Chairperson, hon Minister, hon special delegates, hon colleagues, it is with understandable trepidation, this being exam time, that I have to state that the DP also does not support the Higher Education Amendment Bill.
Some of the salient features of the Bill are as follows. Firstly, the Bill seeks to extend the power of the Minister of Education in determining higher education policy. Secondly, the process of the filling of vacancies in the council is to be left in the hands of the Minister. Thirdly, the higher education institutions may not enter into a loan or overdraft agreement without the prior approval of the council and, in some instances, without the Minister's concurrence. Fourthly, the Bill is further amended to make provision for the registration of private higher education institutions, registration requirements and the determination of applicants for their registration.
On the technical side, the Bill also seeks to amend the Act so as to prevent the abuse of terms such as ``university'', ``technikon'', ``rector'', ``chancellor'' and ``vice-chancellor'', applicable to private higher education institutions, thus making it an offence for those outside the periphery of registered private higher education institutions to use these terms, and to allow the council of a public higher education institution to change its name without the approval of the Minister.
Like my colleague from the New NP, I must also express some concern on behalf of the DP, especially with the amendment of section 3 of Act 101 of 1997, in terms of which the Minister of Education may determine the scope and range of operations of both public and private higher education institutions, including individual public and private higher education institutions.
The amendment to section 40 in particular is also a matter of concern. The proposal that ministerial approval of loans and overdraft agreements become obligatory attacks the ramparts of the independence and autonomy of the council of an institution, thereby emasculating its ability to govern the institution properly and effectively.
Let me hasten to add that the DP acknowledges the absolute necessity to address serious financial misdemeanours committed at certain institutions, but do we have to harass those institutions that are steering clear of nefarious financial practices? It would be a fallacy to suggest that only a ministerial veto can ensure sound governance at a higher education institution.
In any case, the Minister does have his finger on the pulse already, by virtue of the fact that the Council for Higher Education is obliged to report to the Minister, and the Minister plays an important role in the appointment of members of the Council for Higher Education. So it is not as if the Minister is going to be left in limbo. The Minister will be kept au fait with all that is going on at any public higher education institution.
When one further considers the fact that the existing Act prescribes proper record-keeping and full reporting to the Minister on all matters affecting financial affairs, we find it difficult to accept the amendment to section 40.
Owing to these serious concerns, the DP chooses to withhold its support for this Bill. [Interjections.]