Chairperson, this is a section 75 measure and, as hon members know, the Government's programme for the transformation of the South African higher education system is in fact identified in Education White Paper 3, A Programme for the Transformation of Higher Education, and in the Act that this House, or its predecessor, had to pass, namely the Higher Education Act of 1997.
The purpose of this legislation was to establish the basis for higher education institutions to change the way in which they operate and especially to take account of broad, system-wide interests. But we wanted a South African system of higher education rather than a fragmented, racially organised higher education system.
Therefore the bringing into being of this Act has proved to be a challenge. Worldwide the changing of education systems has been a very complex undertaking at the best of times, but more so for a system which needs to address the inequalities of the past while making sure that we are in a position to meet the demands of the 21st century.
This is the second amending Bill that I have introduced since the promulgation of the Higher Education Act in December 1997, because there are shortcomings in the 1997 Act and we have to be honest about it. Shortcomings should be corrected, particularly if mischief takes place outside and the mischief itself has to be removed.
The Bill before the House seeks to address some of the shortcomings that have become obvious in the course of the implementation of the Higher Education Act. It has become clear that certain higher education institutions, both public and private, have become imperialistic and colonialistic. They have extended the scope and range of their operation in a way that is not consistent with the spirit of the original Act and may not be in the best interests of the system as a whole.
An example that I will give hon members, if they will allow me, is the type of development that we are currently witnessing. The past few years, in particular the past three years, have seen a vast proliferation of satellite campuses of public higher education institutions throughout the country, often without due regard to the effect these campuses have on sister institutions, or to the quality of education and infrastructural provision that students receive.
When I impose a moratorium on this, I impose it because a very well-known institution in Gauteng was going to buy a property in Bisho to set up a university-type satellite institution there, drawing students away from Eastern Cape institutions. This is not in the best tradition of the development of higher education, particularly since this Gauteng institution had to meet the needs of the locality and of the rest of South Africa.
So there is a kind of colonialism taking place that we have to be aware of and therefore deal with, because the Act imposes an obligation on me to determine higher education policy after consultation with the Council on Higher Education. This is what I have done and the Council on Higher Education has made proposals in Towards a New Higher Education Landscape, which is the result of work done by the Council on Higher Education. I commend this ``shape and size'' report because it is baffling to listen to people on the radio or on television opining without having read the report, or taking part in debates elsewhere without having read the report. It is a very important report because it makes the best case for higher education in South Africa.
The amendment to section 3 of the principal Act gives the Minister the discretion, under very specific conditions, to determine policy for public as well as private higher education institutions. The conditions are those embodied in the co-operative governance model to which Government is committed. This is how the Education White Paper 3 captures the co- operative governance model. This is what it says:
Co-operative governance assumes a proactive, guiding and constructive role for Government.
This is not a laid-back role as we think.
It assumes a co-operative relationship between the state and higher education institutions. One implication for this is, for example, that institutional autonomy is to be exercised in tandem with public accountability. Another is that the Ministry's oversight role does not involve responsibility for the micromanagement of institutions.
I am under great pressure to micromanage institutions, which I, in fact, refuse to do.
A third implication is that the Ministry will undertake its role in a transparent manner.
Therefore, what members see under subsection 3 is the acquisition of authority to do things in the public interest, not to micromanage. One must always refer to the public interest. Therefore, it is a South African solution for South African issues that we are raising. We are not talking about Mongolia, the United States or the United Kingdom. The powers of intervention by the Minister are much greater in the United Kingdom. Those who have the nostalgic view that anything that happens in the United Kingdom is the best of all possible worlds, well, I can tell them that the intervention powers of the secretary of State for Education in the United Kingdom are much greater than here. So the model we are proposing is consistent with our approach.
There have been objections in the other House to this amendment, and I hope hon members will not regurgitate the objections made in the National Assembly. I hope they will find very creative and innovative ways of objecting to this provision. One objection is that it gives me enormous powers that are contrary to the principle of institutional autonomy. It is alleged that the amendment will provide the Minister with what we call ``Draconian powers'' to overcome, by executive decree, the private Acts of universities.
The main thrust of this objection is that the proposed new subsection contravenes the principle of autonomy which is upheld by the preamble to the 1997 Act. This is misleading since no principle, in the sense of a statement having universal or unconditional application, is in fact built into the preamble. There is no such thing as absolute autonomy anywhere in the world. Certainly it is not in the preamble to the 1997 Act. The principle to which the Government is committed, and to which I am committed, is the principle of academic freedom, which cannot be equated with institutional autonomy, namely the right to write and research, by reference to what one honestly thinks in good faith to be the product of one's research, however controversial, difficult or impertinent it may be. That is the academic freedom which South African institutions are not notorious for exercising, and certainly were not notorious for exercising before 1994. But, for us, academic freedom is enormously important.
The 1997 White Paper says that academic freedom is one of the fundamental principles that must guide the process of higher education transformation in South Africa. So, academic freedom, which is a fundamental right protected by the Act, has to do with the pursuit and practice of academic work, be it teaching, research and community service - of which there is very little - without interference. On the other hand, the concept of autonomy - which is very important - is concerned with the relationship which holds between the state and higher education institutions, in particular the ways in which the state manages or steers the public higher education system. So the concepts of academic freedom and autonomy are not identical.
In education our approach has been to entrench the principle of academic freedom. Some of the professors, in the exercise of their academic freedom, write the most extraordinary things about the Government and the President, although these may have nothing to do with their research or the work they are doing. One must bear this with all the equanimity and tolerance one can generate. But all higher education institutions must have limits or conditions imposed on their autonomy. This is a practice of all publicly funded education systems everywhere in the world. I must remind the Democratic Alliance of the fact that the 1997 Act explicitly says that higher education institutions in South Africa have conditional autonomy. It makes it quite clear, out of an honesty which is rare in governments, that no principle of autonomy can exempt either a higher education institution or the system as a whole from meeting the transformation goals that the Government is committed to and which the community expects.
There is a clear indication that the higher education system is moving only slowly towards meeting the goals and objectives of transformation. In fact, some institutions are not moving at all. They set up satellite campuses outside the main, beautifully green campuses, because the blacks can go to the Vaal Triangle, which is far away from those very sylvan surroundings of the institutions. That is not in fact meeting the needs of transformation because transformation is really the internalisation of the change that is required. So we support the analysis of the Council on Higher Education that we must have transformation. It is clear that the higher education system is not meeting the national transformation needs.
On gender grounds, the appointment system in higher education institutions is appalling. Where are the senior professors who are women, black, white, green or indifferent? Where are the senior lecturers who are women? Where are the consultants in the teaching hospitals who are women? It is only easy to find women in higher education under a microscope compared to the glory of looking at this House and the National Assembly. Therefore, the amendment gives the Minister of Education the discretion to address that laissez faire - leave alone - development that has characterised higher education recently. It does so while fully respecting the principles of academic freedom and co-operative governance, and I am firmly committed to that.
Now to move to the second key area addressed in the amending Bill, and this is a very serious matter. It is common cause that a number of higher education institutions are facing serious financial problems. Some institutions are beginning to grapple with the financial difficulties in very clear, original ways while others have posted such large overdrafts with financial institutions that these are threatening the very survival of these institutions. They are businesses that can be liquidated under the Companies Act. The Government has to take steps to protect the substantial investment that the taxpayer has made in South Africa's public higher education system.
Therefore, the proposed amendments to section 40 of the 1997 Higher Education Act are designed precisely to do that. Public investment in higher education is considerable. Nearly all the land, buildings and much of the teaching and research equipment on the 36 public universities and technikons in South Africa have been purchased with the assistance of substantial government funding. Therefore, the amendment recognises that public universities and technikons have to enter into legally binding contracts. However, it says that before they enter into contracts, loan or overdraft agreements, which involve either the construction of a permanent building or any other immovable development, the purchase of immovable property and the long-term lease of immovable property, they must do something - the council must agree.
Do members know that at one higher education institution the vice chancellor built an enormous administrative block, totalling about R12 million without the council knowing about it? One cannot have this kind of development in which individuals decide on behalf of institutions, however leading luminaries they may be. They may be graduates of leading universities of the world, but we want transparency. The Minister's approval must be obtained if certain limits are exceeded by the raising of a loan or overdraft. The limits, which I will come to in my reply to the debate, are very reasonable.
Objections have been raised to the effect that these new requirements will significantly alter the right of institutions to enter into legally binding contracts and will have a severe impact on the institutions. The response is straightforward. The Minister clearly has an obligation to ensure that public funds are employed properly and responsibly everywhere, in historically white or historically black universities.
In response to the second part, many other countries have requirements of this kind without affecting the higher education institutions. For example, in the United Kingdom, the higher education funding council, which operates as an agent of the government, lays down a detailed set of conditions that must be met. There, if they exceed 4% of total income, they must report this to the council first. We talk about 5% here.
So I ask this House to remember that the conditions we are laying down are less onerous and stringent than they are in the United Kingdom.
Finally, the amending Bill strengthens the regulatory framework for the operation of private higher education institutions. There is an overwhelming demand from our public in South Africa - the real public, not the chattering classes only - that there must be a real regulation of private higher education institutions, particularly overseas institutions that are coming here to make a profit out of our educational system and not to participate in the great development of South Africa. If they are coming here to make profits, then we must treat them separately, differently, from South African private higher education institutions.
That is what we are trying to do: distinguish between the local and foreign institutions. No country, particularly a Third World country, can afford to sit back and watch its future and the sustainability of its higher education system threatened by foreign institutions that are looking for new markets, which is what they are doing. It is a market thing; it is treating education as a commodity. We take a slightly different view.
Therefore I commend this important Bill, as we commended it to the National Assembly, and I hope that the Council will bear in mind the very significant improvements it will make to protect the public interest as far as higher education is concerned. [Applause.]