BELA Bill: Public Hearings Reports: Gauteng and KwaZulu-Natal

Meeting report

The Chairperson apologised for the Members’ late receipt of the draft report on the public hearing in the KwaZulu-Natal province. She highlighted that Ms Portia Mbude-Mutshekwane, Committee Content Advisor, is the only staff member who drafts and edits the substantial content of the reports.

Further, the Committee strives to provide detailed and transparent reports. It is also essential to complete the process of considering and adopting the reports, as only three reports would remain following the meeting and within the next two weeks.

Mr P Moroatshehla (ANC) noted the points raised by the Chairperson and agreed to proceed with the consideration of the reports and accepted the agenda of the meeting.

Mr T Letsie (ANC) agreed and seconded the motion.

Ms M Sukers (ACDP) referred to the issues raised at the beginning of the process, namely the delayed public participation and pressure on the limited parliamentary staff, due to the overcrowded programme and haste in conducting the programme.

She noted concerns about cutting corners, and that the current meeting did not appear on the public parliamentary committee meeting schedule until late the previous evening.

The reason for raising the concern is so that the Committee does not cut corners and repeat the mistakes of the Doctors for Life case. To ensure the Bill would not be struck down and Parliament would pay costs.

She acknowledged the pressure exerted on Ms Mbude-Mutshekwane, reports are not received on time, reports that should be tabled are not, and staff should not be placed under unrealistic submission dates.

The Chairperson requested clarification on the scheduling of the meeting.

Ms Sukers provided that while Members received notification, members of the public contacted her that there was no public notification of the meeting. This exerts extra pressure on staff.

The Committee Secretariat responded that the meeting notice was published on 16 June 2023 to all the parliamentary and stakeholder groups. Ms Sukers might be referring to the Z list, where the notice was only published last night.

Mr Letsie emphasised that the meeting is for the Committee to consider the reports of the KwaZulu and Gauteng hearings. He does not understand Ms Sukers’ concern that the public did not receive notice, as the public would not participate in the meeting.

It is for the Members to consider the reports, as it had for Limpopo in the previous week. Thus, he does not understand the relevance of the concerns. He requested that the meeting proceed.

Ms Sukers agreed that the meeting should proceed for the sake of progress. She put it on record that while the Committee proceeds to consider the report, it remains part of the public participation process in Parliament and the interest of the public to participate in the progress of the Bill.

The Chairperson said she discussed the staff concerns with Mr Bandi [Parliament Committee Section]. The Committee must adhere to due dates, to meet the programme’s progress. The process of the public hearing must be completed.

Her office is inundated with people who appreciate and others who do not appreciate the work conducted. The reality is that there would be opposition and Members should be ready for this. The Members need to conclude the work.

She asked Members to keep their focus. It is not fair that the work should be threatened. It is not the first time that a report has been received late.

She agreed with Mr Moroatshehla that it was the Committee’s process. It is a courtesy to have people in the meetings and everyone has an interest. They do not have the luxury to dictate what should happen. It should be understood by her and each Member.

Everyone has an interest, and it has nothing to do with followers at a personal level. The remaining reports would be adopted in the weeks to come. Thereafter a break would ensue, and the Members would review the Bill clause by clause.

The process would not stop because individuals are not happy with how things are being done. Hence, the Committee has attempted to be very fair, transparent, and accommodating. What more must be done, no one knows.

The Content Advisor provided information, for the benefit of someone who could not attend to understand the hearing process. The work of the Committee must proceed.

She asked the Content Advisor to proceed with the presentation of the reports.

Ms Mbude-Mutshekwane, Committee Content Advisor, presented the draft reports on the public hearings on the BELA BILL[B2- 2022] held in the Gauteng and KwaZulu-Natal provinces.

Discussion

The Chairperson thanked Ms Mbude-Mutshekwane for the presentation of the draft reports.

She opened the discussion for corrections on the Gauteng report.

Ms M van Zyl (DA) noted that the time to debate the Bill is not now. The time to review the Bill clause by clause would ensue after adopting the draft reports.

The purpose of adopting the reports is to confirm that the views of the participants of the hearings were captured correctly by the administration.

On Gauteng’s report, she referred to pages 13 and 14 dealing with clauses supported, not supported, and partially supported. Under clauses not supported, clause four is excluded. It should be included in the report and should provide that the clause was not supported. Clauses four and five always go together.

Ms Sukers supported Ms van Zyl’s comments that the reports reflect what the public had said, and it is not a clause-by-clause interpretation of the legislation.

She said, as a Member of the Committee, she has the right to bring matters to the Committee, as was done earlier in the meeting. She has the same rights and privileges as any Member.

Access to the public to the meeting is part of the law-making process. Measures must be taken to ensure public access and participation.

Regarding the Gauteng report’s section on youth participation, while homeschooling is less than one per cent of the educational system, they had significant youth participation. Those attending and those who completed home schooling, opposed clause 37.

The report does not include data on the number of clause objections. For example, in Johannesburg city, four speakers rejected clause 37, and 3 supported it. The report does not make clear that those who supported clause 37 were less than 10 percent opposed.

There is also no breakdown of issues objected to. The following should be added:

• Total number mentioned as insufficient is 7;
• Total number mentioned lack of research is 11;
• Total number who objected to asking for permission to homeschool is 11;
• Total number who objected in the Johannesburg City Hall to not having the freedom to choose curriculum or assessment, is 15; and
• Total number who objected to home school visits is 9.

The total number who objected to competent assessment stated that the clause is confusing and contradictory. In Mopane, 15 speakers rejected clause 37. No one supported the clause.

The issues most people raised on clause 37 were freedom of curriculum and assessment. They objected to seeking rather than notifying. Lack of research and competent assessors.

In Gauteng, Brakpan, 13 speakers rejected clause 37 and no one supported it.

In Clause 41, the Minister having power to make regulations, specifically the power to make offences, was rejected by six speakers.

Noting the number of rejections by clause is important so that the Committee notes the scale of the responses.

She would provide the extractions and timestamps. She asked the team to support the issues highlighted. There was no mention of a call for regulation of cottage schools and at least six speakers requested this.

Alternative schools and the challenges to register with the Department were also raised.

The Chairperson asked the Content Advisor to include amendments and called for the report’s adoption.

Ms N Adoons (ANC) moved for the adoption of the report.

Mr Letsie seconded the motion.

Ms Sukers added that the assessments being too expensive and discriminatory towards poor people should also be noted. Further, the exclusion of online and blended learning should be noted. She clarified that it is not amendments she is making but rather according to the timestamps of the hearings.

The Chairperson opened the discussion for corrections on the Kwa-Zulu report.

Ms van Zyl reiterated that it is not a debating exercise. The administration would correct grammar and spelling.

On pages 12 and 13, point 8 it should be noted that 89 rejected and 81 supported the Bill. It is not captured correctly.

Further, clause 4 and 5 was not captured correctly. Clause 4 was excluded from the not supported list. 

Ms Sukers said that in eThekwini, 29 out of 87 speakers and in Musindizi, out of 51 speakers, 12 were homeschoolers. This shows the level of homeschooler engagement, even though they are less than 1 per cent of learners. This is a noteworthy aspect of the hearing.

On page 25, regarding independent schools, nothing substantial was expressed on the issue. It should be amended that at least three speakers asked for appropriate regulations to be developed by the cottage or independent micro school’s sector.

As with Gauteng, the presentations made by the public on the matter of independent schools and on the niche market they fulfil in the education sector. On page 25, it is so stated and must be rectified.

Clause 37, the merger and closure of schools are mentioned in the report, but mention is not made of what several speakers objected to, such as public micro schools would be closed without reasons provided. There would be a process, but no reasons need to be given.

In terms of clause 41, mention was made that support was voiced for the clause. Only a few examples, by the vast majority, rejected the clause.

She asked the Content Advisor to check this, as at least seven opposed, and only 1 to 2 supported. Most of those objecting also opposed the Minister having the power to impose penalties.

She said these are her initial comments and she needs more time to study the report further. She reiterated that providing the report the night before is not an efficient process.

The Chairperson asked for the adoption of the report.  

Mr Moroatshehla moved for the adoption of the report.

Ms Adoons seconded the motion.

The report was adopted.

Committee matters

The Committee considered the draft minutes of the previous meetings held on 7 and 13 June 2023. The minutes were unanimously approved and adopted.

The Chairperson thanked Members for their attendance. 

The meeting was adjourned.