Committee Report on Higher Education and Training 2014 Budget

Higher Education, Science and Innovation

09 July 2014
Chairperson: Ms Y Phosa (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Prior to this meeting, the Portfolio Committee on Higher Education and Training had held four meetings in June and July with the Minister, the Department of Higher Education and Training, as well as other departments which play significant roles in higher education and training, such as the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS).  During these meetings, the Annual Performance Plan (APP) and the budget proposals of the Department and the Policy, Budget and APP of the NSFAS had been discussed.

The focus of the meeting was the consideration and the adoption of minutes which were written by the Committee Secretary from these four previous meetings. The second important focus was on the consideration and adoption of the draft report of the APP and budget proposals of the Department.

During consideration of the minutes, frequent concerns were raised about their quality, in terms of content and grammar.  Members said they were frustrated at having to make grammatical corrections, and suggested that language practitioners should be called in to assist.   One expressed concern about the level of detail in the minutes, saying that when compared to minutes from other organisations, they were confusing and difficult to understand.  The Chairperson replied that initially she had been very critical of the structures and proceedings, but she had been taught that things were done in a certain way.  A member of the Committee staff said that they understood the frustration, as they used to have the same frustration too.  They used to write very long minutes, and were taught to not do so.

In an attempt to resolve differences of opinion between Members of different parties, the Chairperson said they should rather focus on the people they were serving. It was important to take politics and their political affiliations out of the issues being discussed.   When it was suggested that “as the head of the family, you have different kids with different personalities and different opinions,” she said felt that she was indeed like a mother and all the other members of the Committee were like her children.  Members acknowledged that the Chairperson was trying to establish a joint view of the Committee, but she needed to understand that people did come from different political affiliations.

The Members discussed the minutes from the meetings 25 June, and 1, 2 and 3 July, and adopted them with amendments.

After the lunch break, the Committee examined and discussed the Report on the draft Annual Performance Plan of the Department and the budget proposal.   Issues which came up for discussion included the need to emphasise in the report that some universities were not recognising peoples’ diplomas when admitting them to the universities.   The Committee was concerned about student indebtedness being a barrier for entrance. The Committee was also concerned about the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) shortfall in the medium term and also a concern about the significantly different fee structures at different universities
.
They questioned the appointment of the Chief Financial Officer (CFO), and asked whether or not this had been done according to the Act.   It was suggested that linking academic research to community development was not appropriate, as some issues would not be relevant to the community but would be highly beneficial to the universities.   This was countered by the argument that sometimes academic research could become very abstract and far out of reach of ordinary South Africans, yet academic institutions were meant to serve the people of the country. The research therefore needed to be relevant to the people in the surrounding communities.  Discussion was also directed towards preventing and detecting fraudulent activities by students and it was agreed a review needed to be done, but that it should focus more on preventing fraud than on detection.

The report was adopted by a majority vote. 
 

Meeting report

Opening remarks
The Chairperson said the meeting would focus on reading and rectifying three sets of minutes, after which the Committee would consider the budget report.

There were some Members who were not present and the Secretary had not received any apologies.  The Chairperson insisted that if a Member could not attend, they must submit a written apology to the Secretary.  It was important that everyone attended the meetings. The Members present agreed.

The staff members of the Committee, public guests, research assistants and the monitor from the Parliamentary Monitoring Group (PMG) introduced themselves.  Prof B Bozzoli (DA) asked that the Secretary note all the names and contact details of the members of staff and guests, and send them to the Members.

Ms J Kilian (ANC) reminded the Committee that there had been a battle in Parliament with Members asking for additional support in the Committees. There was need for more people in Committees to provide language assistance and quality assurance on the content of documents.  There had been frustration in the past over Members having to do grammar checks. She wanted to know if people had been appointed to deal with such issues.

The Committee Secretary said that there were language practitioners but they were not appointed to specific individual committees.   It was thus important for Members to propose that practitioners be brought in for a cluster of committees, as this would be very helpful.

Mr C Kekana (ANC) asked that Zizipho Pae, from the Parliamentary Monitoring Group, clarify what her role was at the meeting, and who there was to verify the minutes that she was writing.

Ms Pae clarified that she was there to both voice record the meetings as well as write reports on the proceedings of the meeting.  She said that PGM is an independent organisation, independent of Parliament.

The Chairperson said that PMG was there to monitor the proceedings of Parliament and also to write reports on the committees. The organisation existed to enable the public to have access to what was going on in Parliament. She then suggested that the Secretary of the Committee and the monitor from PMG share their records of meetings.

Mr Kekana said he was concerned about what monitors could be writing.  He was also concerned that since the minutes were not going to be part of the proceedings of the meeting and the adoption thereof, there was room for things to be done wrongly and statements to be misinterpreted.

Ms Kilian said that PMG had been operating for a vast number of years, and that all Members could access the minutes and reports of meetings from the PMG website, and that the Members could not have a double set of minutes. There was a time when Parliament considered using PMG as a source of reference, but that had not been done, so it would not be acceptable for Members to go through their minutes. She emphasised that if one subscribed to PMG, one could get updates, and have access to all the reports.

Mr M Mbatha (EFF) echoed Ms Kilian when he said that PMG was an independent organisation and operated independent from Parliament. He said: “Parliament must do its stuff independently and let organisations do it independently”.

Prof Bozzoli agreed that PMG must be left to monitor separately and independently.

Mr Y Cassim (DA) said that he would not be comfortable having committee officials affected by outside organisations.  He believed that PMG and the Committee Secretary should not collaborate when writing minutes.

The Chairperson affirmed that although the organisations were independent of one another, there was no harm in comparing minutes, to make the reports professional, of good quality and all inclusive.  She then closed this part of the meeting. 

The Chairperson told the Members she had confidence in them, and their hard work would ensure quality outcomes for their work as a Committee, which would be relying on their expert knowledge, professionalism and work ethic.  Timeous and short turnaround times were very important.  People performed better when they knew what was expected of them -- and they all knew what was expected of them.

Committee Minutes of 25 June
The Chairperson said that she assumed everyone had read the minutes, and called for corrections and additions.

Ms Kilian said that her surname is spelt with one L and this affects her email, so it was very important that this be rectified.

Prof Bozzoli says that her name was not there, yet she had been present at the meeting.

Mr M Tshishonga (AGANG) proposed adoption of the minutes. This was seconded by Mr E Siwela (ANC).

The minutes were adopted.

Committee minutes of 1 July
Ms Kilian says she had not been aware of the meeting, so she could not have sent an apology for her absence.

The Chairperson clarified that the meeting had called for her (the Chairperson) specifically, but she thought it might be appropriate for all members of the Committee to attend.  She had then sent out invitations at the eleventh hour.  The meeting had been called by the Auditor General.  She apologised, as it had been at the eleventh hour.

Prof Bozzoli said she was not sure if the minutes had captured everything, as the meeting had been very long, and much more had taken place. The minutes did not convey the complexity of what had taken place, so people who were not there would not have been able to capture the proceedings.

The Chairperson replied that when minutes are written, they are simply an outline and overview of what took place.

Prof Bozzoli highlighted that at the bottom of page one, the issue of the budget was a major one and a crucial matter, which should be emphasised in the minutes.

Mr Y Cassim (DA) said he was concerned about the level of detail in the minutes.  When he compared them with minutes from other organisations, they were confusing and difficult to understand.

The Chairperson replied that initially she had been very critical of the structures and proceedings, but she had been taught that things were done in a certain way.  The Committee staff was taught to do things in a certain way. At the next meeting, Members were then able to add their input and raise key issues.

The Committee Content Advisor said that members of staff understand the frustration, as they used to have the same frustration too.  She said that they used to write very long minutes, and were taught to not do so.

Ms S Mchunu (ANC) said that from the discussion, the minutes were just a brief overview of the proceedings.

Mr Kekana said that the approach which the Members had adopted was correct. The Members should not question the length, but rather challenge the important things and not treat them lightly -- maybe highlighting them in red pen or bold letters. Towards the end of the year, Members go through a lot of paper work, and might miss things that are important.   They would not be able to read everything, so it was preferable that minutes were short, but detailed.

The Chairperson said she was sure everyone now agreed on how the resolutions should be captured. Resolutions should capture highlights in the minutes of reports, so that Members could monitor and know why things were decided,, and why they were implemented or not implemented.

Prof Bozzoli then raised her issue arising from the minutes. The discussion about the Department was very important, and had not been mentioned in the minutes. This should not be the case.

Ms Kilian made a grammar correction on page 2 of the minutes, and the Chairperson asked for a proposal that the minutes be adopted.

Ms M Nkadimeng (ANC) proposed their adoption, and was seconded by Mr Siwela.

The minutes were adopted.

Committee minutes of 2 July
Mr Cassim asked if his apology had been accepted, as it came the day after the meeting.

The Chairperson clarified that apologies were to be submitted the day before the meeting.  The day after is not accepted for any Member. If one wanted to leave during the meeting, one should apologise at the meeting. Normally in a meeting like this, there would be an attendance register and if a letter of apology is not received, one would be marked as absent.

Prof Bozzoli said there were quite a few grammatical errors in the minutes. She asked if it was agreed that a separate body would handle grammatical errors, or would the Members have to deal with them.

The Chairperson said that they had told the staff that they expected quality work, but in this meeting, the Committee would be handling them.

Prof Bozzoli made a grammatical correction.

The Chairperson said that Parliament had a quality assurance team.   Staff members should do their work properly, instead of just speaking about it. The Committee insisted on quality assurance.

Mr Kekana agreed with the Chairperson.  He said that in Parliament, people had different backgrounds and different levels of command of English, and one should be considerate of that. The focus should be on the politics of the minutes, and not the language.

The Chairperson emphasised that everyone should get quality work, and have it properly processed. There was a quality assurance team to assist with the Committee’s work, according to a set standard.  If the work of the Committee can leak out to media, one would not want them to undermine the Committee.

Ms Kilian says that the Committee should do corrections today, or they would become the laughing stock of the media if they found the Education Committee could not spell properly. English was a South African language and should be used properly. Cluster language practitioners were needed.

The Chairperson suggested that Members focus on the correctness of the content, and then ask staff to verify it.  The work must be brought back to the Committee before it went to the Announcements, Tablings and Committees (ATC).   She advised the Secretary of what would happen if the work was not done properly.

Ms Kilian made a grammar correction.

Prof Bozzoli said that when she spoke after the Minister, what the Department was proposing was not in line with the White Paper. The first issue was differentiation, the second about funding levels and the third was about overcrowding in universities. She questioned how brief the minutes were supposed to be, as nothing of that sort appeared in the minutes.

The Chairperson said that they ought to rectify this, as they had been there themselves and the Minister depended on the Committee for quality work as well.

Prof Bozzoli said her comments had to do mostly with the general sense of the minutes.  It was not a proposal, but rather a critique.

The Chairperson said that the Department was supposed to come and present, the Committee engages and comes up with resolutions, and so they ought not to dwell on the interrogations. Currently the Committee was dwelling on what they had recommended, and itwa a corrective measure.

Mr Tshishonga suggested that everyone receive minutes of meetings three days before, and not the day before, as there were issues that were not properly reflected and it would give Members enough time to come up with their additions.

The Chairperson agreed. She said that Members ought to get minutes, read and correct them and then when they came to a meeting and proposed a correction, if majority agreed they  would edit it and put it in the minutes.

She then proposed that the non-alignment of the APP with the White paper be highlighted.

Mr Kekana argued that just because Prof Bozzoli had suggested this, it did not mean that everyone agreed.

The Chairperson replied with the proposal that they could then add to the minutes that the Committee recommended alignment of the APP with the White paper.

Members raised further concerns regarding grammatical errors on the minutes.

Ms Kilian said that this was why minutes should not be long -- they should be an overview. The critical matter they should be dealing with was the report, and not the minutes.

The Chairperson called for a Member to propose the adoption of minutes.

Mr Mbatha proposed their adoption, Ms Nkadimeng seconded.

Committee minutes of 3 July
Mr Tshishonga asked if the matters arising were going to be dealt with.  Usually for matters arising, they had something called action sheets, where the issues arising and the responsibilities of people were laid out.

The Chairperson agreed and said that the matter would dealt with in more depth in the report, and not so much in the minutes.

Mr Cassim said there was no space to say that these were the issues and this was how they were being dealt with in the minutes.

The Chairperson replied that this was the way the staff had been trained to write minutes.

Mr Cassim responded said that itwas not his intention to frustrate the Chairperson, but these errors had to be fixed.  He highlighted a few corrections to clauses in the minutes concerning the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS). He said that there were other NSFAS issues, besides the two that had been mentioned.

Mr Mbatha argued that those were in fact the two issues that were supposed to have been there, and those were the two that had been discussed.

The Chairperson said that she had the presentation with her, and that they should leave NSFAS, as those two issues were written there.

Mr Cassim raised his concern on the appeals process and turnaround time, and the financial means appeals process

All agreed with Mr Cassim’s concern.

Mr Cassim said that the issue of inadequate allowances for ‘off campus’ students needed to be emphasised.   This was a crucial point, yet it was not properly highlighted in the minutes.

The Chairperson agreed, and noted this recommendation.

Mr Cassim also called corrections in the section dealing with NSFAS, including uncertainty over whether an R180 000 or R220 000 family income was the benchmark for eligibility for financial aid. There was also response given that 50% of those who were eligible to receive support, had not received any.   He was not sure if the Committee was in agreement with the budget.

The Chairperson said that the Committee did agree on the budget.

Prof Bozzoli said that there was a meeting where the budget would be discussed, and Committee Members were not meant to discuss whether they agreed or disagreed with it at this meeting -- it was not the job of the Committee.

The Chairperson said Members should not to make issues out of educating themselves, but should rather focus on the people they were serving. It was important to take politics and their political affiliations out of these kinds of issues.

Mr Mbatha replied that he appreciated the way in which the Chairperson handled matters, but as a suggestion for the future, she might be worried that Members were not affirming her initial statements.  He pointed out that “as the head of the family, you have different kids with different personalities and different opinions”.

The Chairperson agreed that this was an important point to raise, and thanked Mr Mbatha for his contribution, acknowledging that she was indeed like a mother and all the other members of the Committee were like her children.

Mr Cassim clarified that his point was being not made from a political basis. Rather, his point was on what the Committee ought to be reflecting on the report. He appreciated that the report had been done and given to Members, but stressed that this did not mean that everyone agreed with it.   Leaving politics out of it, he would not like to be bound to something with which he did not agree.

The Chairperson replied that if one were not there, and the Committee made a decision, then one was bound by this decision. If they would like to make a political discussion, they could. For now, however, the status quo remained.  She said she would learn to deal with and respond to each Member according to their different personalities, as they were like her children.

Prof Bozzoli said, with the greatest respect, that the Chairperson should please not refer to the Members as ‘her children’. Rather, they were her peers.  The Chairperson was the first person to say in a meeting that Members must not be political -- in Parliament -- and she said “this is outrageous”.  She acknowledged that the Chairperson was trying to establish a joint view of the Committee, but she needed to understand that people did come from different political affiliations.

Mr Siwela said that all the other Members were all there, and they agreed on the APP.

Mr Kekana said that it was a pity that the meeting taken on this direction. He clarified that the issue of Members being the children of the Chairperson had been raised by Mr Mbatha, and he had meant it in a metaphorical sense.  It was not literal.   Prof Bozzoli should not take offence, as no offence was intended. 

The Chairperson added that the operations of the Committee required that they take the issue of education to higher levels, and they needed to do it together.

Mr Tshishonga then introduced a correction to the grammar of the minutes.

The Chairperson then insisted that the notes be put on Members’ cubicles a couple of days before the meeting.  She added that they, as Members, were not there to fight, they just wanted to put in quality work. She confirmed that in a meeting like this, they did not vote, they resolved.

The Chairperson asked each Member individually if they were happy with the minutes, and they all said they were.

Ms Mchunu proposed the adoption of minutes with amendments, and Ms Nkadimeng seconded the proposal.

The minutes were then adopted.

Draft Report and Budget Proposal
Ms Kilian, after identifying some errors in referencing, said that some universities were not recognising peoples’ diplomas when admitting them to the universities, and this needed to be emphasised in the report.

This was noted and the error in referencing was corrected.

Mr Cassim said he wanted clarity on whether the report consisted of the work which was done by the Department, or by the actual Committee.

The Chairperson, after repeating that they were not voting, but had to resolve, told Mr Cassim that he needed to read the report, capture all the things with which he was not happy, and then come and correct them.  If there were omissions or errors, they would be discussed but nothing else could change. If he would like bring a recommendation, he was welcome to do so.

Prof Bozzoli requested that her point about the White Paper be added to the report under the heading, ‘Overview by the Minister’ on page 10.

The Chairperson agreed.

Mr Cassim also asked that the point about appeals be added as an additional bullet. The Committee was concerned about student indebtedness being a barrier for entrance. The Committee was also concerned about the NSFAS shortfall in the medium term and lastly, there was also a concern about the significantly different fee structures at different universities.

The Chairperson agreed about the differentiated fee structure being spoken about in the report.

Mr Mbatha said that he had not been there for the NSFAS presentation.. However, he would like to say that the different fee structures affected students as many of them, although they qualified for financial aid, were denied this and could not afford the expensive registration fees of universities such as the University of Cape Town and Rhodes University.

Ms Kilian added that the relationship -- or rather the need for a relationship -- between NSFAS and other government departments should be highlighted in the report.  As an example, the Department of Home Affairs needed to form a relationship with NSFAS in order to prevent information fraud by students, and for verification purposes.

Mr Cassim questioned the appointment of the Chief Financial Officer (CFO), and asked whether or not this had been done according to the Act.

The Chairperson then read the Act out aloud for all the Members to hear, in order to clarify the process which had to be followed when hiring a CFO or another executive member.

Mr Cassim said that from what he had heard and understood from the Act, only the permission of the Accounting Officer was needed for the appointing of other financial employees, but these employees needed not include the CFO.  He suggested that perhaps a query should be made.

The Chairperson said that perhaps the Auditor General had also made a mistake here.

Prof Bozzoli replied that the Committee needed to be aware of the fact that there were things in the report which were not being interpreted the way in which the Auditor General meant it.

The Chairperson suggested that they should go back to the Auditor General to get more clarity.

Mr Kekana suggested that for now, the issue of the appointment of the CFO needed to be omitted from the report until they could get confirmation from the Auditor General.

Mr Mbatha seconded Mr Kekana’s suggestion, and the Chairperson agreed as well.

Prof Bozzoli suggested that under Recommendations, the first recommendation should be split into two different points, as they covered two different topics. These were academic research and community development. She found it silly and thought it would not look very knowledgeable.  Community development did not need to be a requirement to consider when institutions conducted academic research, as some issues would not be relevant to the community but would be highly beneficial to the University.

Most of the Members agreed with Prof Bozzoli on this.

Mr Kekana disagreed, however, and said that reference to the community should be there, because sometimes academic research could become very abstract and far out of reach of ordinary South Africans, yet academic institutions were meant to serve the people of the country. The research therefore needed to be relevant to the people in the surrounding communities.

Ms Kilian suggested that in order to take the suggestions of both Prof Bozzoli and Mr Kekana into account, perhaps they should add the word “ideally” -- that academic research should “ideally” be linked to community development, and this would help institutions not to become too elitist.

Mr Tshishonga agreed with Ms Kilian’s suggestion, and the Chairperson ruled in favour of Ms Kilian as well.

Mr Mbatha then said that universities needed to have a means of preventing and also detecting fraudulent activities by students.

Mr Cassim suggested that perhaps a review of the means of doing that should be proposed. There were many students that were willing to report other students who were committing fraud, but universities did not have a way of investigating students, so many cases were not dealt with properly.

Mr Kekana agreed that a review needed to be done.  However, the review should focus more on preventing fraud than on detection.  This would be for NSFAS and the universities to decide.

Mr Tshishonga mentioned that there seemed to be no will from the authorities to take fraud issues further.

The Chairperson agreed that there was a gap, and they had to fill and strengthen it by reviewing and putting in preventive measures against fraud.

Mr Kekana said that the police were there to make arrests and prevent crimes, and it was not the job of the Department.  

The Chairperson agreed with Mr Kekana, but still stood by her stance on a preventive approach for universities and NSFAS.

She said the mandate of the Committee was to observe budget constraints, and they needed to advise on amendments to the budget. There needed to be an increase in the budget. She again emphasised that the Committee was there to resolve, and not to vote on the budget.

Mr Cassim said that the Committee were contradicting themselves, as they could not say that they agreed with the APP, but not agree with the budget allocations in it. The Committee had to consider the APP.

Prof Bozzoli agreed with Mr Cassim, and suggested that perhaps the Committee should say they had considered and noted the APP, but their opinion remained subject to the recommendations.

Mr Mbatha asked how the contributions of the Committee would add to alterations in the budget, and whether or not the Committee’s contributions were actually even taken into consideration and if anything actually changed.

Mr Cassim said that although the contributions of the Committee were read and somewhat taken into consideration, the budget allocations would most likely not change.

Mr Kekana disagreed that there were any contradictions. He suggested that recommendations be submitted from the Committee and it would be up to the Department and Treasury whether or not they accepted these recommendations.

Prof Bozzoli then asked about Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET). She stated that according to the report, 150 000 new people would be taken into TVET this year. She had not agreed with this in previous meetings, as she did not know how it was going to happen.

This was noted in the report.

Mr Mbatha recommended that the Committee accept the APP of the Department and of NSFAS. with recommendations.

Ms Nkadimeng and Mr Tshishonga supported Mr Mbatha’s recommendation.

Prof Bozzoli said that she reserved her position and retained her right to make a voting decision at another Committee instead of here.

Mr Cassim agreed with Prof Bozzoli on this stance.

The Chairperson told Prof Bozzoli that she had now moved to her political position, and it would not help the nation if Members were more concerned about themselves and their organisations, rather than the people of this country.

She said that there was a plan, but there was no money. Thus if the Committee said that they did not support the plan, then it was saying that it should not happen and they would not be serving justice. She emphasised it was only Prof Bozzoli and Mr Cassim who did not agree with the plan, while everyone else agreed.

She then called for a proposal for the adoption of the report.

Mr Kekana proposed the adoption of the report, and Ms Mchunu seconded the proposal.

The meeting was adjourned.



 

Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: