Science and Technology Laws Amendment Bill: Department's briefing, School Sport development briefings from Departments of Sport & Recreation and Basic Education

Meeting report

Science and Technology Laws Amendment Bill [B5-2011]: Department of Science and Technology briefing
Dr Molapo Qhobela, Deputy Director-General: Human Capital and Knowledge Systems, Department of Science and Technology, noted that the Science and Technology Laws Amendment Bill (the Bill) was now being referred to the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) in terms of the Rules of Parliament, following the deliberations on the Bill in the National Assembly (NA). The Department of Science and Technology (DST or the Department) would brief the Committee on the Bill and to take guidance from Members as to how they wished to take the process forward. The Department would try to give clarity on some issues and if necessary would be willing to return to give more details.

He noted the background to this Bill. Prior to 2004, the science and technology function had vested in the Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology (as it was then named) but in 2004 the Department of Science and Technology was established as a separate entity, and consequential amendments needed now to be effected to the legislation relating to the public entities who fell under the oversight of the Minister of Science and Technology.

The legislative process on this Bill started in August 2010, when Cabinet had approved the draft Bill. It was published in September 2010 for comment in the Government Gazette. Between October and November 2010, inputs from the public were made and were incorporated into the Bill, and the Bill was later revised to allow further consultation with stakeholders. In February 2011 the revised Bill was submitted to the State Law Advisors (SLAs) certification. The Bill was then formally introduced into Parliament. Various comments on the Bill were received from the Council for Science and Industrial Research (CSIR), African Institute of South Africa (AISA), Academy of Science for South Africa (ASSAF), Witwatersrand University (WITS), and National Research Foundation (NRF). These comments generally dealt with technical issues. The Bill was overwhelmingly welcomed by all stakeholders.

Dr Qhobela noted that the Bill basically sought to effect technical corrections to certain definitions and references associated with the former Ministry of Arts, Culture Science and Technology, so as to eliminate possible confusion and enhance clarity. It also purported to strengthen institutional oversight and governance of public entities. All amendments were directed to enhance clarity and avoid confusion around the definitions of officials of public entities, references to departments and designation of the portfolios of the Minister, or to effect other consequential changes necessitated by recent reorganisation of the State structures.

Dr Qhobela pointed out some of the key provisions. The Scientific Research Council Act of 1988 amended the title of administrative head of the Council from “President” to “Chief Executive Officer” (CEO). It also provided the procedure to be followed prior to the appointment of members of the Board so as to ensure consistency with other public entities. It provided for broad representivity on the Board of the Council, limited the term of office of the Board members, and deleted obsolete provisions and provisions catered for in the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA).

The Bill also sought to amend the National Advisory Council on Innovation Act of 1997, by correcting the reference to the former Department, and the portfolio of the Minister. It also limited the term of office of members of the Board, provided for the appointment of a fulltime Chief Executive Officer of the National Advisory Council on Innovation (NACI), and set minimum periods for the meetings of Council in each year.

Dr Qhobela noted that the National Research Foundation Act of 1998 was also covered in the Bill, and here too the administrative head’s title was amended from “President” to “Chief Executive Officer”. There were also corrections around the portfolio of the Minister, now making corrected references to the Minister of Higher Education and Training, and a limitation on the term of office of Board members.

Similar provisions were also made in respect of the ASSAF. The Bill also provided for Parliamentary funding of the Academy, and the process for the election of Executive Management of the Council, the term of office, and minimum periods within which the Council must meet in each year.

Similar corrections to the reference to the Department and portfolio of the Minister were made in relation to the AISA Act. The word “Council” was now substituted for the former references to the “Institute”, and provisions were inserted around the terms of office of Board members and the minimum periods for the Council to meet every year. There was also now provision for consultation with the Minister regarding the appointment, where necessary, of an Acting Chief Executive Officer.

Finally, he noted that there were amendments effected to the Natural Science Professions Act of 2003. Here, the references to the Constitution and portfolio of the Minister were corrected. There was provision made for broad representivity on the Board, and extension of the requirements for professional qualifications to State employees who were members of the Board, because it was desirable, in a regulatory body, to include those who were qualified to regulate.

Discussion
Ms B Mncube (ANC, Gauteng) asked if, in the principal Acts, the functions of the Academy and those of the Institute were defined clearly.

Ms Mncube also asked for clarity on the requirement of section 48 that the Minister would have to “table the Report in Parliament”. She asked if, for practical purposes, it would be tabled firstly in the NA, and then in the NCOP, and wanted to check whether this wording was intentional.

Ms M Moshodi (ANC, Free State) asked for further clarity on the requirement for an extension of the professional qualification to the State employees.

Ms Moshodi asked for an explanation of the acronyms on page 7 of the presentation.

Ms N Rasmeni (ANC, North West) thanked the Department for its presentation and suggested that, since there were no major changes to the content of each of the Acts, the technical amendments effected by this Bill should be supported. She asked what criteria were used when nominating members of the Board and how many members constituted the Board as well as their functions and roles.

Dr Qhobela responded in general to several of the issues raised about the various bodies. He noted that the Act establishing the ASSAF, Act 67 of 2011, was signed into law by the President in 2002. Its purpose was to establish a juristic person known as the “Academy of South Africa”, and to determine its objectives, functions and method of work, to prescribe the manner in which it was managed and governed, and to provide for the repeal of the Suid-Afrikaanse Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns legislation of 1959. He reminded Members that there were other, non-statutory academies, but ASSAF was the statutory body that, in a broad sense, represented the collective wisdom of South African scientists in a broader sense. The functions of the Academy included, but were not limited to, public scientific reports and other publications. The Academy had recently published reports on the production of PhD graduates in the country, as well as a report on how to conduct clinical research.  It consisted of wise people who were able to give independent scientific advice on a host of science matters. The Academy also, in line with its mandate to enter into reciprocal agreements with bodies that had similar objectives locally and internationally, had been instrumental in establishing and developing science bodies within the African Continent. It had agreements with a wide range of bodies, working under the DST and in conjunction with the Department of International Affairs and Cooperation (DIRCO). In addition, it had entered into other agreements with international bodies in Brazil and India, under the IBSA agreements, to share ideas. The Academy handled a number of similar agreements in this context.

Dr Quobela then said that the AISA Act, No 68 of 2001, was also assented to in February 2002. The purpose of this Act was to establish a juristic body by way of an Institute, and a Council to manage the affairs of the Institute, and to provide for the composition and management functions and staff of that Council. The objective of this Institute was to promote knowledge and understanding of African affairs, through leading social scientists giving context to debate across all disciplines, and through training and education on African affairs. Fundamentally, the Institute was an integration initiative, allowing South Africa to participate more fully in the Continent and promote the consciousness of Africa at grassroots level.

Mr Qhobela noted that all these pieces of legislation spoke to processes, criteria for service of Board Members, the nominations, and the requirements, rules and responsibilities of the members of the Council or Board, as well as the governing entities. He reminded Members that all the entities were subject to the provisions of the PFMA, and were also bound by their own Acts.

With regard to the South African Council for the National Scientific Professions (SACNSP), Dr Qhobela noted that this Council was comprised of not more that 30, and not less than 20, members, who were appointed by the Minister of Science and Technology. Not less than 12 and not more than 18 should be Professional Natural Scientists or Certified Natural Scientists nominated by voluntary organisations. Not fewer than four, and not more than six should be representatives from the State, as nominated by their respective Director-General or Chief Executive Officer, and it was further provided that at least one of those persons nominated should be in service of the DST, and one in the service of the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET). It was important to note that in the past, the State employees nominated to serve on the Council did not have to be natural scientists or certified natural scientists, but this requirement did apply to all other representatives. Therefore, to ensure fairness, the Bill now sought to amend the Council’s Act to require that the State representatives should in future be either Professional or Certified Natural Scientists.

Advocate Brian Muthwa, Head: Legal Services, DST, responded that changes were also being effected by this Bill to the requirements for tabling reports to Parliament. This was something that was covered in the PFMA but because some of those Acts had been drafted before the PFMA took effect, there were some conflicts or inconsistencies. He responded that, in general, if the legislation prescribed that something should be done “in Parliament” then this meant that both houses of Parliament must deal with the matter. If the legislation stated that it must be done by “the National Assembly” then only the NA would have to deal with that Report.

Mr Muthwa then noted that it was not easy for Members of this Committee to read the amendments around the criteria for selection without also referring to the principal Acts, which were not before the Members. Most of the issues were provided for in the principal Act. The amendments being made by way of this Bill related to areas that the Department considered had to be amended to strengthen and ensure consistency with other pieces of legislation.

Dr Qhobela then explained the acronyms as:
CSIR – the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research
AISA - African Institute of South Africa
ASSAF - Academy of Science for South Africa
Wits - Witwatersrand University
NRF - National Research Foundation.

School Sports: Progress reports by the Department of Basic Education and Department of Sports and recreation
Ms Vivienne Carelse, Deputy Director General: Strategic Planning and Reporting, Department of Basic Education, gave a brief introduction of her presentation, noting that it would touch upon progress made on physical education, school sport leagues, the integrated school sports plan, long term participant development support and plans for the future.

Ms Nozipho Xulu-Mabumo, Director: Safety, Enrichment and Sport in Education, Department of Basic Education, noted that in 2010, the physical education component of Quintile 1, Foundation Phase education had been completed. In line with the Curriculum Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS), further training of educators would still be done. The training material and educator resource packs for intermediate and senior phase educators had been developed.

With regard to school sport leagues, she noted that in January 2011 advocacy on establishment of school leagues in four sporting codes had commenced and 3 000 schools had registered throughout the country and were currently playing at district level. However, the national launch of the leagues and distribution of sport material had been halted, in order to give way to the political mandate of developing an integrated school sports plan.

Ms Rohini Naidoo, Acting Chief Director: Mass Participation School Sport: Department of Sports and Recreation, noted that a series of workshops had been conducted with federations, both provincially and nationally, around the establishment of national school code committees. This was intended to coordinate and facilitate the delivery of school leagues. Interim Code Committees had been set up to prepare for the election and alignment of code committees at all levels. These were inclusive of school sports for the deaf and physically disabled.

In terms of the School Sport Code development plans, she noted that the sports federations had worked jointly with the interim school code committees, so as to prepare National Code Development Plans that were inclusive of school sport. That meant all code development plans would be aligned to the long term coaching development plan, and the long term participant development plan, and the South African Sports for Life plan. They were developed by the Department of Sports and Recreation (SRSA) and South African Sports Confederation and Olympic Committee (SASCOC) as regulatory instruments. The code plans were inclusive of issues around national leagues, capacity building, talent identification and development.

Ms Xulu-Mabumo noted that the provincial Code Delivery Plans were aligned to the national Code Development Plans. The provincial departments of sport would support provincial code committees, the delivery of leagues, the training of educators as coaches, empires, technical officials, and administrators. There would be provision made for equipment and attire.

Ms Xulu-Mabumo noted that, in terms of the integrated school sport plan, the draft document had been completed and the DBE had presented the document for inputs to Senior Management, Heads of Education Departments Committee (HEDCOM) and the Council of Executive Members (CEM). The SRSA would present the document to HEDCOM and MinMEC, and it had also been tabled to both Ministers for further processing.

She then outlined the areas of agreement. SRSA would be responsible for setting norms and standards in respect of the sport of the country. SRSA was also responsible for the development of policy guidelines and support for all agencies delivering sporting activities in the country. DBE was responsible for the development of school sport policy guidelines and all school sport activities taking place up to the district level. A School Sports Coordinating Committee would be appointed by both Ministers to address the critical areas identified in the integrated plan.

Ms Naidoo then noted that, with regard to coach training, a key focus for school sport leagues would be the provision of a progressive competitive structure and a mechanism for the identification of talent, which would be essential to retain the balance between play, practice and competition for children and youth. That would be supported by suitably qualified skilled coaches who had the ability to guide and improve the children’s and youth’s potential, in line with their needs and stage of development.

Mr Simphiwe Mncube, Director: Facilities, SRSA, noted that the long term participant development support would deliver intra and inter school programmes. SRSA would engage with SASCOC and sport federations to develop guidelines for the delivery of code specific competitions and leagues, and would make available skilled personnel to identify talented athletes and officials, as well as to mentor and support coaches, umpires and technical officials. Advice would be given on the varied competition formats for intra and inter school competition that were age and stage appropriate, and they would also enable disabled people to participate in regular competitive sport.

Ms Carelse concluded that in the future the SRSA would be implementing the recommendations as outlined in the plan. SRSA would also agree on the funding responsibilities, based on stated roles. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) had been developed and was supported by the Programme of Action and it would be forwarded to the Minister for signature. The Minister of Basic Education was awaiting the finalisation of the School Sport Policy, and guidelines on sport implementation, so that these could be published for public comment.

Discussion
Ms Rasmeni asked how the departments were going to ensure that sport activities were indeed taking place in each and every school because in some of the Eastern Cape school there were no sporting activities and that was a worrying factor. She also asked about the sporting activities that took place in tertiary institutions. Where did they fell in all the plans and were they developed by the departments.

Ms Mncube asked what the status of the draft integrated implementation plan was as annexed in the integrated sport framework, and how soon it would be finalised. Secondly, she noted that there was a plan to train educators as coaches and asked whether this would be rolled out to all schools including those located in rural areas. Thirdly she asked what type of training model would be used and what type of accreditation would be received by trained educators. Lastly, commented that the projects should move beyond clubs or federations because there were those school children at school level that did not belong to clubs and if there was no link of identifying them from the schools they would not benefit since few of them belong to clubs.

Ms M Boroto (ANC, Mpumalanga) asked if the Department of Basic Education was referring to the disabled learners in the mainstream schools or in special need schools when it said they should participate in sporting activities. And if they were referring to the former, the challenge then would be about infrastructure. How would the Department address this?

In addition, Ms Boroto sought clarity about what funding was allocated for sport facilities. Did municipalities use the Municipal Infrastructure Grant (MIG) to develop and maintain their sporting infrastructure or was funding derived from elsewhere. Finally, she noted that the progress report of the department was very ambitious and hoped that the plans that were envisaged in the report were implementable.

Mr S Plaatjie (COPE, North West) asked if the Department of Basic Education had done a physical infrastructure analysis on all schools in the country that needed sport facilities and how many were they because he had discovered that in 21 schools that he had visited only two had proper sport facilities. Furthermore, he asked what contextual factors did the Department identify that would hamper the delivery of code competitions and leagues in schools. Also, he asked if there was an intention to replace the existing sport committees that were already there on the ground and, at what level were they going to be established, local, regional or provincial level.

The Chairperson informed the Committee that they had run out of time and requested the department to respond to some of the questions and answer the outstanding ones in writing and communicate them to the Committee Secretary.

Ms Xulu-Mabumo replied that it would be a process to ensure that sport was taking place in all schools. The relevant departments would be working with many stakeholders and key to this would be the role of the School Governing Bodies (SGBs). The SGBs would assist in identifying which sporting codes were relevant for their respective school.

Ms Xulu-Mabumo replied that sport in tertiary institution was being coordinated by the Department of Higher Education (DHE).

Ms Xulu-Mabumo noted that the physical education they’ve referred to was the one that was curriculum oriented which was not focused on physical training where they would need equipment and other resources. It focused at what the learner was able to do in terms of skills and utilizing what was available in able to achieve the required results and, they would provide the Committee a document which clearly illustrated what they were talking about.

Ms Xulu-Mabumo noted that the Department of Basic Education was mobilising as many schools as possible to open up already existing facilities for other schools to be able to use them. The Department had already identified that there were schools which needed new facilities but it was important for the other schools that had sporting facilities to open them up so that they could be utilised by those school which had no facilities.

The Chairperson thanked the department and requested the officials to respond to the rest of the questions in writing. This must be communicated to the Committee Secretary by this week Friday.

The meeting was adjourned.