CSIR, NRF, HSRC 2021/2022 Annual Performance Plan; UNISA enrolment plan & court case

Meeting report

As the Chairperson would be joining the meeting only much later, Members elected Ms Mkhatshwa as Acting Chairperson.

CSIR on its Strategic Plan and Annual Performance Plan
Mr Thokozani Majozi, CSIR Board Chairperson, said CSIR continues to conduct cutting-edge multidisciplinary research that improves the quality of life of our citizens. The organisation is cognizant of external challenges. Our work is driven to respond to the triple challenge of poverty, unemployment, inequality and opportunities presented by technology, including the 4IR. Our research programmes are guided by government strategies and frameworks such as the NDP, MTSF and White Paper on STI (Science, Technology and Innovation). The CSIR strategy emphasizes balancing our contribution to industrial development with our efforts in the creation of a capable state. In its second year of implementation, the industrial focus is taking root with increasing support to the private sector (SMMEs and established companies), and aggressive growth targets.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a negative impact on the implementation of our strategy and the future sustainability of the CSIR. Despite this, it has made a significant contribution in supporting the national and private sector response to COVID-19. Its planned programmes will support the country’s economic recovery plan. Reductions in the parliamentary grant have curtailed our ability to invest in the sustainability and development of new capabilities. There are concerns about possible cuts in investment by the Department of Defence in the CSIR, which is a significant contributor to the sustainability of our defence capabilities. The 2021/22 operational plan for the CSIR is based on an aggressive growth of collaboration with the private sector in the face of declining public sector income, to sustain it going forward.

Dr Thulani Dlamini, Chief Executive Officer: CSIR, proceeded to report on the Strategic and Annual Performance Plans, which covered key performance indicators; delivery on strategic objectives; Covid-19 solutions and interventions; maintaining financial sustainability; infrastructure investment; building and transforming human capital, amongst others.

National Research Foundation on its Strategic and Annual Performance Plan
Prof Felufhelo Nelwamondo, Chief Executive Officer: NRF, took Members through the presentation which included its programmes and NRF interventions over the MTSF; and financial overview.

The NRF outlined its other sources of funding and reported that NRF uses funding instruments that include co-investments by partners for programmes such as South African Research Chairs Initiative (SARChI), Centres of Excellence (CoE) and Thuthuka. These result in an additional annual average funding of R1.4 billion. Strategic Research Infrastructure projects such as the SKA project and SALT involve inflows of foreign direct investment for SA from partner countries. The investment in the SA Isotope Facility (SAIF) project is expected to increase radio-isotope sales from an average of R50 million per annum to in excess of R200 million per annum once fully operational.

Human Sciences Research Council on its Strategic and Annual Performance Plan
Mr Leickness Simbayi, Acting Chief Executive Officer: HSRC, spoke to updates to its situational analysis of Covid-19, threats and human capital; performance information; adjustments to the APP targets; programme resource considerations; key risks; and key initiatives.

Key projects and initiatives underway include the Covid-19 antibodies sero-prevalence-survey; UJ/HSRC Survey on Covid-19 attitudes; policy briefs on COVID-19 recovery; food security work, amongst others.

Discussion
Dr W Boshoff (FF Plus) asked HSRC what the 47% administration in its staff component included. He noted that NFR had an emphasis on investments in SKA and radio astronomy, which is a good investment. He was, however, concerned that the Committee has not yet visited the site as there was a perception in the area that the community was being sacrificed for scientific advancement and there is an incremental increase in the amount of land needed. Hopefully, the Committee could visit the site and consider the different perspective.

He asked CSIR about the irregular appointment of a senior manager. There were discussions that he would be redeployed to another position he was qualified for. Have disciplinary steps taken against those who oversaw this irregular appointment?

There is a standard operating procedure for international procurement for expensive import-only equipment that had to be formulated – has this happened? There was irregular, inflated time sheets generating income from the Department of Science and Innovation, has this been looked into?

There is the matter of the ADC Aeroswift joint operation, which was liquidated; what is the status of the new partnership(s) entered into with other manufacturing partners? Was the liquidation of the ADC Aeroswift joint operation investigated?

Ms J Mananiso (ANC) commended the institutions for integrating their programmes to government systems. She asked CSIR about discussions to secure additional financial support and if the forecast losses resulted in job losses. What is the progress and funding status of the CSIR Campus Masterplan?

She asked HSRC about its vacancy rate in light of the statement that staff would be reduced further. What is the plan and which areas are mostly negatively impacted by these staff reductions? What plans are being implemented to mitigate the challenges highlighted?

She pleased that the NRF APP included improving investment in journalism and indigenous languages. What level of funding would fully support the human capital development programme and how many deserving candidates were not funded due to lack of resources? What progress has been made on the leading researchers and scholars programme?

Ms D Sibiya (ANC) asked why the Parliamentary grant was low with NRF sitting at only 20%.

Ms C King (DA) asked CSIR and HSRC about the tender and procurement processes; how far are the discussions with Treasury to consider exempting both institutions from tender processes? The CSIR has been doing great work on research on Covid-19. Is it in discussions with the Department of Health about developing our own vaccine in the country?

She asked HSRC about the establishment of the impact centre and how far it is with its establishment.

She asked NFR about the Research and Development Information platform – how different is it going to be considering the National Science, Technology and Innovation Information Portal? What is the difference between the two and how are they interlinked to achieve the desired goals?

Mr T Letsie (ANC) said that in 2019 CSIR indicated that it would implement a new structure that would be fully operational in 18 to 24 months; how far is the implementation of this structure? There is a budget deficit in 2020/21 with a R50.1 million loss and in 2021/22 it estimates a R96.1 million loss – how are these losses going to be mitigated to ensure that the core mandate is not affected? He asked HSRC for an indication of its ideal funding model.

He asked NFR about the increasing of research chairs and centres and which disciplines are being considered and how this will be funded.

Ms N Mkhatshwa (ANC), Acting Chairperson, noted the collective commitment of the sector led by the Department in ensuring the implementation of the Economic Reconstruction and Recovery Plan (ERRP). The holistic commitment inspires confidence.

When it comes to CSIR, she agreed with the sentiment of bringing on board the private sector in funding the entity but she was concerned about the cuts in the programme on defence and the losses. The decrease in the parliamentary grant – this is a great concern for the Committee. She asked what informed the move from 5% to 6% for international contract income.

The youth in the science and innovation sector are of the view that CSIR projects take a long time to launch or to become commercialised. Can CSIR provide clarity? What is a normal turnaround time for implementation of planned projects? How many young people are able to move their research to being commercialised? They are of the view that innovation needs to take place at a much earlier stage through the Masters and PhD phases, not only at the end – they must be given space to commercialise.

She was pleased about HSRC research speaking to the needs of the community. We need to find ways of integrating research and innovation into the commercial space so science and innovation is viewed as a discipline that addresses societal issues.

The NRF leadership baseline is currently at 26.7% representivity but the target is 38%. What informed the target and hindered it from having a more demographically representative target? It should do better considering the demographics of the country.

She addressed HSRC about the concern for the trajectory of NRF graduates. There are many young people going into the science space and producing papers but who find it difficult to get employment. Perhaps, science and innovation needs to be decentralised. The HSRC downward targets are concerning as well as its diminishing income streams.

CSIR response
Dr Dlamini confirmed that CSIR did submit a comprehensive response about the Aero Swift project and the forensic investigation report to the Committee. On Mr Modale's appointment, the individuals who appointed him left CSIR in 2017; therefore, there was no corrective action that could be taken against them. He was appointed in the position without due process being followed and that cannot be held against him because he did not appoint himself to that position. Management has decided to identify an alternative role that he can fill in CSIR but that depends on availability of that position. When Mr Modale was appointed as a manager of the national liaison centre, it was an internal transfer within CSIR. He was already a CSIR employee who was moved to this position. It is important that management is careful in handling this matter to avoid infringing his rights in terms of the Labour Relations Act and not compromising CSIR as well. As soon as an alternative position has been identified, the transfer will then be initiated.

On the standard operating procedure on import controlled substances, the capacity has been beefed up in this area of imports and exports and engagements with the directorate. There is a dedicated resource that is allocated for localisation and it drives the engagements.

On inflated timesheets, when CSIR contracts we do so based on specific deliveries and with this project we met all the deliveries. The timesheets are an internal process used to measure productivity and they do not equate to the value of the contract. Dr Mabale has since left CSIR around 2018 and the remaining individual, Dr Strouse, still works for CSIR. The report on this matter was very clear that the operations manager was behind this inflation of timesheets. Not much corrective action could be done as he was then medically boarded by CSIR around 2019/20. The only remaining person was Mr Modale and his manager did follow up with corrective action. There was nothing criminal in this matter but a breach of internal policies and sufficient corrective action has since been taken. Management is very thorough in enforcing governance in CSIR.

On the ADC Aeroswift liquidation, this process was still ongoing and the intellectual property generated through the partnership, some of it is owned by CSIR, some by ADC and some is owned jointly. We continue with the R&D efforts and CSIR is exploring a number of opportunities to commercialise the IP including its application beyond the aerospace sector. There are engagements with interested partners to look at the rail sector and automotive sector and others. A commercialisation plan was being put together to ensure that the IP was exploited.

The grant received from the Department of Science and Innovation was not a loan to ADC but was utilised by CSIR to cover some of the operational costs, mostly pertaining to employees. There were very stringent checks and balances from a financial management point of view on how monies were transferred to ADC as well as the reporting associated with that.

On securing additional funding, CSIR was continually engaging with partners in the private and public sector to increase its income. There will be no job losses at CSIR due to the projected loss of income; in fact CSIR is planning an increase in terms of the overall headcount. Throughout 2021/22 CSIR will do all it can to improve its financial position margin. When this APP was prepared in 2020, management was projecting a loss of R50 million, but through hard work CSIR was able to realise a profit margin of R160 million this year. In the midst of the pandemic challenges, there were some opportunities CSIR was able to take advantage of. In the previous year, CSIR had a net margin of a positive R160 million as opposed to the projected loss of R50 million.

The PFMA procurement matter has not yet been resolved with National Treasury. A blanket exemption was requested from Treasury on this matter but it was rejected. Now, it is back to the request of exemptions on a project-by-project basis but this delays the ability to execute projects. It also has a direct impact on the ability to earn income and sustain CSIR.

On the Campus Masterplan, the bottom line is that it is an excellent plan but it came at the wrong time. It depended on the ability to raise capital from the fiscus and the market but economic growth and the fiscus have been constrained significantly. There are components of the Plan that CSIR has continued to progress particularly those focusing on the International Convention Centre and those linked to the funding received through DSI from Treasury.

The bottom line on producing our own vaccines remains availability of infrastructure and human capital. The country does produce some vaccines through Biovac and Aspen. Most of the work done on this is what is called ‘fill and complete’, we do not produce the full components of what go into a vaccine. Some items are imported but then packaged and distributed in the country. We are not in a position to produce the full vaccines; it would require us to be fully active in pharmaceutical ingredients research and development. There is an opportunity to explore the use of IP coming from other parts of the world but it will require significant investment in infrastructure.

The new CSIR structure has been fully implemented and the operating model is one of the elements implemented in support of the new strategy. To fully implement the strategy is going to take some time, about 18 month to two years as it requires a lot of changes within the organisation. CSIR is very advanced in a number of areas that had to be critically rethought. The performance of the previous year is an indication that the new strategy is beginning to take root.

As for the deficit, the only way to manage it is to increase income or manage costs. On the income side, new opportunities both locally and internationally are pursued very rigorously. For example, CSIR is pursuing international R&D contracts in the next three years in excess of R4 billion. Management recently submitted a request to the Minister to increase the borrowing plan from the current R120 million to R1.4 billion to enable CSIR to attract these international R&D opportunities. Locally the teams are working hard looking into new opportunities to grow income but the expenditure is also monitored very closely to manage the bottom line of the organisation.

On what informed the move from 5% to 6% for international income, there are a number of opportunities being pursued and some of them have materialised. Currently, it is executing a half a billion contract in the defence sector over the next three years. There are also other opportunities within the continent but due to Covid-19, some of the work was delayed due to inability to travel.

On commercialisation of intellectual property, we are driving an initiative focusing on a new approach to the commercialisation of CSIR IP development. This will be presented to the Board and it will also be presented to this Committee.

On the comment that ‘it takes very long for CSIR to commercialise IP’, it is hard to relate to this comment because it is a function of a number of factors such as availability of skills, resources and existing market opportunities to take the new IP on board. On the CSIR website, there are a number of technologies listed that have been developed and are ready to be commercialised. There is a huge portfolio of IP that is ready to be commercialised and CSIR is looking for partners. it is a very expensive exercise to commercialise IP. There are so many factors that affect the ability to move forward with IP commercialisation.

The CSIR staff is fairly young and the organisation has recently launched a Young Researchers’ Forum to create a platform enabling young researchers to engage with each other and the rest of the organisation.

On job prospects for researchers graduating from programmes funded by NFR, this needs a deeper analysis and engagement. CSIR has a limited absorptive capacity and it cannot even absorb all the people it grants bursaries to. There are insufficient resources for that – the extent to which CSIR can grow is affected by the resources available and this is true for many other organisations. We need to have a conversation at a national level on how we create new opportunities to absorb the capacity that organisations and companies have created.

Dr Rachel Chikwamba, CSIR Group Executive: Chemicals, Agriculture, Food and Health, replied about vaccines that CSIR has been involved on prototype production, which is work funded by DSI and it was in the advanced stages of discussing localisation of plant-based pharmaceuticals and other technologies for vaccine production locally. When this happens, CSIR will include other players within the National System of Innovation (NSI) such as Biovac.

CSIR took a long term approach to capabilities that we want to establish to position South Africa as a country that can make its own vaccines and other biological therapies. The Open Innovation Pharmaceutical platform is one such endeavour where we have an open facility for universities and private entrepreneurs to come in and translate their innovations into products that can go to market. CSIR is looking for high end infrastructure support from DSI and Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA) is in conversation to support this initiative with a Current Good Manufacturing Practices (CGMP) capability that is downstream for commercial manufacture.

Mr Andile Mabindisa, CSIR Group Executive: Human Capital and Communication, replied that the demographic profile of CSIR has about 72% black Africans, 42% being females. The young comprises 34%. The youth absorbed in the previous financial year totalled 71 and 41 of them completed their studies and CSIR absorbed all of them for permanent employment.

NRF response
Prof Nelwamondo replied that still much more needs to be done on research and science in the country, most importantly translating that research into impact on the economy. The key aspect is that there are certain matters that require tough choices on the research work that needs to be prioritised in line with the impact framework the country seeks to achieve.

The NRF would like to invite Members to come and see the work happening in the SKA. The NSI is underfunded in terms of research.

Dr Gansen Pillay, NRF Deputy CEO, noted the postgraduate underfunding – the budget needs to be quadrupled in order to maintain the previous levels. The NRF had a call for the funding under the new policy and there were a number of students that qualified for funding but not all of them could be granted funding due to fiscal constraints. To fund the students that could not be funded, NFR would need R287 million to fund 1 998 eligible postgraduate students for the 2021 academic year. These are students that ticked all the boxes and passed all the tests. Projections for the next five to 10 years can be provided to the Committee.

On the leading researchers and scholars programme, NFR made good progress and developed a conceptual framework and it now constituted a Programme Advisory Committee. The DSI response to the NRF presentation was that DSI would like to engage further on this as well as with DHET on the Future Professors Programme to ensure that there is no duplication in the system.

On Chairs and COEs, given the R753 million budget that NRF had, it self-imposed a moratorium on the establishment of any further Chairs and COEs. The moratorium has now been lifted – at the moment there are 256 operating Chairs and 15 COEs but they cannot be funded in perpetuity. As the Chairs reach their 15 year funding cycle, the money will be drawn back to establish new Chairs. The disciplines that will be funded will be evidence-led and areas of need. Similarly, NRF is engaging with other departments to establish jointly-funded Chairs to fund more of them.

As for COEs, they had 15 years of funding and were allowed another three years of funding, which will be gradually scaled down in order to be sustainable through other means. The NRF will utilise a lot of leverage funding going into the future. Currently, NFR is in conversation with the Swiss National Foundation and Zurich University to look into block chain technology. The Minister requested NFR explore the possibility of Chairs in the area of migration and social cohesion.

Dr Phethiwe Matutu, NRF Group Executive: Strategy Planning and Partnerships, replied that the NFR R&D Information Platform is partly in existence – previously the DSI invested in the business intelligence system, which assisted institutions of higher learning in conducting their R&D administration together with NFR data generally. It has since been expanded to include Higher Education management information system data along with NFR data and other data. However, looking at the capacity within the system, for that to happen, the plan is to include science councils and universities to enable them to work within this business intelligence system. The DSI planned R&D portal within NACI (National Advisory Council on Innovation) can hook into the NRF R&D information portal. However, the NFR R&D platform is meant to service the entire system depending on the data available for R&D. For NACI, it is overarching to what NFR has to provide – the NFR portal is largely based on R&D.

Mr Kedirang Oagile, NRF Group Executive: Human Resources and Legal Services, agreed that the NRF can do better on women representation. However, the targets are constrained by the existing structures as well as the type of contracts that exist within the NRF.

Mr Bishen Singh, NRF Chief Financial Officer, responded that the low parliamentary grant follows from a historical trajectory in that the funding allocated to NFR was that of foundational funding to maintain operations. Over the years, it has grown nominally to cover the growth and costs of employment. The current low grant is largely attributed to the fiscal constraints placed on all budgets.

HSRC response
Mr Simbayi replied that at the end of March HSRC had 480 permanent posts and 421 were filled, which meant that there now remained 59 vacancies. There were only 43 in administration due to the need to have a moratorium on the administrative component of HSRC. The vacancy rate increased from about 6% to almost 14%. It is working on a number of initiatives, which included emerging scholar transformed research capability and online learning within the organisation. HSRC is working hard on retention and it was implementing equity-targeted selection.

The performance management has been revised and it is working towards remuneration equity – addressing salary disparities through examining job descriptions.

The ideal funding model – HSRC has had up to three institutional reviews and the last one indicated that HSRC ideally should be getting about 80% of annual budget (R500 million) coming from the fiscus. Currently, it gets about 52% which has increased to 55% but ideally if we could have 80% we would spend less time hunting for funding for the research that HSRC does.

We should have a higher target for female senior researchers, but there is high turnover amongst the group of researchers who are moving back to universities. HSRC is not giving up and it is working on this.

The number of positions in Programme 1 (Administration) is about 244 including the vacancies, which makes up about 51% and research positions are 49%.

On procurement regulations, we do request deviations where it is not possible to go on tender but this takes a lot of time. We would like to engage Treasury on this as entities like HSRC should be seen as sole suppliers for research, so we do not have to go through all the formal tender processes. This would also assist in obtaining additional funding.

On the Impact Centre, it was started last year and the first year was foundational and conceptual in what the impact means for HSRC. In the second year, the hope is to reveal how HSRC would be taking this impact mandate further onto the national scale.

UNISA enrolment: DHET briefing
Dr Thandi Lewin, DHET Chief of Staff, provided an overview of the enrolment process of all institutions and the Departments’ role in the targets that institutions are able to set for enrolment. With the UNISA case, a timeline of the events was outlined in her report.

On the court case involving the Economic Freedom Party and Black Law Student Council, the judge decided against the Minister and ordered on 11 March 2021 that his decision was unlawful and therefore should be set aside. Following the court order, the Minister awaited the full judgement, which was received on 6 April 2021. The two counsel who appeared on behalf of the Minister are now preparing a legal opinion on the way forward and if there are grounds for a successful case should the Minister opt for an appeal.

University of South Africa (UNISA) briefing on the enrolment matter
Mr James Maboa, UNISA Council Chairperson, said that it was disappointing that the University found itself in this position and this year has not been easy for the institution. The over enrolment is not something that is taken lightly because it has a financial impact on the institution. The presentation will detail how this matter will be addressed going forward.

Ms Puleng LenkaBula, UNISA Vice Chancellor, presented its five-year enrolment plan and reasons for non-compliance with the plan; its consequence management; and the court judgement on the case lodged by the EFF Student Command and Black Lawyers Association (BLA) Student Chapter against the Minister of Higher Education, Science and Innovation and UNISA.

The reasons for non-compliance with enrolment plan were:
• A considerable number of NSFAS first-time entry (FTEN) recipients only received confirmation late in the registration process
• NSFAS cases which also would have been confirmed post registration finalisation
• A high demand for space for the Higher Certificate (an articulation route as an access forms a key attribute of a comprehensive university)
• Systems that are fit for purpose for the complexities of planning and managing a mega university enrolment are currently in development and hence the management of enrolments remains a challenge
• A student culture of not adhering to the 10 day acceptance period due to poor access to communication channels such as email or smartphone or simply a culture of non-acknowledgement exacerbates challenges in managing the FTEN cohort
• As part of the cooperative agreement with TVET colleges, it is obligated to accommodate students for Higher Certificate
• Being one of the universities to allow access via the Higher Certificate as entry to university education.

On consequence management, UNISA has engaged with the two committees responsible for this function to request them to take corrective measures on over-enrolments. As a corrective measure, amongst others, UNISA will have dedicated committee to oversee enrolments.

To circumvent judicial overreach, UNISA was appealing Order 3 (3.3) of the judgment on administrative expertise reserved for university academics and managers who have the expertise and experience to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of academic programmes. If the impugned order is not challenged and appealed, it will remain a precedent for all the universities that the courts can restrict and outwit the proficiency of academic experts in the determination and implementation of academic policies to enhance the efficient functioning and attainment of strategic goals.

UNISA Student Representative Council input
Ms Shatadi Phoshoko, Secretary General of the UNISA SRC, presented UNISA's enrolment plan from the students’ perspective and highlighted core challenges and flaws in the plan. These challenges were grouped according to general, funding and admissions.

The SRC also suggested that UNISA scrapped the Higher Certificate programme and replace it with extended course programmes that will result in students obtaining degrees or diplomas.

Discussion
The Chairperson, Mr M Mapulane (ANC), said that the Committee wanted to understand how the enrolment plan was developed – what it means and how must the plan be complied with as well as the consequences of non-compliance. It wanted to understand this in relation to what has happened in the institution. There had been a lot of explanations that were difficult to understand and there is a number of things that are being said. Why was the university unable to comply with the enrolment plan? This was not introduced recently; it has always been in the system. In 2016, there was an under-enrolment and in 2018 there was an over-enrolment. There was a similar situation where the Minister exercised his power in 2018

Members also wanted to understand the litigation. Looking at the court judgment and what was presented to the Committee, the presentation does not do justice. One of the reasons that decision by the UNISA Executive Committee of Council (EXCOC) was set aside was that it did not have the power to take the decision to agree with and implement the Minister's letter. Why did EXCOC take this decision when it is aware it did not have the power to take that decision? Why was an emergency Council meeting not convened?

The other concern was lack of consultation with the senate. The presentation was not detailed enough. Its consequence management did not really equate to consequence management but rather to remedial action. We wanted to understand why consequence management was not implemented?

The judge criticised DHET as the clause it relied on does not talk to the power of the Minister.

Mr Letsie welcomed the delegation and said that UNISA was silent on consequence management for the officials responsible. The UNISA academic year has commenced but there are students that were still waiting for registration confirmation and were in limbo. How is UNISA going to ensure that those students were covered?

It is not because we are against access to higher education that we are saying the numbers must be reduced. Rather the intention is to ensure that, in line with the 2030 targets, institutions of higher learning reach a certain number but that must be accompanied by financial support.

Mr Letsie disagreed with the SRC suggestion to phase out the Higher Certificate programme. This programme provides an articulation pathway to higher education bachelor degrees and diplomas for many students who would not have had access to higher education. This should not be phased out or removed. Some students were now successful due to this articulation pathway.

The current higher education funding model does not seem to be suitable for distance learning. If this were now subjected to ‘one size fits all’, the situation will not get better. We need to form a new funding model for UNISA specifically because it caters for different kinds students. The Ministerial Task Team should assess the best funding model for UNISA.

A lot of time when there are protests, students cry about funding but the issue here is that institutions provide incorrect information to NSFAS, which leads to NSFAS taking wrong decisions in granting funding to students. Does this happen at UNISA? Why does it take so long for universities to communicate effectively with NSFAS to avoid students suffering from lack of funding and thus initiating protests?

Mr S Tambo (EFF) said he came with the intention to fight but he was satisfied with the UNISA presentation on the approach it has since taken on this matter. His comments were of a political nature and he cautioned that public servants in the sector must keep aloof from being technocratic. The higher education sector is one of the most complex sectors in society – it is not a sector that can afford to take long breaks or recess because it is a sector that is constantly evolving; thus it requires a level of flexibility.

The demands in higher education must not be depressed in order to keep administrative ducks in a row. This poses the risk of a bureaucracy that exists for its own sake – to exist only to give reports on meeting targets at the end of term. Keeping ducks in a row should not supersede the needs of our people.

He was disappointed that the Minister was not present considering that he was leading the charge on this recommendation to cut 20 000 first time entrants.

Ms C King (DA) said that she wrote a letter in January when the matter first surfaced asking why this specific decision was taken. She also wrote to NSFAS asking why it would over-fund some students above the threshold it has for each university. It was shocking that it was only after a Daily Maverick article, UNISA responded asking her to wait as it was still busy with the Minister. When UNISA says it will appeal the matter, one would understand that it would done so as to keep the autonomy of the institution intact. However, in considering the case, is it not the Minister’s action rather than the judiciary that is impeding the university’s autonomy? Why was it was so easy for UNISA to go against policies and legal acts of the country to over-enrol and not heed the Department’s call not to over-enrol? The Act is also silent and vague on these matters – it only cites penalties that will be instituted when this is not adhered to.

What stops UNISA from doing the same thing in the future academic years? It will be NSFAS that will have come in and fund those students. These kinds of actions end up affecting other institutions within the sector and more importantly the students. The university cannot over-enrol without considering its ripple effect.

She was pleased that the UNISA was reaching out to TVET colleges – this is the way we should be going now. The curriculum of the TVET colleges must be strengthened as well their resources so that universities are not put in a situation where they end up over-enrolled because of the demand from students. We must be mindful that universities need to have their autonomy.

Ms Mkhatshwa said that in the end, the matter is beyond UNISA as the demand for access to higher education is increasing and we need to look at how we expand access. We need to consider how we can expand the TVET programme to absorb more students and produce graduates that can be active citizens in the economy. The opening of the two new universities is encouraged but the demand for access is immediate. Therefore, the intervention of strengthening infrastructure development projects in the TVET colleges must be prioritised. We need to strengthen and increase the capacity of institutions to take in more students because the demand is only going up.

Members can agree that turning away students cannot be the solution but we need to be talking about how stakeholders can increase access. Does UNISA believe that it has the capacity to increase enrolment beyond the DHET plan? Centralising the demand or pressure is also flawed; we should be looking at strengthening other institutions to take on a more remote or hybrid method of teaching and learning and bring in more students into those institutions. What would it take as a sector to move towards strengthened ICT infrastructure to ensure that hybrid learning is the norm?

The demand for access to higher education is increasing and we need to respond accordingly by intervening with immediate solutions.

The Chairperson said that there are a number of lessons that should be learned from this. One lesson is that decisions that relate to policy must be arrived at carefully. The system should not be shocked and the we respond to the shock as an incident that has to be acceptable in terms of what the policy should be – the system is quite complex and therefore requires thorough planning. The idea of developing enrolment plans was to facilitate the gradual increase of students in the system, whilst making sure that the system is maintained. This departure from planning must be frowned upon because an institution as big as UNISA will rely heavily on its plans for teaching, academic programmes and resources. Failure to do follow the enrolment plan means it would not comply with its other plans, including the budget itself. Who will now take responsibility for this?

There is a concern about UNISA throughput – its pass rate. The Committee has been told that UNISA has the lowest throughput – is this the case and what gives rise to this? Should we not focus on quality as opposed to quantity? It is correct to broaden access but if only three out of ten that get into the system get out with a qualification. He asked about the cost to the state and not looking at the problem in the system. He was not satisfied about the explanation on consequence management. Whoever did this was working outside of what the Council and the Minister would approve. The Committee would also need to get the Department’s view on the court decision.

He was uncertain if DHET has discussed this matter extensively and he was worried about the impact these actions would have on the entire system, such as the Department’s enrolment plans that must be respected and implemented, in view of the court outcomes. This is something that DHET needs to thoroughly engage on. This is not about access; it is about planning for expanding access. Without the plans, the entire system will collapse.

UNISA Council response
UNISA Council Chairperson, Mr Maboa, assured Members that Council does not take this matter lightly and agreed with the sentiments of the Chairperson. He provided assurance on consequence management as management was busy with its own processes on this and it will be monitored. He requested that the Committee provide some time to allow management and Council to conduct its work and write back to the Committee on the question of consequence management.

If we set a target of 100 people, at the end of registration there is a time where payments must be made to secure the registration. If at the end of registration when payments are due they are transferred later than the cut off by NSFAS, this is where the problem starts. This is one of the main reasons why we find ourselves in this situation.

On the court case, UNISA is not appealing the matter of the 20 000 reduction. The 3.3 order is a semesterisation matter; there are academic issues involved which would impact certain modules. There are academic reasons why it needs to be appealed.

On EXCOC and its powers, the court judgment that EXCOC did not have the powers to make such a heavy decision without going to Council is welcomed. The Council should have been involved but it would not have been the first time where EXCOC has taken decisions on behalf of Council. We have accepted the decision of the judge on this matter.

The omission of Senate was really disappointing and it is a lesson to be learned. The internal mechanisms should have picked this up but perhaps due to the pressures of time, it was overlooked. The Council will review its processes, particularly on EXCOC taking decisions on behalf of Council.

The Vice Chancellor indicated that the EXCOC does take decisions on behalf of Council but as a result of the court case, this will be reviewed by the institution. UNISA as a comprehensive distance learning university is a confluence of universities of technology and research intensive universities. Precisely because of this comprehensive nature, it operates within the semester and year modules interchangeably. This is an outcome of the merger of Technikon South Africa (TSA), former UNISA and former Vista model and the idea of the semester has been contentious, because one the one hand the court outcome requires the semester but on the other there is this quality question that will be asked of management. In a particular module, there are notional hours that are required for learning and accreditation of the credits. In this instance, the credit system will not manifest and will affect the quality if we accede to some of the requirements and therefore accreditation may fall apart.

The second aspect of the semester and year module is the fact that the accreditation of professional qualification requires a semester and sometimes placement within the professional environment for students to ensure empirical learning. The final aspect on this matter is that we have not called for super-semester but requested a single registration with two semesters so that the time that is used for registration in the second semester could be dedicated to academic work. This reduces the administrative process of registration to increase the study time. This is important because the idea is not only to have students access universities but to ensure that students access and succeed within good time – in line with the White Paper on PSET.

As part of mitigating strategies, management has realised that it address some of the contradictions on Higher Certificates. It will be important that we look beyond the imperatives of UNISA’s sustainability, but instead create engagements and strengthening of the PSET system by ensuring that we have quality relationships with the TVET colleges and clear articulation levers for student progress. This is being implemented as a remedy to some of the challenges of the Higher Certificate.

The final part is that management agrees that universities are social institutions that must be promoting access to knowledge, ideation, research and innovation. We must ensure that we do not only teach undergraduate studies but are a strong participant in the postgraduate studies. The strengthening of the TVET sector will enable the university to have stronger outputs.

UNISA has agreed that it cannot contest the increase to access but it has to comply with the enrolment management systems. Tough decisions must be taken at times to comply.

On consequence management, most of the management and Council is new but both structures will ensure people are held accountable for taking decisions not in compliance with the law and regulations.

Prof. Ndlovu said once a student has been offered a place, he/she must respond within ten days and the register. Students register and are often given extensions for complete their registration as well as payment. During the period of registration where the student has not yet paid, they are considered as temporarily registered. Once the payment has been made, they are then converted into fully registered students. This creates a challenge because if most of the students do not pay, the requirements are not met. This also depends on the number of offers made and accepted. If one looks back on the under-enrolment is because in most cases we would simply offer up to the maximum available and then students do not pitch and additional offers cannot be made by the institution at that point. Currently, we are sitting at 369 000 and we have 60 000 odd TP that are open. If all those students were to accept, this would mean numbers would shoot up to over 400 000. This is the kind of challenge caused by temporary registration. Management is working towards resolving this matter.

When students register, they must pay before registration and those that are going to be funded by NSFAS; it would require confirmation for registration before NSFAS pays. The institution would then need to quantify all the students that would be funded by NSFAS in order to be recorded as registered so that NSFAS can pay. If that payment does not come through, it is the student that gets affected. This the main issue that puts the institution on the fence on under- or over-enrolment. It is important that in future to take decision that requires payment to register, not the other way round.

The Vice Chancellor explained the reasoning behind challenging 3.3 of the order. The qualification framework requires that for every qualification, the students must spend a particular amount of time studying and getting facilitation of learning. This is required by the Council of Higher Education as part of its qualification assessments. It is not just CHE that has to do this but the demands of the professional bodies that credit professional qualifications.

The second aspect is that for those modules that are vocational, technical or professional, the tradition is always to divide between the placement of the students in getting empirical experience or research in one semester and then get ideation or theory in another semester. Finally, to mediate some of the time challenges is to create a dispensation where students register for all the modules they plan to undertake in a year at one time.

Adv Maluleka spoke on the legal matters – on the appealing of 3.3, if one looks at the order that the judge has framed: One word is the decision to scrap – the university has not taken the decision to scrap this system. The judge has reviewed a decision that was never taken. The other aspect is that once-off registration stems from Covid-19, which necessitated the extension of time. When it comes to the university, there are two examinations that will be written within a year. The implementation of 3.3 would mean that the examination would be written in May and June, while the actual registration closed on 31 March; thus the notional hours of the modules would not be met. This means that the examination process would not comply with the quality framework set by the quality assurance authorities. This is the reason the examinations were extended beyond June, not to scrap the semester.

The other issue is the avoidance of judicial encroachment; there is a need for difference between judicial decisions, academic decisions, administrative decisions and expert decisions. The academics who are experts in the field of the quality of education took a decision that the examination should be written in September instead of June so that the time taken away by the extension of registration can be covered.

The statutes of the institution allow for emergency meetings but under the circumstances, would that have been possible? The statute requires an ordinary meeting to be held seven days after its announcement. On the 28 December, the statutory requirement was to call for the meeting which would have been on 4 January and that was the expiry date of the seven days imposed by the Minister. That emergency meeting would not have been the final meeting but one meeting by the Council, because Council would have to issue a call for a senate meeting – this would have required another seven days. Therefore, it would required 21 days to hold these emergency meetings and it would not have been possible.

The legal arguments as presented by the three parties differed – the EFF, the Minister and UNISA. The Minister argued that as empowered by section 42(1), his letter does not constitute a decision on enrolment planning but was about the intention to withhold funds. Now, the court said section 42 (2) empowers the Minister to withhold payment but does not entitle the Minister to cut the student enrolment which his letter of 28 December 2020 said he intended to do. The EFF then comes and said that the Minister was not empowered by section 42(1) to withhold the funds. The University’s argument is it did not want the Minister to withhold the funds (R66 million) as it was aware that the Minister could do so. However, this was an error in law – indeed the Minister had no power to direct but only to withhold the funds. This is the reason why we are not appealing that part of the judgment but Order 3 (3.3) encroached on the policy making decision of the institution and effectively the management of the university.

The Vice Chancellor indicated that the university has two types of students – the first are the students that enrol for undergraduate and finish within record time; the second type is the group that works as they improve their qualifications and the time invested in the learning process is rather long. UNISA faces the challenge of creating a stronger student academic support to ensure that the throughput rate is improved.

DHET response
Dr Lewin apologised that she could not provide more clarity on the legalities of the matter as the Minister was still awaiting legal advice on the judgement to engage with it.

On the Minister's directive, this is a useful discussion and the Department was engaging UNISA further on this matter. It was reflected that the university shared some of the concerns on the directive of the Minister. The Department will continue to work with UNISA on this matter.

The financial penalties kick when there is either a 2% under- or over-enrolment of the enrolment plan by an institution. This applies to all institutions and it takes effect two years after the actual year of over-enrolment because of the way that the subsidy formula works and how it is allocated.

On academic support, this was raised significantly in the SRC presentation.

UNISA SRC response
Ms Poshoko replied about the Higher Certificate programme and said that there should be two pathways to a degree – the normative way of a three/four year degree and alternatively an extended course programme with special design to accommodate Higher Certificate students. This was proposed as a result of numerous engagements with UNISA to try and find a workable solution to the problem of Higher Certificate students. As it stands, we have an extensive number of students who on completing Higher Certificates were rejected when wanting to enrol for a degree. These students are expected to compete with students coming from high school and other institutions. By virtue of this, also taking into consideration the NQF level of higher certificate, they are at a disadvantage. So many will continue to be rejected and struggle to enrol in other institutions or find employment. The Higher Certificate becomes some sort of a fundraising programme. We are thus suggesting that it must be replaced or rather combined with a degree to make degrees for non-qualifying students who would ordinarily do a higher certificate to do a degree.

Lastly, the SRC has had numerous instances where NSFAS says that it has not received transcripts but when we follow up with UNISA, it says that the transcripts are submitted. There is a concerning coordination challenge between NSFAS and UNISA and it is one of the main challenges we want to address going forward as the SRC.

Closing comments
The Chairperson thanked the UNISA delegation for the submissions and responses. He welcomed and acknowledged the new leadership and hoped that there would be fresh ideas to revive the institution. From the Committee’s view, it is quite clear that the over-enrolment was not properly handled. The biggest issue is the implementation of consequence management and without it decay will creep in. It is important that people are held accountable for decisions taken. The Committee calls out firmly for the implementation of consequence management; however, the Committee welcomes the suggestions from the UNISA Council Chairperson to submit a detailed report on consequence management on this matter. The Committee needs to get a sense of what Council is going to do. The submission must be comprehensive enough to cover all aspects of the institution affected by the over-enrolment.

Meeting adjourned.