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.]