Skills Development Amendment Bill [B16-2011]: adoption

Meeting report

Skills Development Amendment Bill
The Chairperson said deliberations on the Bill had already taken place. He did offer members the opportunity to ask questions of clarity on the Bill if they wished.

Mr A van der Westhuizen (DA) asked for his objection to be noted that Members did not have the opportunity to study the documentation beforehand as it was only handed out that very morning.

The Chairperson responded that the amendments had come out of deliberations by the Committee which had now been effected to the Bill and that was what was before the Committee at present. He asked the Committee if time was needed to peruse the amendments.

Mr van der Westhuizen asked if the mistakes in the Bill that members had pointed out, had been corrected. He suggested that the Committee take its time to check on these and not rush the process. The Committee could apply its mind and give final approval to the Bill in 2012.

The Chairperson was satisfied that the typographical mistakes pointed out previously were not grandiose. The Committee should nevertheless check whether the mistakes had in fact been corrected. He set aside 15 minutes for members to peruse the amendments to the Bill. The Bill had been postponed enough times. The Committee had even asked the Chairperson to ask the Minister to leave out certain parts of the Bill, which had been done.

Mr C Moni (ANC) agreed with the Chairperson’s sentiments.

The Committee took 15 minutes to peruse the amendments.

The Chairperson restarted proceedings and took the Committee through the Bill clause by clause, referring to the amendments as contained in the A version of the Bill (B16A) where appropriate.

Clause 1
The clause was unanimously adopted by the Committee.

Clause 2
 The clause was unanimously adopted by the Committee.

Mr van der Westhuizen noted Clause 11 (Constitution of a SETA) in the B-version of the Bill (page 7, line 19) and referred to Section 13(2)(e) where “The framework, procedure and process for the development of a
strategic plan for the SETA relating to this Act and in accordance with the Public Finance Management Act;” was contained. He suggested that “in accordance with the Public Finance Management Act;” be moved  to subclause 13(2)(k) dealing with Finances of the SETA.

Mr Gary Rhoda, Parliamentary Legal Adviser, stated that the reference to the PFMA in Section 13(2)(e) was a reference to budgetary processes. The strategic plan had to be in line with the PFMA hence the reference.

Mr van der Westhuizen acceded to this.

Still referring to Clause 11, he suggested changing the wording to “deviation from the clauses in the standard constitution contained in Schedule 5” in Section 13(2).

Mr Eben Boshoff, Legal Adviser: Department of Higher Education and Training, did not think that the suggested wording was legally sound.

The Chairperson said the subclause was not problematic as it was. He suggested that it remain as it was.

Mr van der Westhuizen acceded to this.

Mr S Makhubela (ANC) asked whether the PFMA should not be specified in subclause 13(2)(k) dealing with the finances of the SETA.

The Chairperson stated that there was no need and that the clauses were fine as they were.

Clause 3
The clause was unanimously adopted by the Committee.

Clause 4
The clause was unanimously adopted by the Committee.

Clause 5
With the exception of the DA, the rest of the Committee voted in favour of the clause.

Clause 6
With the exception of the DA, the rest of the Committee voted in favour of the amended clause.

Clause 7
The clause was unanimously adopted by the Committee.

Clauses 8 - 10
The amended clauses were unanimously adopted by the Committee.

Clause 11
With the exception of the DA, the Committee voted in favour of the amended clause.

Clause 12
The amended clause was unanimously adopted by the Committee.

Clause 13
The clause was unanimously adopted by the Committee.

Clause 14
The new clause was unanimously adopted by the Committee.

Mr Boshoff stated that due to insertion of the new clause, the numbering of the clauses in the Bill would change. It was an administrative change and would be made by the printers after the A-list of amendments was accepted by the Committee. The A-list of amendments would be incorporated into the B-version of the Bill.

Clause 15
The amended clause was unanimously adopted by the Committee.

Clauses 16 - 27
The clauses were unanimously adopted by the Committee.

Clause 28
The amended clause was unanimously adopted by the Committee.

Clause 29
The clause was unanimously adopted by the Committee.

Clause 30
The amended clause was unanimously adopted by the Committee.

Clause 31
The amended clause was unanimously adopted by the Committee.

Schedule
The amended schedule was unanimously adopted by the Committee.

Long Title
With the exception of the DA, the Committee voted in favour of the amended Long Title.

Mr Makhubela was interested to know what the reason for the DA’s objection to the amended Long Title was.

Mr van der Westhuizen responded that the DA believed that SETAs should have a greater opportunity to decide on the content of their constitution. Their final constitution must be more of their doing than the Minister. Even though it was easier administratively to have the same constitution for all the SETAS it was not a convincing enough reason to have it that way.

The Chairperson placed the entire Bill before the Committee for adoption and the Bill was adopted as amended.

Mr van der Westhuizen stated that even though the DA voted in favour of the Bill, it did not believe the Bill would solve the problems. A complete rewrite of the skills development architecture was needed. The Bill was only seen as interim relief. He looked forward to the Green Paper which would allow for the possibility of a new dispensation on skills development to be drafted.

The meeting was adjourned.