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.]