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.]]