BELA Bill: National Public Hearings Report; with Deputy Minister

Meeting report

The Chairperson greeted the Deputy Minister and the Department of Basic Education (DBE) team

The Committee Secretary noted apologies from the Director-General who was currently in the Eastern Cape dealing with reading literacy but would be joining the meeting later.

The Chairperson noted that the Minister was not present as her brother had passed away.

Mr B Nodada (DA) shared his condolences. He raised a concern that the report being considered was sent to the Committee less than 24 hours before the meeting. It was unacceptable that they were expected to consider a report that they had so little time to go through carefully. This report contained the three main parts of what they would be dealing with in their clause-by-clause discussion.

He said in the past the Committee had expressed outrage at the late sending of reports and therefore it would not be fair in this instance to consider a report they had received less than 24 hours ago. This report needed careful reading. He proposed that the Committee postpone the consideration and adoption of the report and deal with it on 15 August before the clause-by-clause discussion. The reason was that then there could be quality discussions and a thorough understanding of the public participation.

Mr T Letsie (ANC) shared his condolences and motioned for the adoption of the agenda as is.

Ms M Moroane (ANC) shared her condolences and seconded the adoption of the agenda as is.

Ms M Van Zyl shared her condolences and seconded Mr Nodada’s proposal that the report be dealt with at a later date as they could not do justice to a report received less than 24 hours ago.

Mr P Moroatshehla (ANC) shared his condolences. There was a stalemate on the report. He suggested to break the deadlock that the Committee could be apprised of the mitigating circumstances that led to the report being sent late if it was indeed sent late. This information could assist in reaching a compromise granted that there was no fighting or delaying tactics at play. There was a race against time and there would be unexpected eventualities such as missed deadlines, but it was the responsibility of the Committee to honestly come together and accomplish the task before them.

Dr W Boshoff (FF+) shared his condolence> He suggested the Committee go through the report with the DBE in this meeting and ask clarity-seeking questions and that their responses and issues with the report be dealt with in another meeting. The Committee received the report less than 24 hours ago on Monday which was a constituency day. It meant there would have been little time to go through this report.

The Chairperson said she had allowed everyone to speak on this matter because the report was sent to the Committee yesterday. This report was the National Report which set out what happened since the BELA Bill was given to the Committee in December 2021.

The Chairperson said she did not know why the Committee wanted to go through this report as the Committee had already gone through all the provincial reports which dealt with what happened during the public participation period. The report was a consolidation report on what had transpired across all provinces and given that the Committee had gone through the provincial reports, the Chairperson failed to understand what would be different with the National Report. She noted that the report was 43 pages and was sent at 11h51 on Monday. The Chairperson said an apology was needed for the late sending of the report but considering the contents of the report, Ms Portia Mbude-Mutshekwane (Committee Content Advisor) needed to ensure everything was accurate. The Committee Content Advisor had a bereavement last week and therefore there were various factors contributing to the lateness of the report.

The Chairperson clarified that the Committee was meeting during the constituency period as Parliament was closed. The reason for this was because all committees with legislation before them were working under pressure as legislation needed to be finalised. The Committee had applied to meet during the constituency period to finalise this legislation.

The Chairperson noted that next week there would be a presentation that was not a part of the agenda on the BELA Bill’s funding as per Mr Nodada’s request. She said this was not an issue, but he was now asking for the National Report to be dealt with next week too. The Chairperson also noted that the Committee from Tuesday to Friday was dealing with a clause-by-clause discussion of 56 clauses that needed to be done in four days.

She said Mr Nodada’s request to have the DBE present on the funding of the BELA Bill and to consider and adopt the National Report first thing on Tuesday was not a part of the plan and was not what the Committee had applied for in Parliament.

The Chairperson said if the Committee did not want to adopt the report in this meeting it was fine, and an opportunity would be given to the Committee to express their views. She noted that it was her duty to lead the Committee and consider timelines as she had to sit in the Chairpersons of Committees’ meeting in Parliament. The Committee should have the approach taken as it was her view that National Report told a story that Committee already knew.

The Chairperson said if the Committee did not want to adopt the report, she was fine with it but suggested the Committee Content Advisor be allowed to present the report to the Committee. The adoption of the report would then be dealt with next week followed by the DBE’s presentation on the BELA Bill’s funding. The Chairperson said the Committee needed to conclude the clause-by-clause matter by Friday next week and that Saturday next week this legislation needed to be out of the Committee’s hands.

The Chairperson said in response to Dr Boshoff that this process was Parliament’s and had nothing to do with the DBE. The DBE would not be directing their process but rather the Department would be presenting next on the funding of the Bill. The Committee dealt with the recommendations and comments from the public participation process and would be notifying the DBE of their findings from this process. The Committee would then engage with DBE and legal services from both parties on matters on the Bill and the possible need for refinement. This was the process for next week. She said this was the process the Committee was adding more to. The Chairperson asked the Committee what needed to be done.

Mr Moroatshehla said that there was a task before in terms of deadlines as correctly pointed out by the Chairperson. This was a race against – the Committee was doing this work with their backs against the wall. He said unless others did not see the pressure faced.

He said he heard the Chairperson and was sympathetic to the Committee Content Advisor. The report although it was indicated to have been received late was just a summary of what the Committee had already dealt with. Mr Moroatshehla pleaded with the Committee that since there was nothing new in the report that the Committee go through it in this meeting. This was to check if there was nothing different to the previous reports factored in the National Report. He maintained that the report was a summary of the provincial reports that had been presented to the Committee. He pleaded again that the report be dealt with in this meeting given the time pressures.

The Chairperson asked a non-member of the Parliament to remove their comment as they were not allowed to share inputs in this meeting. She warned that if anyone did the same, they would be removed from the platform. The Chairperson said they could be undermined anywhere else but not in their space.

Mr Nodada said his point was not to delay the process as he had communicated challenges that could arise in the process with the Chairperson on various occasions. He said his issue was mainly around the Committee producing the quality required based on the inputs made by the public. He said dealing with the National Report was three parts. The Committee dealt with two of these parts physically which were the public participation process in the provinces and the oral submissions. He said this was so the Committee could have a physical account of those things.

The report had a third part on all written submissions from before 15 August 2022. This was the one part of the report which is one of the main that the Committee had no full understanding of the qualitative and quantitative inputs as it was only reported once. The issue of receiving reports late was one that has been brought up. Mr Nodada said he sympathised with the challenges the support staff faced and shared his condolences with the Committee Content Advisor for her loss.

He was inclined to accept that the report be presented, and comments and questions be shared during this interaction given the time pressure. Any additional inputs and the adoption of the report could then be dealt with next week. Mr Nodada proposed that before the Committee adopt the report that there be time allowed for additional comments and questions arising from the report. He said he wanted to ensure that their process could not be questioned at a later stage because they did not look at the quantitive and qualitative discussion involved in the three parts of public participation that the Committee is involved in. The Committee wanted to conclude this process without it being questioned at the end of the day.

Mr Nodada said he was inclined to agree with the Chairperson so that the Committee did not find itself in a position where it did not have the opportunity to re-engage the report based on the fact that the report was sent less than 24 hours ago. The issue of time-bound reports had been raised and meetings were postponed on two occasions due to reports being received late. Mr Nodada said he agreed with the proposal that the Committee go through the report and comment on it today and if there are additional comments, they be made next week before the adoption of the report.


Mr Letsie said there was unbecoming behaviour from the guests in the meeting. This issue was raised last week because as a guest the mandate was to observe. He said he raised this issue last week because there was a person who made insinuating remarks and today the same was done. The person who commented in this meeting was accusing the Committee of lying about deadlines and it could not be left unattended. He said that guests on this platform could not be allowed to behave in this fashion. Mr Letsie suggested that this person be excused from the meeting because the comment accused them of lying and this did not sit well with him, but he was unsure about the Committee’s feelings on this.

Mr Letsie said Mr Nodada’s concern was genuine and that there was an issue with the delay with the report despite the challenges faced by the support staff. He agreed with the proposal that the report be presented and engaged within this meeting. If there were additional issues that the Committee picked up in the report when given the time to go through it later, he suggested they be allowed to share them next week. The report would then be adopted after this. Mr Letsie seconded Mr Nodada’s proposal.

Ms N Adoons (ANC) greeted everyone in attendance and shared her condolences with the Minister and Committee Content Advisor for their losses. She said as the Committee agreed that they would be going through the report today and the adoption would take place at a later stage she suggested that time be made available this week instead of next week. She said this would ensure they could do justice to the 56 clauses they needed to go through next week. Ms Adoons also suggested the DBE’s presentation on the funding of the Bill be dealt with this week. She said a meeting could be perhaps scheduled for Friday. This was because they only had four days next week to deal with the 56 clauses which unlike the other issues was a part of their official schedule.

The Chairperson said the Committee would proceed with the presentation of the report. She noted that the next day was a public holiday and Parliament was in recess. Given this context, a meeting held on Friday would need official approval and due to the public holiday, it would take even longer than usual to get this approval.

The Chairperson proposed the Committee meet on Tuesday morning to adopt the report and then deal with the 56 clauses. The Committee needed to understand that if their clause-by-clause discussion meant the meetings started early and finished late next week that was that. This was because the process needed to be concluded next week Friday.

The Chairperson ruled that the report would be presented in this meeting but no commenting or adopting of the report would take place until next week. The Chairperson asked if the Deputy Minister wanted to say something.

Deputy Minister Reginah Mahuale appreciated the fact that if the report would be presented today it would allow the Department an opportunity to work on their responses to questions asked by the Committee in this meeting. The Deputy Minister said this would assist in ensuring that when the clause-by-clause discussion took place the DBE had their answers in place. She shared her condolences.

The Deputy Minister said there was a serious challenge with the taxi strike in Cape Town. Some schools in Cape Town were not operational. There was an unfortunate incident in Gauteng where a Grade 9 learner was allegedly forced to drink poison and is now deceased. Losing one life was one too many.

She said the DBE was looking forward to the Committee’s report and that the Department would be working on responses to questions that would come after.

The Chairperson asked that the Committee Content Advisor proceed with the report presentation.

Presentation of the Report
Ms Portia Mbude-Mutshekwane (Committee Content Advisor) apologised for the late sending of the report. She clarified that the report was merely a presentation of what had transpired on the BELA Bill and not a research report. On verification of the report, Ms Mbude-Mutshekwane said that verification had to occur during the constituency period. This meant some of her colleagues were not present to confirm verification and that all checks and balances were in place. This was to ensure that what was going to be presented to the Committee was what indeed transpired. She added that the report did not just reflect one aspect but was a three-in-one report. She proceeded with a page-by-page presentation of the report.

National Report on the Basic Education Laws Amendment Bill (BELA)
The purpose of the report is to provide a consolidation of the progress made in the processing of the BELA Bill. The report highlights the main issues raised during the public participation process which included public hearings. The report cites important issues from the oral submissions held in Parliament. The report also provides a summary of key issues raised, a clause-by-clause analysis and recommendations made on written submissions and comments made by the public on the BELA Bill.

Legislative Framework Applicable to Basic Education Sector 
In line with the National Assembly's strategic objective on law-making and oversight, the Portfolio Committee on Basic Education embarked on the legislative process to consider amendments to the BELA Bill that may be referred to Parliament. 

The legislative mandate of the BELA Bill is a process that seeks to amend the South African Schools Act 84 of 1996 and the Educators Employment Act, 76 of 1998. The process is a legacy issue from the Fourth and Fifth Parliaments. Notwithstanding legislation carried over, the 6th Parliament Portfolio Committee on Basic Education included the BELA Bill which was tabled at the National Assembly in December 2021 and referred to the Committee in February 2022.

The Committee’s public participation process was guided by legislation applicable and of interest to the Basic Education Sector which provides a legislative framework that strengthens the interpretation and understanding of the BELA Bill. 

Purpose of Amending Legislation 
The purpose of the amendments is to change the wording and scope of the law. As well as repeal and add new provisions. 

Why is the BELA Bill being amended?
The BELA Bill seeks to transform and change some aspects of the basic education sector. This includes making Grade R the new compulsory school starting age criminalising parents who do not ensure their children are in school, holding School Governing Bodies (SGBs) accountable for financial interests, abolishing corporal punishment and initiation or hazing practices, encouraging home school learners to be registered, allowing schools to sell alcohol outside of school hours, giving government department heads power over language policies and curriculums and prohibiting educators from conducting business with the state. 

Background on the BELA Bill
The BELA Bill was introduced on the 15th of December 2021 and subsequently referred to the Portfolio Committee on Basic Education for consideration. The Committee held two meetings on the BELA Bill. To give effect to Parliament’s constitutional mandate of facilitating public involvement, the Committee commenced with an advert that was published in national and regional newspapers, calling for written public submissions on the BELA Bill from the 1st of May to the 15th of June 2022. The written submissions deadline date had been extended and in line with the education approach, the advert was made accessible and published in Braille Format.

Executive Summary; Public Hearing Views 

Support for the Bill 
Supporters of the Bill stressed the Bill’s transformative nature, especially in terms of language, admission policies and access to former Model C schools. It was argued that disclosure of financial interest will promote accountability and transparency. Compulsory attendance of school from Grade R and the inclusion of Early Childhood Development were supported. The Bill addresses challenges faced by basic education, promises to reduce dropout rates and promotes teaching and learning. The Bill strengthens governance and prevents misuse of school funds. 

Not Supported 
Rejecters of the Bill argued that the centralisation of power to determine the language and admission policy was counterproductive, disclosure of financial interest was unacceptable and an invasion of privacy, submission of quarterly income and expenditure statements would be an administrative burden. The sale of alcohol on school premises and home education provisions were strongly opposed too.

Partial Support 
Partial supporters of the Bill were in favour of uniform and national measures for SGB elections. Others believed compulsory Grade R schooling is necessary for Early Childhood Development. Some supporters raised concerns about the requirement of further financial scrutiny in clause 14. The need for the intro Ducati on of alternatives to corporal punishment was expressed. It was proposed that the government should conduct more research and acknowledge home education and that home education be regulated by the Children’s Act rather than BELA. It was also proposed that the school find other fundraising alternatives other than selling alcohol on school premises. 

The Report 
The National Report includes three categories. These are public hearings, public comments and oral hearings.

Public Hearings
The Portfolio Committee on Basic Education conducted provincial public hearings from the 26th of February to the 11th of June 2023 in all nine provinces. The public hearings were held in adherence to Sections 59(1)(a) and 72(1)(a) of the South African Constitution.

Statistical Analysis 
Total number of attendees and speakers per province 
The total number of participants who attended the public hearings across all nine provinces was 11 264. North West (NW) had 1888 attendees and 224 speakers. Mpumalanga had 1690 attendees and 157 speakers. Limpopo had 1326 attendees and 135 speakers. Free State (FS) had 870 attendees and 133 speakers. Western Cape (WC) had 1043 attendees and 174 speakers. Eastern Cape (EC) had 1143 attendees and 207 speakers. Gauteng (GP) had 1127 attendees and 193 speakers. Kwa-Zulu Natal (KZN) had 1113 attendees and 178 speakers. Northern Cape (NC) had 1060 attendees and 196 speakers. 

Public Hearings: Speakers' views on BELA Bill across the provinces 
The total number of oral submissions across all provinces was 1586. 726 (46%) speakers were in support of the Bill, 682 (42%) speakers were not in support of the Bill, 102 (7%) speakers were in partial support and 76(5%) speakers did not declare their position on the Bill.

Supporters of the Bill included members of the South African Democratic Union (SADTU), Congress of South African Students (COSAS), SGB Associations, Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU), SANCO and the African National Congress (ANC).
The Bill was rejected by organisations from the Home-Schooling Sector, the Democratic Alliance (DA), the African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP), AfriForum and Freedom Front Plus (FF+). Partial rejecters of the Bill included the Federation of School Governing Bodies of South Africa (FEDSAS) and the Suid Afrikaanse Onderwyser Unie (SAOU).

Submission Forms Received at the Public Hearings
The total amount of forms submitted across all provinces was 4733. 2377 submission forms were in support of the Bill, 1765 were not in support, 532 were in partial support and 59 forms did not declare a position on the Bill. 

Key Emerging Issues Across Provinces
Clause 1 (Definitions) - some participants called for the reconsideration of some BELA Bill definitions to be inserted to ensure effectiveness. 
Clause 2 (Compulsory school attendance from Grade R) – participants raised issues about criminalisation, the penalty of jail punishment period, penalty provision, imprisonment fine, teachers’ legal right to protected strikes and the arrest of parents.
Clause 3 (Compulsory learner attendance) – this clause was supported but comments were made on the responsibility of parents, investigating absentee students, child-headed families, interactions between Government and parents, truancy officers and the roles of teachers, principals and SGBs. 
Clause 4 (Admission of learners to public schools and powers of SGBs) – participants raised issues about the Department’s intervening with SGBs, discrimination of learners, development of admission policies and centralisation of power. 
Clause 5 (Language policy) – participants raised issues on the Head of Department (HOD) approval of the policy and “final authority”, language as a tool of exclusion to access and the role of SGB in determining language and admission policy. 
Clause 7 (Code of conduct for learners) – participants raised the issue of codes of conduct, learner access to education based on cultural and religious differences, discrimination and bullying in schools. 
Clause 8 (Sale of alcohol on school premises) – participants strongly recommended that this clause be deleted.
Clause 10 (Corporal punishment) – participants raised concerns with the provision of alternatives to corporal punishment and the definition of corporal punishment.
Clause 13 (Merger of two or more schools) – participants raised issues on the merger and closure of non-viable schools and the workload of teachers and its effect on learners. 
Clause 14 (SGB disclosure of financial interest) – participants rejected the disclosure of financial interests on SGBs.
Clause 15 (use of the school for education-related activities without the charging of a fee or tariff) – participants rejected the unilateral allowance for the utilisation of school facilities by the HOD.
Clause 16 HOD powers to centrally procure LTSM – participants raised issue with the procurement of Learner and Teacher Support Materials (LTSM).
Clause 17 (Withdrawal “one or more functions” of SGBs by HOD) – some participants objected to the withdrawal of the SGB’s allocated funds and suggested this should only happen where there are capacity issues within the SGB. Other participants supported the HOD’s removal of non-functional and corrupt SGB members and SGBs.
Clause 19 (Minister powers to determine SGB members in schools for learners with special educational needs) – participants representing the special needs education sector objected to the proposed clause. The support was based on the need for a uniform system of elections.
Clause 21 (power of the SGB to dissolve an SGB) - Opposition to the HOD taking the powers of the SGB whereas the supporters of the clause emphasised the need for the HOD to dissolve dysfunctional SGBs.
Clause 23 (Non-remuneration of SGB for the performance of duties) - Public recommended for SGBs to receive stipends.
Clause 27 (Closure of public schools) – participants were divided. Supporters of the clause said there was a need to address reasons for school closures. Those opposing said school closures deprive learners. Most participants agreed that clear guidelines and steps on school closures were needed. 
Clause 33 (Financial records of the school) – participants in support expressed the need for transparency on financial status and regular reporting. Those who opposed the clause said it would mean additional work and expense and that the Department did not have management capacity.
Clause 37 (Home education) – participants raised concerns on freedom of choice, accommodations home education allows for, safety and the method of schooling best for the child. Participants in support of the clause raised concerns about the government's responsibility to account for all children and their education, the unchecked provision of education by parents and the societal division homeschooling causes.
Clause 41 (Empower the minister to promulgate regulations) – participants rejected the powers given to the Minister to make regulations that would punish teachers, parents and SGB members who don’t implement sex education. They were opposed to the DBE forcing comprehensive sexual education (CSE) and scripted lesson plans on schools and forcing teachers to teach CSE. The BELA Bill was viewed as an abortion Bill as it would allow children as young as 12 years to have abortions without consulting their parents. Teachers, in the main, supported the clause because it would help them manage pregnant girls better since they were not medical practitioners. They argued that the Future of learners will be destroyed if they were not allowed to attend school when they fall pregnant.

Oral Hearings at Parliament:
Clause 1: Definitions, amending Section 1 of SASA Act, 1996
Weber Attorneys – submitted that the definition “meeting” must be properly defined to cover the aspect of meetings to be conducted online. They recommended that the definition of "corporal punishment” must be nuanced to give clear guidance on the principle of what constitutes corporal punishment.
Section 27 – submitted the definition “basic education” should not represent an exhaustive list but should be open-ended. They further added that the definition of an “educator” be amended.
Clause 2: Section 3 of SASA Act
Human Rights Commission – submitted that the definition in Clause 2: Section 3 about “required documents” for admission is problematic. They further submitted that the BELA Bill does not clarify that learners may be admitted regardless of their undocumented status.
Clause 3: Section 4 of SASA Act
Clause 4: Section 5 – Amendment of section 5 of Act 84 of 1996
Section 27 – submitted that it supports clauses 4 and 5 in respect of the language and admission policy. However, it is concerned that there are no objective criteria to determine when a school is full. It recommended that an office specialising in reviewing policies be established in terms of the BELA Bill under the auspices of the HOD.
Human Rights Commission - submitted that it is concerned that section 5(4) of the BELA Bill is entirely inconsistent with the Centre for Child Law and Others v Minister of Basic Education & Others judgment.
Legal Resource Centre – submitted that section 5(1A) to 5(1G) creates an undue barrier to accessing education, particularly for learners from disadvantaged backgrounds and locations.
Cause for Justice and Centre for Child Law - on the issue of documentation raised that there was frustration that some learners may not be able to produce the required documents most likely due to the Department of Home Affairs.

Recommendations: deletion of Section 5(1A) to 5(1G) from the BELA Bill.

COSATU – welcomed provision that provides clear guidelines about admissions. 
Solidarity Trade Union - Recommended that where a HOD forms the view that a policy adopted by the SGB fails to give effect to the relevant Constitutional rights and objectives of the SASA, the HOD’s recourse is two-fold.

Clause 5: Section 6 – Amendment of section 6 of Act 84 of 1996
SADTU – welcomed the adoption of the additional language however the decision to introduce an additional language must be taken into consideration by looking at the holistic development of a child and age capacity.
COSATU – welcomed the inclusion of South African Sign Language as it is a step forward to including learners that are hearing impaired.
South African Learners Command – welcomed the recognition of South African Sign Language, however, opposes the fact that it is merely given recognition as an official language for teaching. It recommended that it should be given official status as an official language for teaching, learning and serve as a language of instruction.
Clause 7: Section 8 – Amendment of section 8 of Act 84 of 1996, as amended by section 4 of Act 50 of 2002, and section 6 of Act 31 of 2007
COSATU – supported the provisions that provide for a code of conduct that will guide diversity, inclusivity, religion, medical and other needs as it will prevent incidents where learners are being victimised.
Legal Resource Centre – welcomes the amendment to ensure that schools are inclusive spaces. They however raised a concern that the BELA Bill does not place an obligation on SGBs to consider the diverse sexual orientations and gender ideas of learners, particularly transgender learners.
Clause 8: section 8A - Amendment of section 8A of Act 84 of 1996, as inserted by section 7 of Act 31 of 2007
SADTU – submitted that alcohol plays a critical funding role in school activities, therefore, the prohibition of alcohol on school premises would see schools losing the income that they are currently receiving from these activities.
COSATU – supported the provisions that aim to prevent learners from bringing drugs, alcohol and weapons onto school premises. However, it is wary about this proposed provision as it may not be enough to prevent learners from accessing liquor at such events. 
Malihambe Seventh Day Adventist Church – submitted provisions that are in line with the belief that the safety of teachers is just as important as the safety of learners. They recommend that the following provision be added to clause (3)(a)(v): (ii) the interest of public good.
Clause 9: section 9 - Amendment of section 9 of Act 84 of 1996, as amended by section 7 of Act 48 of 1999, section 2 of Act 24 of 2005 and section 7 of Act 15 of 2011
Legal Resource Centre 
Institute of Race Relations 
Clause 16: Section 21 – Amendment of section 21 of Act 84 of 1996, as amended by section 10 of Act 48 of 1999
Solidarity Trade Union - they submitted that the proposed amendment of Clause 17: Section 22 is problematic because it appears to provide a means to summarily circumvent the allocation of functions between the SGBs and HOD for the purpose of procurement. They feel that it also seeks to enable the HOD to arbitrarily withdraw this function from the SGB without any due process or a clear indication as to what would establish sufficient grounds when it will be more efficient and effective for the HOD to be entitled to intervene. According to them, in practice, this amendment can hinder SGBs who are functioning effectively and transparently to deliver high quality education to the learners in its schools.
Clause 18: Section 23 – Amendment of section 23 of Act 84 of 1996, as amended by section 11 of Act 48 of 1999
Solidarity Trade Union. – submitted that Section 23 of the SASA underscores the importance of parent responsibility in the governance of public schools, by ensuring that there is a minimum number of parents serving the SGB, and this has been recognised by the Constitutional Court. They recommended that there be no remuneration. Nevertheless, reference must be made to the reimbursement of expenses incurred by members, in the fulfilment of their duties.
Clause 23: Section 27 – Amendment of section 27 of Act 84 of 1996
Clause 24: Section 28 – Amendment of section 28 of Act 84 of 1996
Legal Resource Centre – submitted that it is concerned with the amendment of section 28 as there is no explanation as to why the function of the MEC was taken away and given to the Minster.
Clause 31: Section 38A – Amendment of section 38A of Act 84 of 1996, as inserted by section 2 of Act 1 of 2004
National Association School governing Bodies – submitted that it requests that the 38A (2) be reviewed considering the practical application of such provisions as amended curbing SGB role and power.

Clause 32: Section 41 - Amendment of section 41 of Act 84 of 1996, as amended by section 5 of Act 24 of 2005
South African Learners Command – submitted that it vehemently rejects section 41 of the SASA and thus rejects the amendment which sought to amend section 41 of the Act.
Solidarity Trade Union – submitted that the principles of cooperative government and inter-governmental relations are also extended to all organs of State within each sphere of government in section 41.

Clause 34: Section 43 – Amendment of section 43 of Act 84 of 1996, as amended by section 10 of Act 31 of 2007
Wandile Gxabuza – submitted a recommendation to transpose Section 43(2) and Section 43(1) such that SGBs have a primary responsibility to appoint as per Section 43(2), then Section 43(1) becomes a secondary consideration.

Clause 37: Section 51 – Substitution of section 51 of Act 84 of 1996

Institute of Race Relations - submitted that these provisions in the SASA Act are sufficient to safeguard the interests of pupils and should not be changed.
Pestallozi Trust – submitted that there is a contradiction between section 51 and the Home Education Policy of 2018 where the former states that an official may perform a “Pre-registration” home visit and the latter states an official must perform a “Pre-registration” home visit.
Gauteng Association for Homeschooling – proposed home education programme is suitable for the learner’s age, grade level and ability and predominantly covers the acquisition of content and skills at least comparable to the relevant national curriculum determined by the Minister. 
Association for Homeschooling – submitted that it objects to section 51(1) & (2), section 51(3), section 51(2)(a)(iii) and section 51(2)(b)(iii) (aa) & (bb). It recommends that the term “registration” be changed to notification. It is recommended that the “home invasion” clause be removed from the Bill and that there should be no requirement to be assessed against CAPS and that monitoring should be on a contingency basis.

Clause 41: Section 5 – Substitution of section 51 of Act 84 of 1996
The Christian View Network - emphasised highlighted concerns related to school governing bodies, and parental rights being respected. Some presentations also noted that the best interests of the child were paramount. A law that impacts children should be child-centric and based on the fundamental rights of the child. Legal Resource indicated that sexual misconduct posed a considerable risk to the well-being of learners. Others’ submissions addressing the learner were that if the Bill was passed it would allow that primary school children could have an abortion.

Clause 49: Section 17 – Amend section 17 of Act 76 of 1998, as amended by section 10 of Act 53 of 2000
Legal Resource Centre – submitted that the amendments proposed to the Employment of Educators Act (EEA) do not go far enough to address educators’ sexual misconduct. They recommended that section 17(1)(c) be amended to read as follows “[a]n educator must be dismissed if he or she is found guilty of sexual harassment, sexual assault, rape or statutory rape of a learner” [addition in italics]. Such an explicit identification of the different forms of serious misconduct will provide clarity and provide necessary guidance in these cases.

Clause 50: Section 18 – Amendment of section 18 of Act 76 of 1998, as amended by section 11 of Act 53 of 2000, and section 58 of Act 16 of 2006
Legal Resource Centre – submitted because of the shortcomings of section 17 of the EEA, it recommends the necessary amendments to section 18. It further submitted that it is necessary to provide clarity on the definitions of misconduct and serious misconduct in a manner that aligns with the Constitution, the Children’s Act, and existing sexual offences laws. It recommends that: The Employment of Educators Act should be amended to not allow teachers who are appealing a decision of educator sexual misconduct against them to continue teaching. Instead, educators whose matters are on appeal must be placed on paid suspension and not be allowed to work with children until the appeal is finalised.

Written Submission Received
The total number of public submissions is 32 941. 17 452 were sent via email, 549 via google form and there was one handwritten. 11 522 submissions were sent via courier or hand delivered, 251 were sent via postcard and 1 was sent via video submission. Submissions received during the public hearings were 4733.

Summary of Comments
• Access to Basic Education – concerns were raised on clause 2, section 3. This is viewed by the public as an idea that seeks to centralize the HOD powers on the extended powers of the HOD which goes against this proposal in that it reduces the role and function of the SGB. It was argued that admitting learners to public schools, rests with the SGB as parents are best placed to make that decision. The HOD’s involvement should be minimal as they are already overburdened.
• Compulsory Learner Attendance - Section 29 of the constitution grants all children of school-going age a right to education. The BELA Bill gives light to this right, yet the concern is it might undermine this very same right. For example, Clause 2, section 3 proposes criminalising parents who keep their children out of school, with an increased jail penalty of 6- 12 months. Whilst certain aspects of amendments are welcomed, the public is not happy about the extension of the penalty from 6- months to 12 months. On the issue of parents not having documents or documents being falsified, the clause proposes that those providing false or misleading information should be jailed. The submitters' concern on this clause is that parents might not have legal documentation, for a few valid reasons, therefore if parents are jailed, more learners will be on the streets and families would be subject to poverty.
• Language policy - There are concerns about social cohesion on the language policy issue. Some school governing bodies responded that the power to determine a school's language policy rests with the SGB in terms of section 6(2) of the Schools Act. Clause 5(c). The Bill proposes to amend section 6 of the Schools Act by adding subsections (5) to (20), which seeks to limit the governing body’s power to determine the school’s language policy. The requirement that the SGB submit the admission policy to the HOD for “approval” is regarded as undermining the powers of the SGB. Those in support of the clause submitted that SGBs under SASA were provided with an opportunity to promote multilingualism; however, some used the language policy to discriminate against other language groups over school admission criteria.
• Governance and Management of Public Schools - The excessive powers conferred on the Minister, MEC and HOD by the BELA Bill are amongst the major issues of concern. The public expressed discontent on the matter of centralization of power. Part of the concern is that the department has additional responsibility for schools. Further, the concerns allude to the powers of the Minister overriding the SGB such as clause on withdrawal of “one or more functions” of an SGB by HOD. The granting of “exclusive” decision-making powers to the HOD and Minister, undermines the powers of the SGB who demonstrate accountability mechanisms in governing their schools. On the clause that deals with HOD’s powers to dissolve the SGB, Section 25 - the main concern about the proposed amendment is the power granted for temporary or interim SGB in Section 25(4). Submitters argue it is difficult to take decisive making when SGBs are temporary.
Budget and finance - Submitters alluded that the funding model for schools needs to be reviewed, the quantile system, the fee exemption tables, as well as its current staffing model. The concern was that the department must consider the additional costs, resources and staffing required to offer more than one medium of instruction and staffing model for multi-language schools. An issue of concern was that the proposed disclosure of financial interest would constitute an unreasonable invasion of the privacy of both the governing body member and one’s family, ultimately parents would deter from being selected as SGB members.
• Home education – there was concern that there was minimal consultation, and no research was conducted whose findings ascertain the inclusion of home education in the process of drafting the Bill. Parents of home-educated children object to the regulation of Home Education under the South African Schools Act; they recommend that rather HE should be regulated under the Children’s Act. In their view, it does not make sense for home education to be under the Schools Act because the difference between a school and a family is so huge. Some suggest research before developing policies to help guide home education. Others cited constitutional rights, for homeschooling, as they preferred access to online lessons, because the school curriculum does not offer flexibility.
• Independent schools - Submissions from organizations representing the independent schools allude that their academic year runs for 3 terms per annum, therefore the clause which requires them to submit 4 quarterly financial reports like public schools would be unrealistic and put them at a disadvantage. Provision for a public school to become an independent school. The proposed amendments do not create an opportunity for a Public School to become an Independent School, in the same way, SASA section 49 allows for an Independent School to become a Public School. It should be made possible for an SGB to apply for the conversion to an Independent School.
• Educators - Even though educator’s issues are regulated by the EEA and dealt with by ELRC some submitters welcomed the proposal that deals with clause 49. This clause prohibits educators from conducting business with the State, to avoid financial conflict of interest. The submitters' concern also points to Clause 45, about promotion posts where the influence of SGB in recruitment, oftentimes excludes the appointment of educators on criteria which is not based on equity.

Consolidated Public Submissions – Views in Support, Not Support
The total combined number of public written comments and comments from the public hearings. Out of 32 941 submissions, 26 593 processed submissions presented the outcome of public participation. 14 801 supported the Bill, while 10128 rejected the Bill. Of the submitters 1024 were in partial support and 640 were undeclared. There were matters raised outside the BELA Bill and other general observations. 
 
Conclusion
Consideration of this report takes into cognisance that it combines both the written submissions outcomes and the provincial public hearings into a national report.
 
Discussion
The Chairperson thanked the Committee Content Advisor for her report. She asked why Mr Nodada’s hand was up.

Mr Nodada said he was waiting on the Chairperson to recognise Members when the time was right.

The Chairperson said she would not be recognising any hands as the report would be considered and adopted next week.

Mr Nodada said the proposal was that the presentation be listened to, and comments be made. If there were additional comments a space would be made available. He said this proposal was seconded by Mr Letsie.

The Chairperson disagreed. She said a report that Committee did not have to go through could not be adopted. The Chairperson reiterated that the report would be corrected and adopted in the next week. The Committee needed to take their time and go through it.

Mr Nodada said that he had proposed that clarity-seeking questions on the report be asked in this meeting and if there were additional comments a space be later made available.

The Chairperson said if that was the case the Committee might as well adopt the report in the present meeting. She said that was the process the Committee had followed in adopting the provincial reports. She asked what the real issue was.

Mr Moroatshehla greeted the Chairperson and said he had listened to the presentation carefully. He added that as far as he knew the Committee had agreed that presentation would be considered and adopted the next time they met. This is because if they spoke to the presentation now, they would be forced to adopt the report. The postponement of the adoption process once they had shared comments on the report would be illogical.

Mr Nodada said he was waiting for his hand to be recognised.

The Chairperson replied that the Committee had agreed on the approach that would be taken as per the ruling that was made earlier. The ruling was the presentation of the report would take place and the consideration and adoption of the report would be dealt with in the next week. That was what Mr Nodada asked them to do, and they were doing exactly that. Commenting on the report in the present meeting would mean they would have to adopt it.

Mr Nodada said if the Chairperson were to go back to the recording which was important to him because when the proposal was made, he conceded that the report could be considered and comments and questions on it be shared. If there were additional comments thereafter a space needed to be made available next week. He said Mr Letsie supported this proposal and made the same comments. He said this was his main proposal and is not sure why there is a different proposal. There was an indication that there would be a challenge with time and the reports needed to be considered and so he proposed comments be made on the report.

Mr Nodada said that the Deputy Minister spoke after this proposal was made with the same understanding as him. Comments and questions about the report would be shared and adoption of the report would take place in the next week.

The Chairperson said she did not understand why the adoption of the report needed to be postponed in the case. This was because her understanding was that Committee did not get a chance to read the report. Now that the Committee had read the report, they could come next week with their questions. They agreed with the approach. The Chairperson said everything was being postponed so the Committee could read the report because why would they want to engage a report they had not gone through?

Dr Boshoff said that asking clarity-seeking questions in this meeting was still possible. The work of careful consideration of the report that could only be done after a close reading of the report would be the work that lay ahead of the Committee. He said questions such as “How do the numbers add up” or “How do we understand this” could still be asked. He said how he understood it was that the report would be read and engagement with it would take place next week. He and Mr Nodada agreed with this.

Ms Adoons said the Chairperson's summary represented the views of the Committee. This was that the report would be noted in this meeting and engagement with the report would be done next week. She said any engagement with the report in this meeting gave the impression that the Committee knew everything detailed in the report. The Committee agreed on the principle that the report was received late and would be engaged with next week. Ms Adoons asked that the report be noted today and considered next week.

The Deputy Minister said her initial understanding was that the Committee would be discussing their report based on public participation. She said that the report reflected her like minutes as it was an account of what was done and if the account was accurate there was no point in not approving the report. The Deputy Minister said in terms of the details it was said that the discussions would take place during the clause-by-clause discussion and when preparing to take this to Parliament. She said if the report was something other than an account of what took place during public participation, she would reserve her comments. If the report was indeed just an account of what happened she saw no need for the report not to be adopted like minutes are adopted. When minutes were being adopted matters arising from those minutes were discussed after. Corrections and additions were made followed by adoption and then discussion.

Mr B Yabo (ANC) said the Committee needed to refer to the Chairperson’s clear ruling. The ruling stated that the report would be noted in this meeting and all discussions on the report would take place next week.

Ms M Sukers (ACDP) asked if the Chairperson’s ruling stood if there would be a matrix of all submissions compiled for the clause-by-clause or was the report stood as a matrix of all submissions.

The Chairperson asked the Committee to go back to the ruling the discussion and adoption of the report would be dealt with next week. The issue was that they were coming from different schools of thought. When a report was presented, there was consideration and adoption so you could get rid of it.

She said there was a proposal because the report was sent late that it be dealt with next week, this approach was agreed upon. She added that there was no issue and the report needed to be rectified but they could do many things at once. The Chairperson wanted to know what the issue was. The Committee would now deal with the adoption of minutes and next week corrections and adoption of the report would be dealt with. Other issues the Committee had would also be dealt with next week. The Chairperson asked the Committee to agree with this approach.

Committee minutes
The Committee considered and adopted the minutes of the 20 and 27 June and 1 August 2023 meetings.

Ms Sukers noted the 27 June 2023 minutes did not reflect Members' comments like the previous set of minutes. The minutes were not a full record and proposed that they be adopted at a later meeting.

The Chairperson said this was the Western Cape Report. Ms Sukers was always the one who spoke, and she was fine with the report.

Ms Adoons said the minutes were properly captured and motioned for the adoption of the minutes.

Mr Moroatshehla said it was reflected in the minutes that the comments the committee made were noted. It was not feasible for the Content Advisor to record everything said and done on that day. The details could be found in the major reports on what transpired. There was no need to postpone the adoption of these minutes and he seconded the motion.

Committee programme
The Chairperson said the Committee would be meeting in Parliament on 15 August and communication on the venue would be sent by the Committee Secretary. The time would be 9 am every day next week. The report would be dealt with first thing on 15 August and corrections would be allowed. After the adoption of the report the Department of Basic Education would present on the funding of the BELA Bill which would be followed by the clause-by-clause discussion at 11 am.

The Chairperson said the target would be 15 clauses a day and if more could be done more would be done. She said 15 clauses had to be dealt with even if it meant they had work later than 4 pm. The Committee needed to agree with this.

Mr Nodada asked in terms of the venue next week if people would be able to access the live streaming of their meetings.

The Committee Secretary said communication was received from Sound and Vision and the venue for next week was Committee Room S12A in the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) building. This room had live cameras and they would be able to transmit to the YouTube Channel but not all platforms. He would share the correspondence received from IT Sound and Vision with the Committee.

The Chairperson said the Committee Secretary needed to ensure that the Committee was sent the correspondence. She thanked the Committee and the meeting was adjourned.