Sekela Somlomo, engathi kuyacaca impela ukuthi i-Cope iyasondelela lapha ku-DA - iyogcina igwinyiwe ngendlela engibona izinto zihamba ngayo. [Madam Deputy Speaker, it really looks as if Cope is getting closer to the DA - and the way I see things unfolding, it will end up being absorbed by it.]
Hon Deputy Speaker, Cabinet colleagues, Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Higher Education and Training, members of the committee, hon members, the success of building an integrated, responsive, differentiated, but highly articulated postschool education and training system depends largely, though not exclusively, on effective and good governance across all its institutions. To this end, good and clean governance is a critical component of a healthy higher education sector. At the heart of this is also the necessity to fight corruption wherever it occurs and to create a system where corrupt activities are prevented or, at the very least, detected before they occur.
Experience has shown that where good and effective governance is lacking, learning and teaching at our universities often suffer. I have heard of many cases where allegations have been made about some university council members, managers, union leaders and student representatives gaining, through somewhat questionable and corrupt practices, access to public resources for higher education. Government provides significant funding towards higher education and we must demand that these funds are well invested for the benefit of the academic enterprise.
Poor families sacrifice greatly to ensure that their children obtain the best quality education, and we should therefore not allow corruption to fail them. Managers must manage, lecturers must teach and research and our students must be given the best opportunity to learn.
Another related matter, not incorporated into this Bill but important to raise, is that at some universities student representatives have demanded and secured representation on university tender committees. This is unacceptable, as it has the potential to corrupt student politics and student leaders. Students go to university to study and not to be involved in decisions about tenders. We want students to come out, at the very least, as entrepreneurs and not tenderpreneurs.
I intend introducing the necessary legislative amendments next year and I call upon all student formations in the meantime to actively dissuade their student representative council leaders from being part of tender committees. [Applause.]
This Bill therefore seeks to implement some of the resolutions adopted by participants at the stakeholder summit on higher education in April 2010, committing the sector to the principles of good governance and public accountability
The Bill aims to regulate the conduct of members of the council, staff and students at universities, in relation to their supply chain management processes. In short, this means that if you are a council member sitting on a university council, you cannot afford to have a company that you either own or are a director of benefiting from those tenders without open and upfront declaration of your possible conflict of interest.
The Bill also aims to adjust the period within which an independent assessor for universities, where there are problems or matters to be investigated, as appointed by the Minister, must finalise an investigation.
Furthermore, the Bill introduces some changes in terms of the National Student Financial Aid Scheme, NSFAS. It deals with improving the governance, management and functionality of the NSFAS. It aims, among other matters, to amend the National Student Financial Aid Scheme Act, Act 56 of 1999 and to empower the Minister to intervene in the case of poor or non performance or maladministration by the board, as well as setting out the procedures for dissolution of the board.
It further provides for the appointment of an administrator temporarily to take over the management, governance and administration of the board and repeals the provisions placing an obligation on the employer of a borrower to make deductions from the remuneration of the borrower.
This latter point, in the main, came from the recommendations from a report of the ministerial committee on the review of the NSFAS. That is why we welcome and agree with the recommendation of the portfolio committee that this section, which forces the employer to deduct money from an employee who owes NSFAS, without his or her consent, is unconstitutional. In so doing we are not creating a situation where those who have to pay back money to the NSFAS do not pay. That is why the department has already started work to introduce a constitutionally compliant section of the NSFAS Act to enable the NSFAS to recover loan payments directly through the taxation system, working together with Sars.
Let me take this opportunity to thank the chairperson of the portfolio committee, Adv Malale, and all members of the committee for the work they have done in piloting this piece of legislation and for the public hearings they held. Let me also again thank the director general, Mr Qonde, and senior management in my department for all the work that they have done and also for assisting the portfolio committee.
Ngiyafisa ke sengiphetha ukuyigcizelela lento Sekela Somlomo nawe bab' uMpontshane, hhayi bakithi izingane zethu ake ziphume ekutheni esikhundleni sokuthi zifunde izincwadi ziyofunda izinto ezingalungile ngokuthatha izinqumo ukuthi ithenda ethize kufanele iye kubani. Yiyo lento edala izinkinga ezingaka kwezinye izikhungo zethu. Ngiyabonga kakhulu Sekela Somlomo. (Translation of isiZulu paragraph follows.)
[In conclusion, I want to emphasise this issue, Madam Deputy Speaker and hon Mpontshane: No, good people, our children should concentrate on studying rather than on learning inappropriate things such as taking decisions about which tender should be awarded to whom. This is the issue that causes problems at some of our institutions. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.]
Hon Deputy Speaker, Ministers and members of the House, I must indicate that there are very important interventions that have been introduced by this Bill, which we processed on 13 September this year. Members of the committee across the political spectrum were in agreement with this Bill, including the DA. The only concern that was raised by Dr Kloppers-Lourens was that perhaps section 23 of the National Student Financial Aid Scheme Act should be retained. I think she will be happy to know that the NSFAS, like any other institution, is entitled to recoup any monies through the National Credit Act. So, there is no need specifically for this section to be retained as it stands, particularly in the light of very considered views of legal experts that it may not pass constitutional muster.
The Bill further amends the principal Act, particularly section 34. It does so by introducing a legal duty with regard to the employees of our public institutions of higher education, members of councils and even members of council committees - which may also include SRC members who might serve on tender boards because, I assume, those are also committees of council - which precludes them, in terms of this section, from entering into business transactions with universities to which they are attached. We believe this will ensure greater accountability in the institutions.
The little amendment which we introduced in this respect was to avert absolute prohibition and to permit only transactions in which, for instance, a professor would provide a unique product, such as a book, which may not be produced by any other person, as a sole provider. It was members of the ANC, IFP and Azapo who were radical on this aspect. The DA was very half-hearted about introducing the question of controlling conflict of interest between members of council and the institutions. I know why. It is because most of their members are actually working at these universities. So, they don't want you to touch universities. You can talk about any other thing elsewhere. But I supported Dr Kloppers-Lourens. We were only defeated by the committee. So, the DA must support us on this Bill.
The Bill further addresses a lacuna that was found in the National Student Financial Aid Scheme Act, where the Minister was not permitted to intervene when there was dysfunctionality or malpractices in institutions. So, the hon Dexter's argument is neither here nor there because the Minister has never, at any time, engaged in any unwarranted intrusion into the affairs of universities. In fact, it is only now that we permit the Minister, when there is corruption or ill deeds, to intervene and make sure that he gives directives to the board of the NSFAS to ensure corrective action.
In the event of recalcitrance, the Minister is empowered to dissolve the board and appoint an administrator for a period not exceeding two years and six months to address the situation that may be affecting the particular institution. The only aspect we addressed, hon Dexter, was that in terms of the little alterations we introduced, there should be no coexistence of an administrator and a board. In an instance where the Minister seeks to appoint an administrator, that must herald the dissolution of the board.
Those were the points that were addressed in terms of this small Bill. I must indicate that all of us are in agreement.
I must take this moment to thank the Ministry and the Department of Higher Education and Training, the parliamentary advisory services and the state law advisers for advising the committee throughout the process of dealing with the Bills before us. We request Parliament to approve this Bill with the amendments, as introduced by the committee. [Applause.]
Madam Deputy Speaker, the DA supports the three objectives of the Bill, namely, in the first place, to regulate the conduct of members of a council and employees of a public higher education institution engaging in business with the relevant public higher education institution. This amendment will enhance transparent administration and will ensure that the functions will be performed in the best interests of the institution.
Secondly, the DA supports the adjustment of the timeframe within which an independent assessor must finalise an investigation conducted at an institution of higher education from 30 days to a period not exceeding 90 days. This will enable the assessor to complete his or her various functions without having time constraints.
Thirdly, we support the amendment of the National Student Financial Aid Scheme Act, Act 56 of 1999, referred to as the NSFAS Act, so as to empower the Minister to intervene in cases of poor or nonperformance or maladministration by the board of the NSFAS, as well as to provide for the dissolution of the NSFAS board and the appointment of an administrator temporarily to take over the management, governance and administration of the board.
The DA, however, does not support clause 4A(6), which states that the costs associated with the appointment of an administrator shall be for the account of the NSFAS. Section 5(1)(a) of the NSFAS Act states that members of the board are appointed by the Minister according to the criteria and requirements stipulated in subsections (1) to (5). It is the Minister's responsibility to appoint a competent board.
If the Minister reaches the stage where he "must dissolve the board and appoint an administrator to take over the functions of the board", it should be at the cost of his department, not for the account of the NSFAS. The aim of the NSFAS, according to section 2(2) of the NSFAS Act, is solely "to provide financial aid to eligible students who meet the criteria for admission to a higher education programme". The cost of an administrator and his staff, over a maximum period of two and a half years, might be enormous.
I just want to correct hon Malale - he must have misunderstood me. The DA is in agreement with the Minister when it comes to the repeal of section 23. Let me explain: Regarding the repeal of section 23 of the NSFAS Act, the DA supports it in so far as it deals with the removal of the unconstitutional obligation of an employer regarding the recovery of loans. The unconstitutionality is contained in subsection (5), which states that "an employer who fails to make a deduction and payment in accordance with this section is guilty of an offence". This obligation is considered to be an infringement of an employer's right, because section 34 of the Constitution states:
Everyone has the right to have any dispute that can be resolved by the application of law decided in a fair public hearing before a court or, where appropriate, another independent and impartial tribunal or forum.
The DA therefore supports the repeal of section 23 in its current form, but we believe that an alternative procedure to recover loan payments should be considered. It should be borne in mind that the removal of the entire section 23 may reduce the effectiveness of the debtor collections of the NSFAS, as the largest portion of its debt collection is derived from payroll deductions. [Applause.]
Deputy Speaker, it is unfortunate that I try to be constructive in my inputs, but when the Minister responds he resorts to some rather personal statements about me. However, it is to be expected. The Minister has always been a little reactionary in a red tie. He talks left and walks right.
The Higher Education Act of 1997 and the National Student Financial Aid Scheme Act of 1999 are being amended with a view to tightening financial controls and regulating the behaviour of board members. On the face of it, these are worthy goals. A closer reading of the Bill shows that at the same time the Bill is centralising power in the Minister's hands and increasing his ability to interfere in and destroy the functioning of the bodies in question, rather than confining him to his essential duty of providing leadership, in the same way as the with previous Bill. I think there is a pattern that we see emerging here.
Financial mismanagement is commonplace in many government-appointed bodies and everyone is sympathetic about measures that will allow for the implementation of better controls. However, it is disconcerting that we see distinguished and highly educated South Africans, who are being called to serve the great cause of higher education, being appointed with a view to continuing to interrupt them and stop them from carrying out their fiduciary duties.
The borderline between control and interference is often indistinguishable. For instance, when the Minister says - to assert one of the objectives that this Bill seeks - that a council member will have "knowledge and experience relevant to the objects and governance of the public higher education institution concerned", we would agree with him. In fact, we would go further. We would like to say that the person should have proven knowledge and experience. This would give a better guarantee that the new council members would conduct their duties with the confidence that comes from proven experience, but one only has to look at the current National Student Financial Aid Scheme board members to see that this is not the case.
It is unfortunate for the Minister that I know them - they are my former comrades. These people are not qualified to be on that body. Of course when you put such people there, you have to interfere with them when they do not know what they are doing. Therefore, the Minister is drafting legislation to cover up for what he has done in maladministering his department, and that is the wrong way to draft legislation. [Applause.]
Cope agrees with the provision that has to be made for the disclosure of financial interests and for all sorts of declarations and things. But what we are really objecting to is that the Minister is now allowed to interfere when people have failed to comply with any directive he gives. The problem is, if his directives are wrong and against the fiduciary duties of the board members, he should not be allowed to do that. No Minister should. That is the problem that we face here. So, we are not opposed to where he wants to go, but the road that he wants to go on, Comrade Jeremy, is not to the left, but to the right, and that is the problem.
We are talking about centralisation. We are talking about more and more power to one individual. That is neither democratic nor progressive, and it's certainly not left. [Applause.]
Hon Deputy Speaker ...
... ngisakhula, ngifunda esikoleni samazinga aphansi, othisha babesimashisa. Ilungu elihloniphekile lingikhumbuza sesithi: "Left, right! Left, right! Left, right!" [Uhleko.]
Kafushane, lo Mthethosivivinywa olapha ngaphambili kwethu ukhuluma ngokubeka izinto obala [transparency]. Ukubeka izinto obala siyakholelwa thina njenge-IFP ukuthi kuyingxenye ebalulekile yokuphatha okuhle [good governance]. NgokoMthethosivivinywa umbuzo uthi: Ngobani laba okufanele babeke izinto obala?
Okokuqala, amalungu esigungu senyuvesi. UMthethosivivinywa uthi uma amalungu esigungu ... [Ubuwelewele.] (Translation of isiZulu paragraphs follows.)
[... when I grew up, when I was still in primary school, teachers used to make us march. The hon member just reminded me of when we would say: "Left, right! Left, right! Left, right! [Laughter.]
In short, this Bill before us now is talking about transparency. We as the IFP believe that transparency is the key to good governance. According to this Bill the question is: Who needs to be transparent?
Firstly, it is the members of the council of the university. The Bill says if the board members ... [Interjections.]]
I don't know who is making tribal noises over there!
Amalungu esigungu kufanele ukuthi uma enezinkampani athola kuzo amajuphana akubeke obala lokho.
Abantu besibili okufanele babeke izinto obala, izisebenzi zenyuvesi. Nazo futhi kufanele zibeke obala - amabhizinisi ezithola kuwo amantshontsho. Yini-ke eyenza thina njenge-IFP sikweseke lokhu ukuthi laba esengibabalile babeke izinto obala. Izithuba eziningi uthola amanyuvesi esebenzisa lokhu abathi ngesilungu i-university autonomy, okwenza ukuthi kubekhona izinto eziningi ezicashileyo.
Zolo lokhu sibonile eNyuvesi yaKwaZulu kusuka umsindo omkhulu ngenxa yokuthi bekukhona ezisebenzini abanamathenda kumbe izinkampani ezingaziwa. Sibonile naseNyuvesi yaseVenda kusuka umsindo omningi ngenxa yabo njalo abantu abathola imisebenzi ezinkampanini kodwa kungazi muntu. Y ingakho sithi lo Mthethosivivinywa othi makubekwe obala zonke izinto siweseka.
Sekela Somlomo, okwesithathu sengigcina, sengihlala phansi, isigatshana lesi esiphathelene ne- National Student Financial Aid Scheme, NSFAS, siyakweseka konke lokhu okuqukethwe uMthethosivivinywa, kodwa siyacela ukuthi minyaka yonke kuvamisile ukuthi kube khona izindwadla zezimala ezibuyela emuva zingasetshenziswanga ze-NSFAS esicela ukuthi umhlonishwa akubheke ngeso eliphuthumayo lokho, ngoba kuyasikhathaza ukuthi abafundi beswele emanyuvesi, benezikweletu, abanye baze benziwe lento okuthiwa i- blacklisting, kodwa kube kukhona izimali ezibuyela emumva zingasetshenzisiwe.
Elinye iphuzu esicela ukuthi umhlonishwa alibhekisise lapha, siyazi ukuthi amanyuvesi asayinda isivumelwano nomhlonishwa uNgqongqoshe omlandelile ukuthi amanyuvesi avumele abafundi ukuthi bangene nakuba bengenayo imali ekhokhwayo uma uqala ukungena enyuvesi, kodwa amanyuvesi amaningi awakwenzi lokhu. Uthola ukuthi izingane eziningi azikwazi ukungena emanyuvesi ngoba zingenayo le mali yokuqalisa ukungena enyuvesi.
Sicela-ke mhlonishwa ukuthi uma ungangenelela ukuthi amanyuvesi akwenze lokho. Sibonile-ke, sengihlala phansi ngempela ngempela manje, ukuthi umnyango uzamile ukuthi zonke lezi zinkampani ze-credit bureau, ezenza amagama abafundi abampisholo baba-blacklist, umnyango uzamile ukuthi asulwe onke lawo macala, kodwa kukhona abasasele kulobo bumnyama lobo.
Besicela thina njenge-IFP, ngoba akusizi uku-blacklist umfundi, ngoba uma sebekwi-blacklist akabe esawuthola ngisho umsebenzi. Abanye mhlonishwa banezikweletu abanazo izitifiketi, amanyuvesi awazidedeli izitifiketi zabafundi ngoba kuthiwa bayakweleta. Ngiyabonga-ke mhlonishwa, ngicabanga ukuthi kuyoba njalo njengoba sikhuluma. [Ihlombe.] (Translation of isiZulu paragraphs follows.)
[Members of the council need to disclose whether they have companies that generate any form of income.
Secondly, the people who need to be transparent are the employees of the university. They have to disclose whether they have businesses that generate income. What makes us, as the IFP, support the disclosure of information from the above-mentioned people is that, in most cases you find the universities using what they call university autonomy, which leads to many indiscreet things happening.
Not so long ago, there was a heated argument at the University of Zululand because there were people amongst the employees who had obtained tenders or had undisclosed companies. It happened again at the University of Venda, where people had got jobs at companies and nobody knew about them. That is why we support the transparency Bill.
Deputy Speaker, in conclusion, before I leave the floor, the clause about the National Student Financial Aid Scheme, NSFAS, supports all that is in the Bill, but we would like the Minister to attend to the issue of the money that is returned to the department that is never used, because it worries us that there are poor students at the universities who are in debt, and some are even blacklisted, but there are monies that are never used.
We know that the universities signed the agreement with the former Minister that they have to admit students even if they do not have the registration fee, but most universities do not comply, so we would like the hon Minister to attend to that. You find that many students are not admitted because they do not have the registration fee.
So, we urge the Minister to intervene so that the universities can comply. We have seen that - before I take my seat, seriously now - the department has tried to get all the credit bureaus which blacklist black students to clear their names, but there are still those who are blacklisted.
As the IFP we believe that it does not help to blacklist students, because once they are blacklisted they cannot even secure jobs. Others have debt and do not have certificates - the universities do not release the certificates because the students owe them money. Thank you, hon Deputy Speaker, I think it is going to be as we are saying. [Applause.]]
Deputy Speaker, Minister of Higher Education and Training, Ministers and Deputy Ministers, hon members and ladies and gentlemen, section 29(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution states that:
Everyone has the right -
a) to a basic education, including adult basic education; and to further education:
b) which the state, through reasonable measures, must make progressively available and accessible.
The National Student Financial Aid Scheme, NSFAS, was established by a statute, the National Student Financial Aid Scheme Act, Act 56 of 1999. The role that this scheme has played in ensuring access to further and higher education and training cannot be overlooked. Since its inception, the NSFAS has ensured that the right provided for in the Constitution is progressively realised. The scheme seeks to impact on South Africa's historically skewed students by providing a sustainable financial aid system that enables academically deserving and financially needy students to meet their own and the country's development needs.
Hon members, before 2007, the scheme provided financial aid to students in higher education institutions only. However, in 2007 the Education Laws Amendment Act was passed. This expanded the responsibilities of NSFAS to include the granting of financial aid to students at FET colleges through what is called the further education and training colleges bursary scheme.
In debating the Higher Education Laws Amendment Bill, I will focus on the insertion of section 17A(1) in Chapter 2(A) of the Act. This section deals with the appointment of an administrator to take over the management, governance and administration of the NSFAS, as well as to perform the functions of the NSFAS, if financial or other maladministration is detected or the board requests that an administrator be appointed.
The ANC is pleased with the insertion of the above clause because, as it currently stands' the National Student Financial Aid Scheme Act does not have any provisions that give the Minister the power to remove the board, or the power to appoint new board members. The only power the Minister had, as revealed by the findings of the ministerial committee on the review of the scheme, was to persuade individual board members to vacate their positions, and if they refused to do so, the Minister did not have any recourse. We are also pleased to see that the recommendations of the ministerial committee are being implemented to improve the efficiency of the scheme.
In order to illustrate the importance of this insertion, I would like to give the following illustration. Unfortunately, hon Dexter has left, but for his information and also for the information of the House, the scheme has, since 2008, been plagued with many problems. Therefore, I must inform hon Dexter that the problems in the NSFAS were there before the Minister was actually the Minister of Higher Education and Training.
The scheme has been plagued by the high attrition of chairpersons of the board, as well as of chief executive officers. From 2008 to February 2010 the scheme had three chief executive officers and it has been without a chief executive officer since late February this year. It was reported by the newly appointed chairperson of the board that they had to terminate the chief executive officer's contract for undisclosed reasons and that the matter was with the courts. Similarly, the scheme has had three board chairpersons in the same number of years. From this, one is able to see that there were problems in the organisation which prevented the senior management from focusing on the core issues within the organisation.
Hon Dexter, again it is for this reason that we are saying that a situation such as this needed the Minister's intervention in terms of what is envisaged by the insertion of section 17A(1). However, due to the lack of a provision in the Act in this regard, no serious interventions could be made. This led to a disclaimer of opinion and matters of emphasis in the 2009-10 annual report by the Auditor-General.
Matters flagged in the previous audit reports were not dealt with due to the existence of conflicts between senior managers and management. These conflicts hindered the efficient running of the scheme. Again the review committee made various findings. Among these findings were inappropriate appointments to senior management positions, the absence of a performance management system, poorly defined job descriptions, senior management vacancies, temporary appointments and poor management of the internal information flow, which all contributed to the inefficiencies within the