Education Laws Amendment Bill; Higher Education Amendment Bill: voting

Meeting report

EDUCATION AND RECREATION SELECT COMMITTEE
18 November 2003
EDUCATION LAWS AMENDMENT BILL; Higher Education Amendment Bill: VOTING

Chairperson: Mr D Kgware

Documents handed out
Education Laws Amendment Bill B38B-2003]
Education Laws Amendment Bill [B38C-2003] - Draft of Latest Amendments
Nine Province Final Mandates (Available in hard copy from PMG)

SUMMARY
The provinces and the Department discussed the negotiating mandates on the two bills. All of the provincial legislatures' representatives had decided to pass both bills. Some had requested minor amendments and these concerns were addressed by Advocate Boshoff from the Department.

MINUTES
The Chairperson welcomed Mr D Hindle and Advocate Boshoff of the Department of Education (DoE).

Education Laws Amendment Bill

Free State
A legal advisor for this province explained that they had found Clause 6.4 on appeals against disciplinary hearings problematic. They requested that "or the representative of the employer" be inserted after "employer". Their motivation was that in terms of the Employment of Educators Act no 76 or 1998 and the Promotion of Administrative Justice of 2000, the employer or educator could have a legal representative.

Advocate Boshoff explained that the Act always referred to the employee and his/her representative from a union. Both the employee and employer had the right to legal representation, as enshrined in the Administrative Justice Act. The employer should ideally have the right to discipline employees but when there were up to 400 000 employees, this was impossible. The employer would make the appointment for the hearing or appeal, but would not be able to participate. If he/she was able to participate, that would make him/her both referee and player. If however statutory delegation were allowed, someone lower than the employee's head of department could intervene.

The provincial representative asked if the Administrative Justice Act could be referred to in the Act because many people involved did not know about it in rural areas.

Adv Boshoff said that this was possible but not advisable. The intention was to bring control to the employer and if the Act allowed for statutory delegation, that would allow someone else to bring an unnecessary appeal. The right to legal representation was a general principle running through the lower levels of the disciplinary process. At the higher level, it was not necessary to restate it because director-generals, superintendent-generals and ministers would know it.

The Chair noted that discussion was not normally allowed when Bills were formally discussed, but the representative had requested permission to do so soon after the last meeting.

Western Cape
Supported the Bill.

KwaZulu-Natal
Supported the Bill.

Mpumalanga
Supported the Bill.

Gauteng
Supported the Bill, but dissenting views from minority parties were noted.

North-West
Supported the Bill but requested that "Form E" (the Notice of the Appeal) should include the capacity/authority of the appellant.

Advocate Boshoff explained that as the form was simply the Notice of the Appeal and not the decision, this was not necessary.

Limpopo
Members of this Provincial Legislature would be meeting after the present meeting. The mandate would be forwarded to the clerk of the Committee that afternoon.

Northern Cape
Supported the Bill.

Eastern Cape
Supported the Bill.

The Chair then read the Motion of Desirability and the Bill was formally approved.

Higher Education Amendment Bill
The meeting then rapidly went through the Higher Education Amendment Bill and all provinces accepted it without amendments. The Chair would prepare a statement to say that the Bill was not debated.

The Chair asked Members to make recommendations on the edited report on the Committee's provincial visits. This report would be debated in 2004.

The meeting was adjourned,