Skills Development Amendment Bill [B16-2011] public hearings: COSATU and NUM, Masters Builders South Africa, and Rural Youth Development Foundation South Africa

Meeting report

COSATU and the National Union of Mine Workers Joint Submission
The Congress of South African Trade Unions and its affiliate the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) broadly welcomed and supported the objectives and intentions of the Skills Development Amendment Bill 2011, and stated that Skills Development Act was a very important landmark in South Africa. The Act sought to provide an institutional framework to implement national sector and workplace strategies to develop and improve the skills of South African workforce. COSATU’s view was that the Act was strategically placed to remove the skills deficiency facing South Africa. COSATU stated that skills shortage was a product of under investment in training by companies and the skewed provision of general education. Those shortages had continued to worsen over time as the result of the neglect of the previous regime. The White Paper on skills development underscored the centrality of skills development in enabling people to participate in economic and social development.
 
The International Labour Organisation (ILO) estimated that between 1990 and 1994 the intake of apprentices was reduced by between 30% and 60%.  On the other hand the apprentice system was generally defective and inefficient.

The ILO found that the apprentice system produced low standard training because practical training was unsupervised and unstructured. Under-investment in skills development was further compounded by the high rate of illiteracy.  It was estimated that 45% of adult Africans could not read or write, while 35% of the economically active population was reported as functionally illiterate. COSATU stated that to remove the legacy of apartheid an integrated approach to enhance investment in education and training was required. COSATU and the National Union of Mine Workers (NUM) saw the amendment as part of the package of measures to transform the apartheid work place. COSATU had broadly supported the strategy and objectives of the Bill which had to encompass improving productivity growth and improving access to training and education among other objectives.

COSATU and the NUM welcomed and supported the Bill as skills development was the critical area in which the education and skills levels south Africa needed to be drastically improved in order to increase people's skills and employability. COSATU believed that the Minister of Higher Education and Training and the Government had been correct to identify skills development as the area which had major weaknesses in terms of delivery. COSATU also supported the Bill's prohibitions of potential conflicts of interests by Sector Education Training Authority (SETA) board members or staff and COSATU believed that the Bill should make reference to the Public Finance Management Act.

COSATU was concerned with the proposed amendment regarding the suggested deletion of important functions of “Employment Services” and its mandate of “advising and counselling workers on career choices, assessment of workers, and employers finding qualified employees. COSATU stated that there was also a fundamental need for continued complementary collaboration between the Department of Labour and Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) and the SETAs.

On composition and structure of SETAs, COSATU supported the proposed option to merge them because of the current dysfunctionality of many of them. COSATU raised its concern about the appointment of the chairperson of SETA boards by the Minister and COSATU requested that the appointment be deleted from the amendments. COSATU believed that further clarity had to be given on the number of subcommittees and that SETAs had to have limits to the number. COSATU also said that there should be only a limited number of SETAs.

In conclusion COSATU and NUM believed that there was an urgent need to deal with the numerous and severe challenges facing South African skills development agencies. COSATU emphasised that the interventions needed to be more inclusive of the sectors particularly in labour. COSATU commended the DHET for developing the necessary amendment Bill and hoped that its proposal would be considered. COSATU was aware of the overwhelming task that lay ahead but believed that the Bill coupled with other measures would improve the life of the ordinary South Africans and contribute towards economic development. 

Discussion
A van der Westhuizen (DA) thanked the delegate for the presentation. He asked if COSATU believed that the changes in the bill would turn SETAs around and bring about changes.

The Chairperson thanked the delegation.

Master Builders South Africa Submission
Mr Craig Townsend,  Skills Development Manager, Master Builders South Africa (MBSA), gave a background to his organisation, which was a federation of registered employer organisations which represented contractors and employers operating in the building industry and was regulated in terms of Section 107 of the Labour Relations Act 1995 (Act No. 66 of 1995). The Master Builders Associations were individually registered as employer organisations in terms of the aforementioned Act.

MBSA was a member of the former Board of the Construction Education and Training Authority (CETA).
In its capacity as a representative party on the CETA, MBSA had tirelessly partitioned and agitated for reform and change to the CETA on a range of issues relating to its constitution and operation. MBSA unequivocally supported the Minister of Higher Education in bringing about the placing of the Construction Education and Training Authority under administration and continued to work closely with the appointed administrator to ensure that the CETA was transformed into a viable, effective organisation which delivered on its mandate in terms of the National Skills Development Strategy.

The majority of MBSA member companies (29,8%) were small, with turnover less than R5 million per annum. In fact some 80% of the companies could be regarded as small to medium enterprises with annual turnover less than R50 million. However, some 20% of the MBSA Members had turnover in excess of R50 Million.

When the information was extrapolated it was estimated that the 3 500 members of MBSA could have a combined turnover in excess of R100 billion annually. The MBSA members were therefore very important stakeholders in the Building Industry.

Some 78% of the respondents employed less than 100 people and nearly 22% employed more than 100.
On this basis it was estimated that the MBSA membership provided employment for over 200 000 people (not including employment by informal subcontractors for outsourced work). It was again verified that small to medium enterprises in the Building Industry were important providers of employment.

MBSA submitted that the definition in Section 1(f)(a) was far too broad and that it should be restricted to registered associations. MBSA suggested that any party that wished to exercise a right of representation on an organisation like CETA should be capable of exercising and being held accountable for its responsibility to that organisation. MBSA was content that sufficient provision was made for the participation of state departments under Annexure 4 part 2 whereby two members representing the role players contemplated in part 1C of Annexure 4 were included.

Master Builders South Africa also made submissions in respect of the standard Constitution for Sector Education and Training Authorities contained in Schedule 5: item 1 (O) – Organised Employers – part (i); item 1 (O) (ii)– Organised Employers – part (ii); Item 1(P) – Organised Labour; and Annexure 4 – Representation of Accounting Authority. (Please see submission document.)

Discussion
Mr C Moni (ANC) wanted clarity as to what happened to the people who did not register with MBSA so as not to pay tax

Mr Van der Westhuizen wanted clarity as to whether RYDFSA was saying that CETA would be better off  under administration than when under its board. He also asked if failure for the board always to form a quorum was the problem.

Ms W Nelson (ANC) wanted to know what was the CETA board was doing about the problems that it faced. 

Mr Townsend admitted that the board had a problem. He explained that MBSA was not saying that the board was not operational but that it had a problem of implementation. He believed that if the board and the operational staff operated the way they were supposed to and monies went to right channels, implementation would run smoothly. Mr Townsend also admitted that the board's not making a quorum was also one of the many problems the board was facing. He mentioned that some board members had no clue of what they were supposed to do as board members.

The Chairperson stated that the unions came to the Committee with the mind-set that the Committee and Government had to review or correct the SETAs.  He emphasised that,  to eliminate malpractice, corruption had to be reported to the police and not to the Portfolio Committee or to the Department. He explained that the SETAs were state organs that were very corrupt and action ought to be taken against corruption and abuse of power.

Rural Youth Development Foundation South Africa Submission
Mr Mthobisi Mkhize, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Umvithi Youth Development Consultants and Chairman of the Rural Youth Development Foundation South Africa (RYDFSA) had carefully scrutinised the Amendment  Bill and he applauded the Portfolio Committee for the successful work it had done in partnership with the Minister and the national Government. Mr Mkhize stated that the Bill served as a good sign of sustainable growth in South Africa. He also mentioned that the Skills Amendment Bill portrayed Government’s vision of full of opportunities and balance in academic development and economic growth. RYDFSA believed that the Bill was the greatest move and the big stepping stone towards the sustainable development of young people and economy in South Africa.

RYDFSA had looked at the transition stage of the Amendment Bill and found out that the amendment was to define certain words or expressions and to delete obsolete definitions. Many South African citizens especially youth coming from rural and disadvantaged communities had been very limited in access to information from SETAs. RYDFSA believed that if SETAs were grouped together it would be possible for the information to be designed in a way that would be accessible and more meaningful to ordinary citizens at grass-root level. Regrouping would also create unlimited access of information especially in the rural areas and avoid continuous duplication of information.

Umvithi Youth Development had conducted a research and analysis on youth development and found that many South African Institutions depended on one or no policy document for reference purposes. An Annual Skills Development Report had to be published that would present analytical discussions on selected topics related to skills development. The Amendment Bill had a potential in terms of maximising funding opportunities for programmes relating to skills development and would also help in the branding of skills development for rural communities, organisations and associations that worked in association with DHET. It would help in terms of attracting donors for potential sponsorship, improving marketing and potential strategies for local skills development opportunities, and minimising the risk of exploitation of youth while trying to enhance the skills of the youth.

The RYDFSA submission served as the result of the study made on youth development, youth needs and potential at both local and at national level in SA and the study was related to the proposed amendments. The study found that the previous skills development policies did not focus enough on rural youth skills development and their needs. The study also revealed that national development policies that previously discussed rural youth skills development largely concentrated on academic education and improved access to primary and secondary education. 

Training was needed to improve rural youth’s opportunities to engage also in alternative income-generating activities. There were vocational training centres that offered literacy courses and training but those centres appeared not to fully satisfy the needs and aspirations of the rural youth. These vocational centres were very limited and very few of the vocational centres had agricultural subjects included in their curriculum. Another finding of the study was the students feared that they would not have the possibility to use their acquired skills in their local communities.

The submission also presented an overview of the situation on rural youth skills development. The issue that mainly challenged the rural youth was the development of the rural academic institutions that would enhance their skills. More youth in rural areas had opted to migrate to urban areas for work and a better life because of the limited employment opportunities and the exposure to the modern life that rural youth obtained through the media. RYDFSA believed that the amendments would establish programmes offering valuable opportunities to South African communities, more explicitly for skills development for youth or any organisation implementing skills development.

In conclusion Mr Mkhize believed that RYDFSA and Umvithi Youth Development Consultants would continuously assist the Portfolio Committee on Higher Education and Training on areas of their expertise in youth skills development and resource availability. The response to the proposal was the great need to develop a strategy that would benefit the youth. He mentioned that lack or limited education remained the one primary obstacle to the development of rural youth. Rural youth had ideas on how to improve the current situation in rural areas if financial aid and transfer of knowledge were provided. RYDFSA hoped that the submission would serve as a sustainable contribution towards the changes and strategic developments made towards improving lives of fellow citizens.

Discussion
Ms N Gina (ANC) wanted to know if Umvithi had any bad encounter with any of the SETAs.

The Chairperson thanked all the entities for coming and for presenting their submissions.

The meeting was adjourned.