Proposed Study Tour to Germany; Update on Public Hearings; Consideration of Outstanding Reports

Meeting report

Committee Minutes 25 May 2011
The Chairperson invited comments and amendments from Members.

Mr A Van der Westhuizen (DA) pointed out that Ms N Gina (ANC) was elected as an acting Chairperson for that particular meeting, and it was not reflected in that report..

In the absence of other amendments Mr Van der Westhuizen moved for the adoption of the minutes and Mr A Mpontshane (IFP) seconded the motion.

The Minutes were adopted with minor amendments.

Committee Minutes 2 June 2011
Mr Mpontshane enquired about the University of Zululand audit report.

The Chairperson explained that the University of Zululand was required to improve parts of the report that were not clear. The professional bodies that that were responsible for quality assurance had noticed a drop in standards. The University of Zululand felt that it was not supposed to be scrutinised by the Parliament or professional bodies. The institution was of the impression that quality assurance was the domain of peer reviewers only.

Mr K Dikhobo (Azapo) asked why the University of Zululand audit report was not discussed by the Committee.
Mr G Rhadebe (ANC) suggested that the authors of the audit report should be invited to brief the Committee.

The Chairperson explained that all Committee proceedings were supposed to be opened to the public and media. Therefore all implicated personnel could then be prejudiced. The Chairperson further advised that the Committee could make observations and recommendations. Members were free to speak their minds during House debates.

Mr Dikhobo moved for the adoption and Mr Makhubele seconded the motion and the June 2 2011 minutes were adopted.

Committee Report on 2011 Budget and Strategic of Safety and Security SETA, Construction SETA and Fibre Processing and Manufacturing SETA
Mr Rhadebe pointed out that the some of the initials of Members were incorrect.

Mr Dikhobo moved for the adoption and Mr Rhadebe seconded the motion. The report was adopted with minor technical amendments.

Oversight Visit Report to University of Limpopo
Mr Rhadebe suggested that the Committee Secretary should subdivide the report into two separate reports, one for each campus. The two merged campuses were experiencing different problems, which were unique to each campus.

The Committee agreed after they briefly discussed around the merits of two reports as compared to one.

Ms W Nelson (ANC) mentioned that the employee’s conditions of services in both campuses were not aligned after the merger of the former University of the North and Medunsa.

Mr Mpontshane urged the Committee to dedicate time to look at all the recommendations arising from the report. He then pointed out a correction on bullet point 3, page 5, the report referred to millions rather than thousands.

Mr Dikhobo enquired about the reasons that Committee did not meet with both Student representative Councils (SRC) on both campuses, to have a clear picture of the challenges in that university.

Mr Dikhobo said that the recommendations arising from the oversight visit could help the Department of Higher Education in investigating and finding amicable solutions to the problem.

The Chairperson said that the Departmental Task Team Report of March 2011could go a long way in clarifying some of the issues.

Mr Mpontshane moved for the adoption and Mr Rhadebe seconded the motion, the report was adopted with minor amendments.

Committee Activities Report April to June 2011
Mr Mpontshane pointed out that his initials were omitted.

Mr S Makhubebe (ANC) pointed out an omission of the names of SETA’s that had reported to the Committee, and that his name was referred to in the female gender.

The Chairperson explained that some of the mistakes were caused by computer misspelling.

Mr Van der Westhuizen pointed out that the report was not clear about the mandate of the Committee to recommend to the Minister on steps to take regarding FET Colleges.

The Chairperson replied that the pending legislation would guide the Committee on which steps to take.

Mr Mpontshane moved for the adoption and Mr Rhadebe seconded the motion.

The Committee activities report was adopted with amendments.

Any other business
Proposed Study Tour to Germany
The Chairperson informed Members that the proposed study tour of Germany could only proceed in December 2011. He anticipated no problems with approval from the Chairperson of the National Assembly.

Mr Rhadebe asked why the Committee would be going in December because that time was dedicated to constituency work.

The Chairperson replied that if the study tour was undertaken during plenary, there was a risk that it could be declined.

Mr Rhadebe expressed concern about preferential treatment and pointed out that other committees had been granted permission to go on study tours during plenary. He suggested that the Committee should look at that problem seriously.

The Chairperson explained that the German Parliament was closed for the summer break. There were a stipulated number of study tours that could be allowed at any given time. That was done to avoid a situation where the majority of Members could be abroad and Bills could not be passed.

Update on Public Hearings
The Chairperson informed Members that the Committee had only received one written submission concerning the Higher Education Laws Amendment Bill B14 2011 and Further Education and Training Colleges Amendment Bill. The closing date for submissions was August 18 2011. The Committee Secretary had advertised the hearings in 3 national newspapers.

Ms Anthea Gordon, State Law Advisor, said that Umalusi legislation straddled two Departments-the Department of Basic and the Department of Higher Education. Therefore the two relevant committees should address the issue together. She added that public Participation was an integral part when drafting legislation.

Mr Rhadebe suggested that the Committee could extend the deadline.

Mr Mpontshane suggested that the Committee should take up the issue with the programming Committee.

Mr Van Der Westhuizen mentioned that the South African Democratic Teachers' Union (SADTU), National Professional Teachers Organisation of South Africa (Naptosa) and other trade unions would present oral submissions. Some stakeholders complained that they were informed very late and some of them did not even have a copy of the draft bill. He encouraged Members to encourage stakeholders to attend.

Adv Gordon cautioned the Committee to be very careful and not underestimate the importance of public participation. In 2005, the NCOP had failed to do public participation on four bills. The Constitutional obligation on both the NCOP and the National Assembly was to ensure that public had an input in the legislative process. When the NCOP was processing the Dental Technicians Amendment Bill, it had failed to do public participation. The Constitutional Court ruled that public participation was a constitutional mandate of both houses of Parliament. The Australian Parliament was very creative in eliciting public response; it used various means such as writing to stakeholders, social networking and oral submissions. She suggested that the Committee would be better off extending the deadline, than dealing with the constitutional court.

The meeting was adjourned