Higher Education and Training Laws Amendment Bill: Departmental briefing

Meeting report

Higher Education and Training Laws Amendment Bill: Departmental briefing
Mr Eben Boschoff, Chief Director, Department of Higher Education and Training, explained that public comments and the feedback of the Portfolio Committee in relation to the Higher Education and Training Laws Amendment Bill (the Bill) had been considered and incorporated into a new draft, which he would now present to the Committee. In particular, in line with the Committee’s requests, the Bill had been amended to reflect that a member of a dissolved Council should not be re-appointed to another Council. The words “due to dissention” had been deleted from the provisions around dissolution of a dysfunctional council. The wording in relation to consultation between Ministers was changed, to reflect that the Ministers must act “in consultation”, rather than the Minister of Finance having to give approval.

He took the Committee through other amendments.

Changes to section 27 of Higher Education and Training Laws Act (the Act)
Mr Boschoff noted that additions had been made to section 27(5), to deal with the criteria for nominations and election to the Council of a Higher Education Institution (HEI). The proposed new subsection (5A) stated that the eligibility criteria must be referred to in the institution’s statute and (5B) incorporated the amendment suggested by the Committee that a member of a dissolved council cannot be re-appointed ‘as a member of a council of a public education institution, except with the written approval of the Minister’.

Section 38 amendments
Mr Boschoff said that the proposed new section 38B has been reworded, to clarify the role of the National Institute for Higher Education (NIHE) with the universities, and amongst themselves.

A new amendment was also proposed, by way of a new section 38C. This stated that those who were appointed as members of NIHE must have ‘specific knowledge and experience in higher education generally, and in the scope and application of the institute established in terms of 38A(1), specifically’. Although it was recommended that two persons out of the ten should be nominated by the primary public HEIs, this had not been included as a specific requirement, since the Portfolio Committee had not felt it necessary to go that far. A person other than a university office-bearer could also have knowledge of higher education that would enable him/her to make a meaningful contribution to the work. There would also a difficulty in coordinating to fill two posts from 20 higher education institutes, and this would only be possible if coordinated through Higher Education South Africa (HESA).

The comments of the Auditor-General (AG) were incorporated into the new section 38H, which now created a clear requirement that universities must submit their annual audited financial statements to the Minister within a specific time frame of two months.

The new section 38I identified the aspects which this audit report must cover, also listing six areas on which there must be specific statements in the Annual Report, as suggested by the Auditor-General.

Mr Boschoff reminded the Committee that there had been some discussion around the circumstances in which the Minister should be able to intervene in institutions experiencing difficulties. It had been suggested that the words “in financial difficulty” should be replaced with “involved in financial impropriety” and to omit the reference to “and Training”. He pointed out that there was, in this draft, a sub-clause that required the Minister to give notice to the Board of institution involved to issue an imperative, and give that board a reasonable opportunity to make representations for further consideration by the Minister.

A new section 38O provided that there must be compliance with the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act before the Minister took the initiative to dissolve a Council.

New sections 45
Mr Boschoff noted that new sections 45A and 45B, outlined the powers of the Independent Assessor. These included the power to force people to give evidence to an investigation under oath, and to issue a subpoena. The Assessor was further empowered to call for and obtain copies of any documents and to enter any premises of a higher education institution that was under investigation.

These new subsections stemmed from the need to provide a report that complied with the administrative law, and for the Independent Assessor to gather it together in a report  to be presented to the Minister with recommendations that were factually-based and could be justified as reasonable. Many of the statements during the public hearings indicated that this did not find wide support, but those who opposed the provisions gave no alternatives. The Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET or the Department) still believed that this was an important point. It complied with the requirements of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA) and provided the safeguards to an affected person to be heard and protected.

Amendment to section 47
The amendment to section 47 dealt with the recommendations and findings of an Independent Assessor (IA). It obliged the IA to provide reasons as to why these measures were considered necessary, and would, again, ensure that an assessment was factually-based.

New Section 49A
Mr Boschoff said that the insertion of Section 49A provided the Minister with an alternative to appointing an IA straight away, and gave the framework for the issuing of directives to institutions.

The new section set out six conditions on which the Minister might issue a directive. These included circumstances where:
-the institution was involved in financial impropriety or was being otherwise mismanaged
-the institution was unable to perform its functions effectively
-the institution had acted unfairly or in a discriminatory or inequitable way towards a person to whom it owed a duty under the Act
-the institution had failed to comply with any law.

Not all stakeholders at the public hearings had supported this amendment, particularly not the last point. However, the DHET still felt that it was justified. It provided a “softer option” than the outright appointment of an IA. It was also a more direct solution as it offered the framework for a Council to play a lead role in finding solutions. If solutions were not found, then an IA would be appointed. This provided extra safeguards. Before the Minister could appoint an administrator, the institution would have to respond and state its views on why an administrator should not be appointed, and why the Council had failed. Mr Boschoff said again that those who objected to the inclusion of this provision also had not offered alternatives to it.

New section 49B
Mr Boschoff noted that a new section 49B related to the appointment of an administrator. This had incorporated wording from the former version of section 41A(1) and (2), as it made more chronological sense. The DHET had tried to incorporate issues raised by HESA, who said that this should be worded as an option, and therefore the words “ “if any of, or in any combination of, or if all” were now included.

Section 49C, 49D, 49E
Mr Boschoff ran through the provisions of the new sections 49C and D, which dealt with the need for assistance, remuneration and allowances to the administrator.

The new section 49E ensured that the appointment of an administrator could only occur with the dissolution of a Council. It was worded: “The council was dissolved from the date the Minister appoints the administrator”. The DHET decided to omit any reference to a suspension, as it seemed illogical given that the dissolution would not be automatic, but would take place only after intense deliberation and assessment.

Long Title
Mr Boschoff finally mentioned minor amendments to the Long Title.

Discussion
Prof S Mayatula (ANC) was concerned that the amendment to section 27(5B) was effectively tarring all council members with one brush, even if they were not directly at fault. The conditions of reappointment, through the written approval of the Minister, were so severe that they posed serious limitations on the chance of reappointment. He reiterated that this could also involve those who had not had anything to do with the problems on the Council. He also felt that the requirement that the Minister must give written approval would over-burden the Minister.

The Chairperson said that during the last meeting it was suggested that these restrictions should apply only to those who were directly implicated, and suggested that an amendment be made to this effect.

Mr S Makhubele (ANC) emphasized the need to have legislation which stated specifically who would or would not qualify for reappointment without the intervention of the Minister.

Prof Mayatula gave an example of the future prospects for a person who was voluntarily appointed to a Council, which was then dissolved through no fault of his own.

Mr M Dikobo (ANC) agreed that the person should have been implicated, and not be targeted through association. He wanted the wording rephrased so that it was based on administrative and judicial grounds. The clause must be clear that ineligibility arose from direct implication or fault.

The Chairperson suggested that the clause be reworded as: “a person was not eligible for reappointment as a member of a council of a public higher education institution if such member was implicated in illegality”.

Mr Boschoff asked what “implicated” meant, and said that this did not necessarily mean that the person was in fact involved, or found guilty.

The Chairperson clarified that the current terms gave no leeway for a person to be re-appointed even if there was absolutely no wrongdoing on his/her part. He felt that the conditions were too inflexible and thus had to be reformulated.

Mr Makhubele added that in this situation, there should be due process, so that a proper process was followed to find out who, for instance, might have been responsible for financial. If members of the public were to nominate a new board, a person who was in fact highly appropriate might be “condemned by association”, because of the current wording. He asked what due process should be named that avoided the innocent being condemned for ever.

The Chairperson suggested that the Portfolio Committee formulate the wording themselves as he had suggested. 

Prof Mayatula did not like that suggestion, and cautioned that this must be a full Committee debate. He did not feel sufficient attention was given to the matter. He was very concerned that the Committee must ensure that the wording was correct and that matters were thoroughly addressed.

Mr Dikobo said that the word “implicated” implied also that rumours might carry weight. He would prefer to use “is found to be involved in”. He reminded the Committee that the decision to dissolve a council was not arbitrary and legal processes would take place, including the appointment of an assessor, collection and giving of evidence, and oral evidence under oath. Nobody could  say they did not understand the dissolution, as they would have all been given the right of reply.

Mr A Mpontshane (IFP) asked Mr Boschoff to explain the relationship between the new sections 27(5A) and (5B). He suggested that (5A) already covered (5B), which was thus unnecessary.

The Chairperson explained that statutes were individual to universities, whereas legislation was a legal requirement for all universities.

Mr Dikobo explained that universities could make statutes, but their statutes could not override national legislation. He cited an example that universities could not be allowed to pass statutes allowing criminal activity.

 Ms A Lotriet (DA) felt that section 27(5A) was wide enough to allow universities their own statutes, but (5B) was important as it protected HEIs from people who might seek to “hop” from one council to the next. This provision would also protect a good council member from having his/her future jeopardised and ensured he could have his appointment approved by the Minister.

Ms D Chili (ANC) asked why a decision would be taken to dissolve the whole Council rather than removing only those that had caused the problems, leaving those that were effective in place.

Mr Mpontshane reiterated that the problem with this clause was the presumption that Council members would have been guilty of a misdemeanor. The problem was that Councils would not be able to screen prospective council members. He would prefer not to include amendment set out in section 27(5B), but rather leave it to the university statutes.

Mr C Moni (ANC) clarified that the main problem with the proposed subsection (5B) was that the Members were concerned that all those who had sat on a Council that was dismissed were effectively being tarred with the same brush. The wording should avoid this.

Mr Boschoff explained that the words “as indicated through the Independent Assessors report” could solve the problem, if the IA was willing to give a recommendation as to whether an individual should again be hired, and as long as that individual was given a chance to defend himself. Another possible option was to bring in a procedure that any member of a Council would be subjected to a disciplinary code. All institutions must have one, according to their own structures, but the Minister had not yet prescribed a Code of Conduct. The downside was that it might result in council members deciding not to stand for election again, so as not to submit themselves to the Code. The third option was that the Minister’s acceptation or rejection of the recommendation of the IA would occur only after getting a report from the Administrator.

Mr Boschoff stressed that it was important to remember that this clause worked if it was left as a limitation, since the ineligibility criteria were sufficient to deal with it. However, if the proposals for subsection (5B) were removed, it became an issue of individual institutional discretion, whereas (5B) was inserted to limit that discretion. The Minister must still approve all statutes and could have a direct impact on statutes being standardised. Another possibility was for Parliament to strengthen that provision further, not leaving it to the Minister alone. He told the Committee that it would be possible to reword these subsections. He fully understood the concerns about implicating all Council members as dysfunctional.

Mr Gideon Hoon, Principal State Law Advisor, Office of the Chief State Law Advisor, did not think that there were easy solutions to the problem. He would have preferred to consider adding another mechanism into section 49, so that those who had partaken in the mismanagement would get a chance to give an explanation. A link could be created between the proposed section 27(5B) and section 49.

The Chairperson noted that there was a legal process which allowed members of a Council to respond to allegations made against them. A Council must have done something wrong for it to be dissolved. The Council report would reflect on the functions and operations of that council. All decisions on reappointment would be made on the basis of those reports.

Prof Mayatula was concerned that the amendments now being proposed flowed from the discussions of the last meeting, between Members and the Department. Institutions were not aware of these proposals and had not had the opportunity to express their views.

The Chairperson explained that this amendment was not something entirely new and out of context. He did not believe that anything was being proposed that would adversely a member of the Council, and the most that could happen would be that someone might challenge Parliament as to whether its thinking was correct.

Mr Dikobo raised the point that the new section 45(A) was not referring to a disciplinary hearing, but it was an opportunity to report the various versions of the actions of the Council. The IA would then decide which version of the story to accept. He suggested the Bill should say that reappointment could be disallowed, no matter what the individual statutes might say.

Mr Makhubele said that the process would have resulted in everybody being assessed, and those who were innocent could be absolved. There was, however, a possibility that some people might be left out and some people might not be asked to present evidence. He explained that if nothing was finalised in a two-year period, which was quite short, then a new board should be appointed. He cautioned against over-reliance on the Minister. If an individual had not yet been cleared of any wrongdoing and if evidence was still being assessed by the time that a new board was to be appointed, the Minister might have to step in.

The Chairperson asked the drafters to come back with a proposal which articulated the Committee’s concerns.

Mr Makhubele moved to clause 38C, calling for an explanation.

The Chairperson explained that these Councils related to Higher Education specifically, and it was intended that those on the boards should have some specialist expertise in that area, to be able to direct the Board.

Prof Mayatula asked how the scope, as specified in 38C(1A)(b) would be ascertained. 

The Chairperson explained that if a decision needed to be made on curriculum development, an expert on that area would need to be one of the advisors. 

Mr Boschoff added that when the Minister established the institute, sections 38A and 38C must be looked at. These said that a determination was needed of the specific scope and application of that institution, such as an institute for human resource development. Expertise, in general, would be judged on how long a person had worked in that sector, whether within the universities or higher education. The legislation provides for three types of institutions, although at the moment only one, universities, was being used.

Mr Dikobo added that if it was an HR institute, then a person with expert knowledge of HR should be required, who had worked both in the fields of HR and higher education. 

Mr Mpontshane asked if those two were an “add-on” to other requirements.

The Chairperson explained that when a post was vacant the requirements would be made clear in the advertisement in the Government Gazette. The main concern was that the posts were too open-ended as presently stated, so in effect these requirement were a further qualifier.

Mr Mpontshane suggested that the phrase “in amongst other things” should be added after the two requirements, suggesting that these seemed to be the only two requirements.

The Chairperson did not think that there was a necessity to change the current wording.

Prof Mayatula was under the impression that these requirements only applied to the two people nominated by the higher education institutes. He asked for clarification on how those two would be nominated and where they would come from. The second criteria in 38C(1A) (b) would be difficult to meet, in respect of the board members nominated by the higher education institutes.

The Chairperson reminded the committee that HESA’s proposal was that the board must include two people nominated by the primary higher education institutions. The concern by the Portfolio Committee was that this was too limiting, since it believed that ordinary members of the public with the necessary expertise could also be nominated. That was why this provision had been included.

Prof Mayatula asked if this provision should apply to all the board members, as he did not think it was necessary for the whole board to have the same level of expertise.

Mr Dikobo argued that this could be seen as both a qualifying and a disqualifying clause, as it only allowed appointment of people in the group who had knowledge and experience in that field. He asked what would be done in relation to people with other skills, who could add a meaningful contribution. He cautioned that this should not merely be a board of academics. He felt other important sectors should be included.

Ms N Gina (ANC) did not believe this provision should apply to the whole Board. A good balance was needed. However, this provision would ensure that at least some people with the necessary experience in the sector were included.

The Chairperson suggested that the words “must include” should be added, so it was not exclusive of people with other skills.

Mr Makhubele reminded the Committee that during the initial debates, the Members had moved away from the idea of co-option, and had also decided upon a minimum of 9 and a maximum of 15 board members. The reasons for not including co-option were that the institution should be able to go wider to get particular expertise that it would not have automatically.

 Mr Boschoff clarified the misunderstanding. The current Act stated, under section 38C(1A)(b),  that the board of a national institute consisted of a chairperson and not more than ten ordinary members. This amendment provided some further structure. Mr Boschoff approved of the Chairperson’s suggestion of changing the wording to “members must include persons with specific knowledge and experience”. This meant that there would be expertise, wit out making it too inclusive.

Mr Firoz Patel; Deputy Director General: Planning and Monitoring Coordination, DHET, suggested that the wording could also be that the “majority of members must have experience in higher education”. He said that many boards were becoming business-based and academic expertise was being lost.

The Chairperson asked why it was necessary to include all these skills on the Board. The institutions would hire people if they had need of them. For instance, it may hire people to give economic advice to the Board.

Ms Lotriet argued that the national institutes were highly technical institutions and thus needed to have specialists serving on the Board. She was in favour of keeping this clause as it was stated in the draft. However, she would also agree, as a compromise, on including “the majority”, as suggested by Mr Patel, to keep the board specialised.

Mr Dikobo asked whether, from a drafting point of view, “shall” or “must” was the correct term.

Mr Hoon explained that ‘shall’ was used in old legislation, but because it was difficult to use, the word “must” was now generally used.

The Chairperson stated that the compromise wording would be: “the majority of members must have specific knowledge and expertise”.

The Chairperson referred to the amendments in the proposed section 38H, and noted that at present the institutes were required to submit the Audit Report within two months after the receipt of the financial statements. He thought that this time period was too short and that a period of three months should be named.

Mr Dikobo agreed, and other Members also indicated their acceptance of this change.

Mr Dikobo asked if the correct terminology was used in relation to the accounts.

The Department confirmed that the phrase “books of accounts” was correct.

Mr Dikobo believed that it was not necessary for the Minister, when issuing a directive, to give the Board notice that he would be issuing a directive, as this implied that the Board would be given an opportunity to give reasons why it should not be dissolved.

The Chairperson explained that this notice triggered the Council to react to the intention, and allowed for the Minister to make the Council aware of his knowledge of the allegations in the Assessor’s report. It would give the Council a chance to react and defend itself.

Mr Dikobo argued then if the Minister was giving the Council a chance to respond to allegations, the Minister should not actually say that he already had the intention to issue a directive.

Mr Boschoff explained that the way this clause was worded required the Council to respond in a very specific manner, and within in specific timeframes, and it was worded in this way to comply with the Minister issuing a directive with all the relevant facts. If the Council failed to respond, the Minister would proceed to appoint an IA. The directive must be very clear and specific, and contain all relevant facts. If the directive was not correct, it would adversely affect the work of the Council and would not give the Council a chance to look into alternatives. It allowed the outcomes to be achieved in a shorter timeframe.

The Chairperson suggested that in the new section 45A(c), the words “or part thereof” were superfluous and should be deleted.

Mr Boschoff agreed that they could be deleted. However, the reason for these words being included was that it did make people aware that it was not necessary to deal with the investigation in totality.

Mr Makhubele asked what measures were in place if members did not comply with the IA’s requests, as set out in section 45A(1)(a).

The Chairperson explained that this point was specifically debated with the Department previously. It was agreed that in this case, the IA would approach a court of law to obtain an interdict.

Mr Dikobo was glad that the formulation dealt with the quasi-judicial nature of proceedings, and that there were options, rather than absolute requirements, provided. He asked if the evidence would be given under oath. He noted that the word subpoena had not been used, but there was only reference to a directive.

The Chairperson clarified that they mean the same thing, and that a person could give evidence both “on” and “under” oath.

Prof Mayatula noted that the word “are” was missing in a sentence under (b).

The Chairperson asked why sections 47(b) and (c) variously used the word “reason” and then “reasons”.

Mr Boschoff explained that (c) spoke to measures in the plural, but a single measure was contemplated under (b). He suggested that the word “reasons” could be used more consistently in both.

Mr Makhubele suggested that the wording of the proposed section 49A(1)(d) should be changed from failure to comply with “any law” to failure to comply with “any relevant law”. The current wording was very broad. 

The Chairperson noted that this suggestion would avoid a directive being issued for any misdemeanor such as a traffic fine. However, he did not think that it was necessary to change it. The Minister would be able to judge under what circumstances it would be appropriate to act, and when the actions were frivolous.

Mr Boschoff argued that whilst indeed the nature of the breach might result in the Minister not making a directive finally, it was not possible to suggest that the breach may be ignored. The Council would have the opportunity to comment, but the Minister had no discretion in relation to the fact that a breach occurred.

Ms Lotriet was concerned about the wording of section 49A(4)(a) which stated that if the Council failed to comply with the directive, the Minister “must” dissolve the Council. This seemed unduly harsh and did not take account of any unforeseen challenges.

The Chairperson suggested that the word “must” be changed to “may”, which would give a greater flexibility.

Mr Dikobo believed that it may seem harsh when read in isolation, but was acceptable when taken in the right context.

The Chairperson stated that it allowed the Minister no room to move, and if it was left in this way, it was possible that the opposing side may wait for the deadline to lapse and then take the Minister to court.

Mr Boschoff said that this point was considered previously, when it was decided to use the word ‘must’. He explained that this clause must be read with 49B, which required consultation with the Council. There must therefore be clear proof of failure. There was a safeguard.

Mr Boschoff then pointed to an apparent contradiction in section 49B, which stated that the Minister “may” appoint a person as administrator, which he thought should be changed to “must”.

Mr Makhubele believed that the use of “may” was preferable as it allowed for an extension of time to allow Councils to reform.

Prof Mayatula added that subsection 4(a) referred to a failure to comply with a directive “within the stated period” which suggested that the Minister could decide to extend the period two or three times. He thought that the “must” was necessary, to ensure that action would be taken. He asked why it should be optional for a Minister to act, if an Administrator had already been appointed.

Mr Boschoff explained that once an Administrator had taken over, it meant Council had been dissolved. Certain functions must be performed. If it was left as optional, these functions might not be performed. He agreed that the wording should remain as “must”.

The Chairperson agreed.

Ms Lotriet was not satisfied on this point. She felt that a Council might be dissolved for something that was not so serious, and frivolous issues might then be taken into consideration.

Prof Mayatula argued that once the Council was dysfunctional, a decisive position must be taken. He reminded her that a long process would have preceded this point. The Minister must, having reached this point, give a directive as soon as the time for consultation and responding was over.

Mr Dikobo suggested that the Bill could be dealing with cases of indolence rather than inability, and would cover situations where a Council refused to do its work. He agreed that “must’ was necessary.

Mr B Radebe (ANC) suggested that this point had to do with whether the Board responded within the time frame stipulated, not whether it was stubborn. He agreed with Ms Lotriet and thought that Minister needed discretion. For instance, one day extra might be needed.

Mr Mpontshane suggested that the Committee leave the point aside for the moment and continue. He favoured using “must”, saying that after the long consultation process, the Minister should be ready to proceed.

Ms Lotriet gave the example of a Vice-Chancellor who was at loggerheads with a Board. If this Board became dysfunctional, evidence given might amount to mere differences of opinion. She was not sure that personal differences would justify the dissolution of the Board.

Prof Mayatula argued that a Board could ask for an extension, as the Bill did not define a time period for the assessment, and the collecting and presenting of evidence and responses. However, this process should be followed by the Minister having to respond.

Mr Dikobo argued that representation was very important. It was not a Minister’s duty to deal with employment relations between employer and employee (unless it was a matter of illegality). There were safeguards, such as the ability to challenge a decision, or apply to court for overruling a decision that was considered unfair.

The Chairperson suggested that in section 49B(1), in the last sentence, should be changed, so that the “any of, or if any combination of or if all the” wording, which was suggested earlier, be left out. It was very convoluted.

Mr Boschoff explained that the Courts had ruled that “and” could also include “any” and “all”, and the wording was specifically instructed to include the various combinations. 

The Chairperson instructed that only the word “any” should be used.

Mr Dikobo seconded that wording.

Mr Dikobo stated that a Council requesting the appointment of an administrator, in line with section 49B(c) was the best solution, as the Council would dissolve itself.

Ms Chili asked what happened to the Administrator when a new Council was appointed.

The Chairperson explained that the Administrator would account for what he had done, and leave.

Mr Boschoff noted a spelling mistake and stated that all spelling would be checked.

Mr Hoon returned to the debate on sections 27(5A) and (5B). He proposed that the wording should be that a person who, in circumstances covered by sections 49(4)(a) and 49E, was implicated in the report of the independent assessor, as contemplated in section 49(1)(b), should not automatically be ineligible to serve as a member of any Council of a public higher institution. He explained that a person who was implicated by an investigation of the IA might, under section 47(1)(b) have a legal representative assisting him in submitting a report to the Minister.

The Chairperson agreed that it was a good solution and should be included.

Other business: Adoption of Minutes
Members adopted the Minutes of 4 September, with  minor amendments to grammar and spelling. There was clarification and re-wording over a few ambiguous and clumsy sentences regarding the AGM money allocation.

Minutes of 11 September were tabled. Clarity was sought on the use of the word ‘front’ to define an organisation, and the Chairperson clarified the role and structure of APEX. The sentence that referred to “includes 20% youth, women and people and disabilities” was to be clarified as to what percentage applied for each groups. The Minutes were adopted, with other minor grammatical and spelling corrections.

In the Minutes of 12 September, Members questioned the wording of the phrase ‘HESA was given an assignment’ but the Chairperson noted that this could not be changed. Mr Makhubele questioned the information on the worker colleges, saying that it was true that this was under State control but it was untrue to suggest that it was unregulated. The sentence was amended. The minutes were adopted with other minor grammatical and spelling adjustments.

The Minutes of 18 September were tabled and Mr Makhubele questioned the discussions on what “ordinary members” comprised. Ms Gina, however, noted that this was what was said at the time and any definitional changes given subsequently could not affect the minutes. The minutes were adopted.

Minutes of 19 September were adopted with minor spelling and grammatical amendments.

Committee’s Draft Report on Departmental briefings
Members noted some spelling, grammatical and contextual changes that were needed.

The phrase “These powers included to investigate any matter leading to his appointment as an independent assessor” was questioned, since it did not seem to make sense that an independent assessor could investigate himself.

Ms Lotriet clarified that the sentence was correct, as it referred to the external matter for which the assessor was appointed, not his own appointment.

Mr Makhubele was concerned that targets were not met and wanted a specific recommendation to ensure that in future all targets and indicators would be aligned.

Ms Lotriet commented on the recommendations. She noted that it had been said that Sector Education and Training Authorities were fully supported to improve their financial management systems, to curb their irregular expenditure. She felt that he Report should not only condemn the irregular expenditure, but also urge the Department to take steps to find out the reasons for it, and to rectify it.

Ms Lotriet noted a problem with outstanding certificates at the Further Education and Training Colleges, and wanted a recommendation inserted that urgent steps must be taken to resolve the matter.

The Chairperson suggested a recommendation that the Department must take immediate action in regard to all irregularities.

The report was adopted, with the necessary amendments.

The meeting was adjourned.