the presidential proclamation, as well as the signing of the memorandum of understanding between the nine MECs and me. The national FET summit held last year, representing all the key stakeholders, as well as representatives from the nine provincial governments, unanimously endorsed the shift of responsibility for FET colleges to the Department of Higher Education and Training.
The second goal of this legislation is to regularise the employment of college staff in order to provide stability and enhance retention of staff employed at FET colleges. This will be a major improvement in our work towards the development and expansion of a vibrant college sector.
To date the sector has not been able to effectively retain its skilled workforce because jobs in colleges are seen as not being secure. The exodus of experienced and qualified staff from the sector, mainly as a result of the change in their conditions of employment, has made it difficult to achieve the important goal of building a skilled workforce in the country.
The amendments to the Bill therefore provide the opportunity for the majority of staff in the college sector to be employees of the state. Their conditions of service will be regulated in terms of the Public Service Act in the same way as is provided for for other professionals working for the state.
It is worth reflecting on the dual role of the department and colleges as employers. This existed before the current legislation and it is desirable to have that status retained, enabling colleges to create additional posts and act as an employer where necessary.
However, the majority of staff in a college will now be employed by the state. Even college-employed staff cannot have unfavourable conditions of service when compared to their counterparts who are employed by the state. This Bill will also resolve the current complexity of the bargaining process and the new legislation will ensure that only the Minister may provide the mandate on issues of mutual interest.
Let me take this opportunity to thank Adv Malale, the chairperson of the portfolio committee, and the members of his committee for the good work they have done. I also want to thank the director-general and senior staff members in my department, as well as all the stakeholders who have participated with us on this journey to transform the FET college sector to respond better to our skills needs.
Hon Chairperson, Ministers, Deputy Ministers, hon members, ladies and gentlemen, I greet you. The split of the Department of Education into two Ministries necessitated the amendment of the Further Education and Training Colleges Act of 2006.
Today we are gathered here to debate, among other things, the Further Education and Training Colleges Amendment Bill, which seeks to amend the Act in order to remove all references to provincial authority and at the same time to propose certain other related amendments.
The amendments to the principal Act were both technical and substantive. As a legislative requirement, the Portfolio Committee on Higher Education and Training invited participation through written submissions. We received responses mainly from the trade unions, universities, Higher Education South Africa, Hesa, FET councils, provincial departments of education, especially the FET directorates, and also student unions. They played a very important role in the discussions.
Public hearings were held for two weeks. Interested parties came and shared their concerns with the committee regarding some sections and expressed appreciation for and support of other sections of the Bill.
We noted the robustness and the passion of the discussions during the public hearings. It really showed that everyone was concerned about the impact the Bill will have on the stability of the FET colleges, given the fact that FET colleges have undergone a series of changes in the past, some of which were not well received and had a negative impact on the stability of the sector. We believe, however, that this Bill will bring much-awaited stability.
There were clauses that were of concern, such as clauses 11 to 13 and clause 34, which deal mainly with the appointment of staff employed by the state in terms of the Public Service Act; the appointment of staff by the college as a dual system to staff appointment by the state; and the bargaining councils, to deal with the conditions of service of the employees.
All stakeholders supported the proposed amendments but raised concerns and suggestions. Here are a few of those concerns. The first was the capacity of FET college councils to serve as employers. It was noted that they lacked capacity and it was proposed that intervention would be required to ensure that this did not jeopardise the staff in any way during the transitional period. The second was that the dual system of staff appointment might result in disparity in conditions of service, because of employees being appointed under different categories.
Lastly, it was not clear how the Minister of Higher Education and Training would have jurisdiction over staff appointed in terms of the Public Service Act without the consent of the Minister for the Public Service and Administration.
It was then proposed that the Public Service Act would need to be amended so that it allowed the Minister of Higher Education and Training to determine conditions of service of staff appointed under the Minister of Higher Education and Training. However, we did get a guarantee from the state law advisers that there would not be any disparities in terms of the conditions of service of either category.
Though we were pressed for time to complete the Bill, all the necessary processes were followed. We did justice to the Bill and all political parties represented in the committee debated the Bill in the spirit of team work and of bringing much-needed stability to the sector.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank all the members of the Portfolio Committee on Higher Education and Training for investing their time and bringing the necessary knowledge of the sector into the discussions. Your fearless participation made this document what it is today. It is a document that we will be proud of throughout our lives.
I would like to thank the state law advisers and the parliamentary legal advisers for working overtime to make sure that we complete this process in time. In particular, we would like to thank the University of Cape Town. We appreciate their making themselves available to help with the reformulation of the definition of the concept "conflict of interest" when requested by the committee to do so.
I now present the motion of desirability, which the entire committee agreed upon: It is the opinion of the committee that legislation is desirable to amend the Further Education and Training Colleges Act of 2006, so that it removes all references to provincial authority; assigns functions previously assigned to the members of the executive council to the Minister; ensures all references to "head of department" are replaced with "director-general"; regulates the conduct of the members of the council and staff of a public FET college engaging in business with the relevant public college; provides afresh for the appointment of staff and provides for the transitional arrangements; and lastly, provides for the matters connected therewith.
Lastly, I take this opportunity to thank everybody who participated in this process to make sure that the Bill is a success. As the ANC, we support the Bill and urge all the parties to support it as well.
Hon Speaker and members, I want to start off by congratulating the newly appointed Director-General of the Department of Higher Education and Training, Mr Gwebinkundla Qonde, on his recent appointment. As I hope to show in my speech, he will be faced with an enormous task as far as the FET colleges are concerned.
May I also start off by pointing out that this Bill contains clauses that are deemed to be unconstitutional. These are clauses that were to be catered for in the Constitution Eighteenth Amendment Bill, which was to serve this morning.
The DA believes that training provided at FET colleges has a significant role to play in an open-opportunity society. The Bill that is currently serving before this House will, however, transfer control to the national Minister and will close down many of the opportunities for colleges allowed for in the current legislation.
We are particularly opposed to the transfer of colleges as a concurrent function with the provinces, to a position in which the colleges will become the sole responsibility of the national Department of Higher Education and Training. As I will show later, this is putting the wolf in charge of the sheep.
The substitution of section 20 of the principal Act will, in future, see the bulk of college employees employed in posts on the organisational structure of the national Department of Higher Education and Training. Central control is in direct contradiction to an open opportunity society. It will close the opportunities for college councils to attract staff with exceptional competencies and scarce skills.
Ons besef Minister Nzimande moes iets doen om die openbare kolleges reg te ruk. Wanneer die geskiedenis van Suid-Afrika oor 'n paar dekades geskryf word, sal die verval van ons openbare kolleges in daardie geskiedenisboek beskryf word as een van die groot mislukkings van hierdie regering.
Die wetsontwerp wat ons vandag debatteer, sal hierdie hartseerverhaal van openbare kolleges net verleng. Die kern van die huidige probleme het meer met swak bestuur as swak wetgewing te doen. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[We realise that Minister Nzimande had to do something to straighten out public colleges. When South Africa's history is written a couple of decades from now, the deterioration of our public colleges will be described in that history book as one of the biggest failures of this government.
The Bill that we are debating here today will only prolong this sad story about public colleges. The essence of the current problems is more an issue of poor management than of poor legislation.] What we see today is a turnaround of a previous turnaround in legislation. We are called to turn back to a previous situation, where public colleges differed only slightly in their management model and service delivery from public schools.
In 2006, in this House, it was argued that public colleges needed the space and funding in order to attract some of the most knowledgeable technicians and artisans from the private sector. That space may be closed down today. The majority of college staff will be transferred to the Public Service, with its fixed salary scales and service conditions. Many will leave the system and, unfortunately, many of these staff members would be those who have numerous opportunities in the private sector.
Minister Pandor, in haar termyn as Minister van Onderwys, het ho ideale vir ons land se VOO-kolleges gekoester. Sy wou graag sien dat die kolleges ware gemeenskapskolleges sou wees, wat hul programme sou aanpas by plaaslike behoeftes. Hulle sou dwarsdeur die jaar, elke dag en elke aand, vir lang ure oop wees. Deur die dag sou jong studente en werkloses kwalifikasies kon verwerf, terwyl diegene met ander verpligtinge gedurende die dag, saans en oor naweke hul kennis en vaardighede sou kon verbeter. In die proses sou ons die duur infrastruktuur van kolleges veel beter kon benut. Maar, soos in 2006 ook geredeneer is, ons Staatsdiensregulasies maak nie genoegsaam voorsiening vir die buigbaarheid wat so 'n model verg nie.
Minister Pandor wou graag 'n entrepreneuriese gees in die bestuur van hierdie kolleges aanmoedig. Sy wou graag sien dat die kolleges vinnig by die veranderende behoeftes van 'n veranderende arbeidsmark moes kon aanpas en dat hulle genoeg vryheid moes h om hor salarisse vir goeie opleiers met skaars vaardighede te kon betaal. Daarom het sy, kragtens die wet van 2006, juis die kern van die personeel van die staat se diens na die kollegerade se diens laat oordra.
As Minister Pandor gekritiseer moet word, sal dit wees omdat daardie wet nie ver genoeg gegaan het om kollegerade ten volle te bemagtig nie. Byvoorbeeld, ten einde steeds direkte en lynfunksiebeheer oor die kolleges te behou, het die vorige wet bepaal dat die senior personeel steeds in die staat se diens sou bly. Wat 'n fout was dit nie! Skielik was dit vir hierdie senior bestuurders van kolleges nie 'n prioriteit om pensioen- en mediese voordele vir hul personeel te beding nie.
Die rede vir die agteruitgang van die kolleges moet nie net by die hoofde en hul beskermde posisies gesoek word nie. Die nasionale Departement van Onderwys en, sedert 2009, die nasionale Departement van Hor Onderwys en Opleiding het 'n groot aandeel in die agteruitgang van ons openbare kolleges gehad.
Dit is 'n vorige nasionale Minister wat bepaal het dat die kolleges moes amalgameer en, in die proses, die koste van kollege-onderwys veelvoudig verhoog het. Dit is die nasionale departement wat, na vyf jaar se gesloer, nog steeds nie 'n geskikte finansieringsmodel vir VOO-kolleges kon invoer nie. Dit is die nasionale departement wat steeds nie behoorlik voorsiening maak vir finansiering van onderrig op die n-matriekvlak nie.
Dit is die nasionale Minister wat, jare gelede, by wyse van 'n afkondiging in die Staatskoerant, verklaar het dat die kolleges hul N1- tot N6- opleidingsprogramme moes uitfaseer, welwetend dat alternatiewe programme nie in hul plek ontwikkel was nie. Dit is die nasionale onderwysdepartement wat die nuwe nasionale sertifikaatprogramme vir beroepsgerigte opleiding, ook bekend as NCV, met hul uitermate ho druipsyfers, ingevoer het.
Dit is die nasionale eksamenafdeling wat eksamenuitslae eers bekend maak nadat leerders reeds vir die hereksamens moes registreer, en wat sukkel om sertifikate binne 'n billike tyd aan leerders te verskaf.
Dit was ongelukkig die provinsies wat die vrae en woede van ouers en leerders moes hanteer. Geen wonder dus dat al die provinsiale Ministers, toe hulle die keuse gegee was, ingestem het dat die nasionale Minister dan maar die verantwoordelikheid vir die kolleges ten volle moet aanvaar.
Ons jong mense verdien beter. Suid-Afrikaners wat smag na beter opleidingsgeleenthede moet weet dat dit nie die bestaande wette is wat ons kolleges in hierdie haglike situasie laat beland het nie. Dit is die nasionale regering se swak bestuur wat hierdie bal laat val het.
Nou wil Minister Nzimande, soos dit die sekretaris-generaal van die Suid- Afrikaanse Kommunistiese Party betaam, mag oor kolleges in Pretoria sentraliseer. Sentrale beheer het in die res van die wreld nie gewerk nie en, net soos met ander uitgediende konsepte soos uitkomsgebaseerde onderwys, wil ons weer agter uitgediende konsepte aan hardloop.
Hierdie wetsontwerp sal nuwe onsekerhede vir die kollegesektor skep en hul gesukkel verleng. Die DA kan nie hierdie wetsontwerp steun nie. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Minister Pandor, during her term as Minister of Education, had high hopes for our country's FET colleges. She eagerly wanted to see that these colleges would be real community colleges, which would adapt their programmes to local needs. Every day and every night, throughout the year, they would have remained open for extended hours. During the day young students and the unemployed would have been able to study towards obtaining qualifications, while those with other obligations during the day would have been able to improve their knowledge and skills in the evenings and over weekends. In the process, we would have been able to utilise the costly infrastructure of colleges in a much better way. But, as was also argued in 2006, our Public Service regulations do not make sufficient provision for the flexibility that such a model requires.
Minister Pandor was keen to encourage an entrepreneurial spirit in the management of these colleges. She wanted to see these colleges having the capacity to adapt quickly to the changing needs of a changing labour market, and having sufficient autonomy to be able to pay higher salaries to good educators with scarce skills. That is precisely why, in terms of the 2006 Act, she had the core staff transferred from the Public Service to serve on the college councils.
If Minister Pandor has to be criticised, it would be because that Act did not go far enough to empower college councils fully. For example, in order to still retain direct and line function control over colleges, the previous Act stipulated that senior personnel would remain within the Public Service. What a mistake this has been! All of a sudden negotiating pension and medical benefits for their staff members no longer seemed to be a priority for senior managers of colleges.
The deterioration of these colleges should be attributed not only to the principals and their protected positions. The national Department of Education and, since 2009, the national Department of Higher Education and Training, played an important role in the deterioraton of our public colleges.
It was a former national Minister who determined that the colleges should be merged, which resulted in multiple increases in the cost of college education in the process. It is the national department that, after a delay of five years, still hasn't set up a suitable funding model for FET colleges. It is the national department that is still not making adequate provision for the funding of education after matric level.
It is the national Minister who, by way of an announcement in the Government Gazette, declared years ago that the colleges should phase out their N1 to N6 training programmes, knowing full well that alternative programmes had not been developed in their stead. It is the national Department of Education that introduced the new national certificate vocational programmes, also known as NCV programmes, which have extremely high failure rates.
It is the national examination section that is making the examination results public only after learners are required to have registered for the supplementary examinations already, and that is struggling to provide certificates to learners within a reasonable period.
Unfortunately, it was the provinces that had to deal with the questions and anger of both parents and learners. No wonder, therefore, that when all the provincial Ministers were presented with a choice, they agreed that the national Minister should duly take full responsibility for the colleges.
Our young people deserve better. South Africans who are yearning for better training opportunities should be aware of the fact that it is not because of the existing legislation that our colleges have ended up in this precarious position. It is the result of poor management by national government.
Now Minister Nzimande, as befits the general secretary of the South African Communist Party, wants to centralise power over colleges in Pretoria. Centralised power did not work in the rest of the world and, as in the case of other outdated concepts such as outcomes-based education, we want to chase after outdated concepts once again.
This Bill will create new uncertainties for the college sector and will prolong their struggle. The DA cannot support this Bill. [Applause.]]
I must start with the disclaimer that I am a new member of this committee. Much of what I know about this Bill has been passed on to me by my colleagues, but be that as it may, I think we can start off by saying that we do agree with the Minister that these are very important institutions. I think that is where the agreement ends, because unfortunately the position of government in this Bill is one that basically says, "to centralise is to improve - there are many instances where centralisation works".
We are not opposed to centralisation as a principle, but the problems of these very important institutions are myriad. They require vision, sensitivity, investment and real commitment and, as my colleague from the DA has said, these are supposed to be real community institutions. They are not supposed to be appendages of the leviathan. So, with that in mind, we undertook some work to look at what has been the track record of the department in terms of its own management, given that it now wants to take control of these institutions. Unfortunately, it's not a good one, because the Minister's own department is a good example of what can go wrong when you put all the power in one place.
Apart from all the problems he has had with his director-general, and the removal of that particular person, the exiting of top staff in the department and the problems at the sector education and training authorities, Setas, are further examples of where the tendency to direct power to the centre has failed. The problems in the Setas have increased rather than being dealt with. A similar problem is the National Student Financial Aid Scheme, NSFAS - here, an institution that had a number of problems has gone from bad to worse as the Minister and his department appropriated power and responsibility from the board.
Our sense is that, while the intentions of government may be good and a genuine sense of wanting to make these colleges work is being verbalised, what is contained in this Bill is going to take us in exactly the opposite direction.
Another example would be the regularisation of the conditions of service of staff. We would agree with that, but why make these people employees of the state? You can make provision for the regularisation of conditions of service without making people employees of the state. What it means is that they would be taking instruction directly from Pretoria rather than from the constituency they are meant to serve. With all that in mind, we as Cope cannot support this Bill.
Hon Speaker, may I request those members who don't understand isiZulu to pick up their devices?
Umbuzo okufanele sizibuze wona uma sibuka lo Mthethosivivinywa ukuthi yini eyenza ukuthi amakolishi, kuze kube manje, angawufezi umsebenzi lo okufanele awufeze wokuletha imfundo esezingeni eliphakeme nokuqeqesha intsha ngamakhono. Impendulo ithi amakolishi kuze kube manje awanabo othisha abaqeqeshwe ezingeni elanele. Okwesibili, amakolishi lawa awanazo izinsiza kusebenza ezanele. Umbuzo olandelayo uthi-ke, lo Mthethosivivinywa njengoba uhlongozwa ukuthi othisha, uma usudlulile kuleNdlu, kufanele baqashwe uMnyango. Thina njenge- IFP siyakuvuma yini lokho na? Mangisho ukuthi siyakuvuma ukuthi othisha abaqashwe uMnyango ngoba kuze kube yimanje othisha bebeqashwa yizigungu zamakolishi, awukho umehluko owenzekileyo. Bekuthi uma sikhala ngothisha abangaqeqeshiwe, uma siya kuwo uMnyango siwubuze ukuthi kwenzenjani? UMnyango uchaye izandla uthi "akudokwe lethu lelo, yinto lena eqondene nezifundazwe".
Yingakho-ke sithi sicela ukuthi sibone umehluko uma othisha sebeqashwa uMnyango. Nakuba sinovalo-ke mhlonishwa ukuthi uma seniqasha othisha, kungenzeki lokhu okwenzeka eMnyagweni wezeMfundo, kuqashwe abantu baqashelwe ezikhundleni ezingabafanele. Akuqashwe abantu ezikhundleni abanamakhona okuziphatha. Ngakho-ke ningasidumazi ngokweseka lo Mthethosivivinywa nisebenzisa lokhu kuqasha ngokubonelela.
Okwesithathu, okuphathwa yilo Mthethosivivinywa esikwesekelayo ukuthi izisebenzi eziqashwe uMnyango noma amakolishi zingazibandakanyi emisebenzini esuke yenziwa yikolishi. Lokho siyahambisana nakho ngoba inkohlakalo iningi lapha emnyango. Uma umuntu eqashwe ikhansela noma eyisisebenzi sekolishi abuye futhi atholakale esesesigungwini lesi esiqashayo kumbe esinikeza abantu amathenda. Lokho kwenza kube khona inkohlakalo, yingakho siweseka lo Mthethosivivinywa. Ngiyabonga Somlomo. [Ihlombe.] (Translation of isiZulu paragraphs follows.)
[The question that we must ask ourselves when we look at the Bill is why the colleges are not accomplishing their goal of ensuring a high level of training with regard to equipping the youth with some skills. The answer is that, up to now, the colleges have not had well-trained lecturers.
Secondly, these colleges do not have adequate resources. The next question is, as this Bill suggests that lecturers must be employed by the department: Do we as the IFP agree with that? Let me say that we agree that lecturers must be employed by the department because up to now lecturers were employed by the college executives and there has been no difference. When we complained to the department about untrained lecturers and asked what had gone wrong, we were told that it is not their responsibility, but that of the provinces.
That is why we request to see the difference when the lecturers are employed by the department. Even though we are nervous, hon Minister, we want to caution that when you employ lecturers you must avoid what happened at the department, where people were given positions they did not deserve. Let suitable people who will be able to cope in those positions be employed.
Thirdly, what is mentioned in this Bill, which we also support, is that people who are employed by the department should not be part of the work that is done by the college where they are employed. We support that because there's a lot of corruption out there. If a person is employed by a councillor or is a college employee and he is part of a panel that is recruiting people or that awards tenders, that might lead to corruption and that is why we support the Bill. Thank you. [Applause.]]
Somlomo, Indvuna, emalunga lahlon, ngitsandza kutsi nangita langembili ngibeke lokwekutsi kuye kuhluphe lokutsi bantfu nabeta lapha ngembili batewunyembenya nje bangayati intfo lebayikhulumako. Umuntfu longakaze ete ekomidini afike atewukhuluma emaphosiso lapha embikwebantfu labahlonipheke kangaka, uyahlupha.
Lilunga lelihlon, Umnu. Dexter kwangatsi angetama kutsi ahlanganyele kanye natsi atekwati kutivela ngetindlebe takhe tintfo letikhulunywa kulemihlangano lesiyibambako. (Translation of Siswati paragraphs follows.)
[Mr G S RADEBE: Speaker, hon Minister, hon members, as I come before you, I want to point out that it is not good that when people are given the platform, they just criticise for the sake of criticising. A person who has never attended a committee meeting comes and tells falsehoods in front of these honourable people, which is worrying.
The hon member Mr Dexter should try to be part of us so he could hear for himself the issues that we discuss in these meetings that we attend.]
The Department of Higher Education and Training is the pillar of society, whereas the FET institution is the backbone and economic hub of the country. Why should the DA oppose the amendment of this Bill? It is intended to contribute positively to the FET colleges. Is it because they don't want to move away from apartheid laws and keep all the benefits to themselves because they continue to oppress disadvantaged people? This will be the first time the FET colleges become a national responsibility and we believe that, as it becomes a national responsibility, Minister Nzimande will ensure that these FET colleges operate accordingly.
One of the challenges that needs strong attention in the FET sector is conflict of interest. Hon Minister, procurement processes have not been followed properly in most of the FET colleges. Minister, given that you are taking over the responsibility of overseeing the sector, please pay attention to this and tighten the bolts on procurement processes.
The experience of Lephalale FET College, where the former CEO, Mr Raath, was investigated by the ANC-led Limpopo provincial government and charged with misconduct, is a good example of where a former CEO has taken a very unfair decision. He failed to develop and implement an effective and efficient supply chain management system and financial controls. He also continued to misuse his position to support his daughter and Mr Coetzee. These are some of the reasons that the FET sector needs special attention. I could mention so many examples.
Haeba o hopola hantle, bekeng e fetileng re ne re le mane Bloemfontein, Motheo FET College, moo re neng re etsa Tekolo ya tswelopele teng. Re fumane mehlolo teng. Letona, mmoho le Molaodi Kakaretso wa hao, re kopa le shebisise hantle taba ya Kholetjhe ya Motheo FET. Le kene dipakeng ka tsela e ikgethang ... (Translation of Sesotho paragraph follows.)
[If you remember, last week we were in Bloemfontein, at Motheo FET College, where we were carrying out our oversight duties. We found some amazing things. Minister, as well as your director-general, we would like for you to look carefully into the matter concerning Motheo FET College. You must intervene in a special kind of way ...]
... so that the FET colleges can operate properly. The FET Bill, in clause 76, seeks to remove all references to provincial authorities and functions of members of executive councils and change it to Ministers and functions of the HOD and the director-general. It regulates the conduct of the council members and staff of public colleges not to engage in business with the relevant colleges.
Hon Minister, Napoleon Hill says, and I quote:
Don't look for opportunities in the far distances of space and time but embrace them right where you are because where you are already has the perfection and the balance.
Full accessibility of colleges should not be a problem. I mean there should be flexibility at colleges so that students can access them and use them on weekends and after hours. I believe this will contribute positively to the students' results.
Clause 14 of the Bill deals with the state's responsibilities and giving the Minister power to allocate funds and monitor such funds according to norms and standards. The only concern the opposition has with this Bill is with subsection 3 and nothing else, as it deals with addressing the inequalities that have been experienced in this sector.
The monitoring of the proper functioning of these institutions is a responsibility that cannot be relegated anywhere else. Minister, don't worry, victory is certain. We shall overcome. Churchill once said, "In victory we deserve it, in defeat we need it." I think the DA will be sad when we continue to address the inequalities and they will need something to deal with it.
I have said this before, Minister: The portfolio committee will continue to support you. Continue with the sterling work that you are doing. It is very important that we understand why the opposition is doing this. It is because they know very well that they will never lead this country in their lifetime.
Deputy Speaker, hon members, the Bill before Parliament today aims to transfer the responsibility for FET colleges from provinces to the Department of Higher Education and Training.
South Africa suffers from a skills shortage of epic proportions. We acknowledge that FET colleges have not been utilised effectively to address our country's skills shortage. Although the UDM has serious reservations about the transfer of FET colleges from provinces to the national Department of Higher Education and Training, given the challenges centralisation always creates and the fact that FET colleges will be better served in the Department of Basic Education, we would like to give the government the benefit of the doubt.
This doubt arises from the fact that in some of the FET colleges we observed that more time was given to theory than to practical work, especially with people who wanted to be artisans. People who came through such colleges could define concepts in highfalutin English, but they could not produce what we expected them to produce. So, we want people from these colleges to come out with more saleable skills and not just with definitions of concepts. The UDM supports the Bill.
Deputy Speaker, hon members and guests, with this Bill the head of department and member of the executive council are replaced respectively by the director-general and Minister, among other things.
The change is more than technical because it effectively transfers FET colleges from provincial education departments to the Department of Higher Education and Training. Azapo supports this move, as we consider it a waste of resources to have a provincial chief directorate that is responsible for two or six FET colleges, depending on how many FET colleges each province has.
The Bill also reverses what was done by the FET Colleges Act of 2006, where college lecturers and other employees were transferred and made employees of college councils. We opposed the move then, arguing that that effectively privatised FET colleges and went against the idea of a single, seamless Public Service.
While the Bill has caused unease among teacher trade unions, with fears that the Bill might result in the FET sector disappearing into the forest that is the existing collective bargaining arrangement, Azapo is convinced that parties could use the existing Labour Relations Act and, through the Public Service Co-ordinating Bargaining Council, PSCBC, designate a new sector for the FET colleges. Azapo therefore supports the Further Education and Training Colleges Amendment Bill. [Applause.]
Madam Deputy Speaker, hon Ministers and hon members of this Assembly, maybe we should start off by indicating that education has been declared a national priority and then indicate what the amending Bill seeks to do.
The administrative functions and powers entrusted by the Further Education and Training Colleges Act, Act 16 of 2006, were transferred to the Ministry of Higher Education and Training by Proclamation No 44 of 2009, published in the Government Gazette No 32367 of 1 July 2009. All this could not have been done if there was confusion about education in our country. This was done in terms of section 97 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. This process was driven by Parliament and to all intents and purposes further education and training, FET, colleges fell under higher Education and Training. There is no confusion in this regard. This means that further education and training colleges are an exclusively national competency instead of a concurrent competency between national and provincial education departments.
The Bill wants to remove all reference to provincial authority in the Act and insert national authority in the form of the Minister and director- general in the place of a head of department. The criticism that is being levelled at the Bill indicates a preference for the status quo to remain and therefore there is no need for the amending Bill. In a nutshell, this suggests that we must have a federal approach to FET colleges. The problem with this approach is that it says authority must be given to provinces but the Minister should be held responsible for FET colleges. The MECs account to provincial legislatures and the Minister accounts to Parliament. Simply put, Parliament cannot give authority to the Minister and hold MECs responsible.
The other area that has invited criticism is that of governance in these institutions. For instance, conflict of interest is an issue that must be dealt with in all public institutions. The opposing sentiment has it that there may be unintended consequences if these institutions are not allowed to contract their members of staff and other employees.
It is also understood by us that the opposition has a different view with regard to ministerial intervention in instances of maladministration and crippling corruption. The Bill is suggesting that the Minister must appoint an administrator in such situations. What we hear is that this is giving the Minister too much power. These institutions must have some independence and/or autonomy. Apparently this independence relates to procurement and deployment. Despite the fact that FET colleges are a national competency, procurement and deployment should be the preserve of these institutions in the name of academic independence or autonomy. It is difficult to reconcile with this sentiment.
Lastly, the amending Bill wants to deal with duality in the conditions of employment and related matters. One would imagine that collective bargaining processes would finally settle the matter and protect those who are exposed to discriminatory and exploitative practices.
Apha sithetha ngeemeko ezingamkelekanga. Kukho abantu abasebenza ishumi leminyaka nangaphezulu, abaphuma neebhatyi zabo kuphela xa bephelelwa okanye kufike ithuba lokuyeka impangelo. Lo Mthetho uYilwayo uthi: "Izibonelelo mazifane ngomsebenzi ofanayo nolinganayo. (Translation of isiXhosa paragraph follows.)
[We are talking about unacceptable conditions. There are people who work for 10 or more years, who retire without any benefits, but only take their jackets when that time comes. This Bill states that the benefits must be the identical for equal and same duties performed.]
There is an issue that I cannot ignore. The folks that have been put in charge of the ship will have to be capacitated by law to co-ordinate the sector and attract the best skills to public institutions, instead of their being attracted to the private sector, as was suggested by the official Opposition.
Secondly, all the unpalatable things that are happening in the sector currently are not happening because of these amendments to the Act, but are issues that have invited the amending Bill we are debating currently. For instance, one of my colleagues indicated that in some instances it is difficult for the Minister to act because authority lies with provinces in those cases. Now the authority is given to the Minister. If he does not act, Parliament will have to act. [Applause.]
UNGQONGQOSHE WEMFUNDO EPHAKEME KANYE NOKUQEQESHA: Ngiyabonga kakhulu Sekela Somlomo namaLungu ePhalamende ahloniphekile, ngicela ukuqala ngokubonga kuwo wonke amaqembu aseka lo Mthethosivivinywa njengonegxathu elibalulekile ekutheni sikwazi ukubhekana nodaba lokuthi ikakhulukazi intsha yakithi kanye nabantu abadala bathole amakhono, bakwazi ukuziphilisa noma bakwazi ukuzisebenza.
Ngicela ukubonga kumbutho wami uKhongolose ngokuthi weseke lo Mthethosivivinywa, ngibonge nakwi-IFP ne-Azapo namanye amaqembu asisekele. (Translation of isiZulu paragraphs follows.)
[The MINISTER OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING: Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker and hon Members of Parliament. I will start by thanking all the parties that support this Bill as it has an important role to play in the development of the skills of our youth as well as adults, in order for them to fend for themselves or to be self-employed. I would like to thank my organisation for supporting this Bill, as well as the IFP, Azapo and other parties that have supported us.]
I think it is important to say this: Being in opposition must not mean being opportunistic or hypocritical. The MEC here in the Western Cape has been at all the meetings with us and fully endorsed the measures that we are taking today. Now, just because we are here in the House, in front of the media, he is taking a completely different position. That is opportunism, not opposition.
It is also not true that, in order for this Bill to become an Act and be effective, it has to be preceded by a constitutional amendment. That is not true. Laws that vest administration in a national department are allowed within the context of our Constitution.
There is no contradiction between national competence and responsiveness to local and regional needs by FET colleges. In fact, our strategy is simply that it must be a nationally driven, but locally responsive strategy. I am not surprised that hon Dexter has forgotten about this, because you can't jump from the SACP to Cope and forget about this. [Interjections.] If properly managed, the national and local spheres can actually make a much bigger impact. For Cope to come and say that things have gone from bad to worse is not true. I am not surprised because hon Dexter, who is saying this, has not even attended a single committee meeting discussing this. As a matter of fact, some of the interventions that we have made in the FET colleges, like the fact that poor learners who are doing national technical education, Nated, courses and national certificate vocational, NCV, courses now do not have to pay a cent, have actually increased the number of poor students who want to attend these FET colleges.
I don't know what his problem with the sector education and training authorities, Setas, is. Again, in the main, in the Setas we are really and surely chasing away the tenderpreneurs - unless hon Dexter has a problem with that. There is already improvement and better relations between the Setas and the FET colleges. So, all that we have touched thus far has turned into gold.
The necessity for FET colleges to be a national competence is also so that we can align them with other national institutions, like the universities and Setas. Then you won't have a disjuncture whereby national institutions can't align properly with institutions that are a provincial responsibility, because it's an uneven situation - a situation, by the way, that also faces the Minister of Health. That is something that we will need to address.
I think that it is also unfortunate for hon Dexter that he was a board member of the National Student Financial Aid Scheme, NSFAS, at the time when this scheme was getting qualified audits. For the first time this year, over the past financial year, the NSFAS received an unqualified audit, which shows that we are making progress. [Applause.]
Bab'uMpontshane siyabonga kakhulu, ngiyayizwa yonke lento oyishoyo. Sizobambisana ekutheni senze isiqiniseko ukuthi izinto zisetshenzwa ngendlela eyiyo kulawa makolishi. Lawa makolishi abaluleke kakhulu ekusaseni lezingane zethu kanye nakwelabantu abadala.
Elungeni elihloniphekile uRadebe, udaba lwase-Motheo, eFree State siyalubheka. Sizoqhubeka futhi sizibheke izinkinga ezikuleliya kolishi. Sengathi-ke sithi kubo bonke abantu bakithi ngalo mthetho, masibambisane ikakhulukazi abasebenzi nabantu bakithi abangena lutho ukuze sikwazi ukuthi isizwe sakithi sithole amakhono afanelekile. Ngiyabonga. [Ihlombe.] (Translation of isiZulu paragraphs follows.)
[Hon Mpontshane, thank you very much, I understand everything you are saying, and we will work together in ensuring that things are done properly at these colleges. These colleges play a very important role in our children's future, as well as that of the adults.
To hon Radebe, we are looking at the issue of Motheo FET College in the Free State. And we will continue looking into the challenges that college faces. We are, therefore, saying to all our people that, with this Bill, we need to work together with the staff and our people who are poor so that our nation can receive appropriate skills. Thank you. [Applause.]]
Debate concluded.
Bill read a second time (Democratic Alliance, Congress of the People and Freedom Front Plus dissenting).