Education Laws Amendment Bill: Negotiating Mandates; Human Sciences Research Council Amendment Bill & Astronomy Geographic Advan
NCOP Education and Technology, Sports, Arts and Culture
07 November 2007
Meeting Summary
A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.
Meeting report
EDUCATION AND RECREATION SELECT COMMITTEE
7 November 2007
EDUCATION LAWS A/B: NEGOTIATING MANDATES; HUMAN SCIENCES RESEARCH COUNCIL A/B
& ASTRONOMY GEOGRAPHIC ADVANTAGE BILL: ADOPTION
Chairperson: Mr B Tolo (Mpumalanga; ANC)
Documents handed out:
Astronomy Geographic
Advantage Bill [B 17-2007]
Human Sciences Research
Council Amendment Bill [B 16B-2007]
Education Laws
Amendment Bill [B 33 B-2007]
Memorandum
Eastern Cape
Provincial Legislature Negotiating Mandate on Education Amendment Bill
[B33B-2007]
Gauteng
Legislature Negotiating Mandate on Education Amendment Bill
Northern Cape
Provincial Legislature Negotiating Mandate on Education Amendment Bill
North West
Provincial Legislature Negotiating Mandate on Education Amendment Bill
Provincial Legislature of the Free State negotiating mandate on Education Laws
[B33B-2007]
Kwazulu Natal Negotiating Mandate on Education Amendment Bill
Mpumalanga
Negotiating Mandate on Education Amendment Bill
Limpompo
Negotiating Mandate on Education Amendment Bill
Western Cape
Negotiating Mandate on Education Amendment Bill
Audio
recording of meeting
SUMMARY
The Committee considered the negotiating mandates of the provinces for the
Education Laws Amendment Bill. Various proposals were made for amendment, which
were agreed to by the Committee. There was discussion on random search and
seizure, and it was noted that this must be in the hands of educators, as the
intention was not to criminalise the learners but to deal with this as a
disciplinary issue. Furthermore it was agreed that the reference to random
searches must be limited to groups, since it was not possible to do a random
search for one individual. The submissions that this should be in the hands of
the police were rejected. The suggestion to delete clause 8 was approved. Free
State proposed that there should be consultation with the members of the
executive council, in relation to Section 5, as there should be concurrence
between the Minister and the provinces. The committee agreed. It was noted that
the obligations should be stated in respect of both sports and recreational
facilities, and this was supported by the Committee in respect of Section
5A(2). Clarity was sought on the councils referred to in Clauses 1, 3 and 6.
There was a suggestion that alcohol should also be mentioned in the main body
of the legislation, not just in the regulations, but this was not supported by
the Committee. The Committee agreed to take the issues back to the provinces to
enable them to prepare their final mandates.
The Committee then proposed some changes to the Human Sciences Research Council
Amendment Bill. These were supported by the Department. The Bill was adopted,
with amendments.
The Committee noted that the Department of Science and Technology had proposed
some amendments to the Astronomy Geographic Advantage Bill based on what
stakeholders had suggested. These were agreed to by the Committee and the Bill
was adopted, with amendments..
MINUTES
Education Laws Amendment Bill: Negotiating mandates of provinces
Eastern Cape mandate
It was noted that the Eastern Cape had submitted, in relation to clause 7, that
random search and seizure must be left in the hands of the police.
Mr T Setona (ANC, Free State) said that he did not think that the purpose of
random searching was to criminalise the behaviour of children in schools. The
purpose was rather to enforce discipline, and this was a matter that ought to
be handled by educators instead of the police. He said that the issue of the
police could only be addressed in the Criminal Procedure Act. Adults
manipulated children to carry drugs to school so it would be unfair to
criminalise children. He added that the matter must be dealt with in a manner
that could rehabilitate children.
The Chairperson agreed with Mr Setona and stated that the police could not be
brought into the search and seizure section in the Bill, as he agreed that the
reason behind the provision was to enforcing discipline in schools, not to
criminalise the behaviour of children.
The Eastern Cape had then made certain submissions also in relation to
Clause 14. The Chairperson noted that there should be no charges pressed
against the children because clause 7 and 14 were linked. Drugs and weapons
must be taken to the police for disposal, but charges must not be pressed
against the children.
Members agreed with this view.
The Eastern Cape had suggested that clause 8 must be deleted.
Adv Eben Boschoff, Director, Legal Services and Legislation, Department of
Education, stated that the clause was not essential to the legislation and
therefore would not affect it adversely if deleted. He said that there was a
request from the Minister for the clause to be deleted.
The Chairperson stated that the Committee too had been wary of the clause and
since the views of the Minister and those of the Committee coincided, the
clause should be deleted.
The Eastern Cape had finally raised the question of financial aid in clause 14.
The Chairperson said that the National Treasury had already addressed the
question of admission, and if people did not have the money for admission fees,
then National Treasury should be able to give financial aid to cater for this
situation as well.
Free State Mandate
Mr Setona presented the mandate of the Free State.
In relation to the new 5A(1) it was proposed that the words “after consultation
with the members of the executive council” should be inserted after the word
“regulation”. He stated that the argument was that education was a concurrent
function. Sometimes it was discovered that regulations were deficient because
there was no concurrence between the Minister and the counterparts in the provinces.
When dealing with norms and standards there should be concurrence with the
members of the executive council to ensure that all were satisfied that the
norms and standards were reflective of the unique circumstances in the
particular provinces.
The committee agreed.
In relation to clause 5A (2)(vii), Mr Setona stated that the proposal was that
the words “sports and” should be inserted before the words “recreational
facilities”.
Ms Refilwe Mathabathe, Parliamentary Legal Advisor, agreed with the suggestion.
Mr Setona stated that there was not enough support from the Department of
Education (DOE) with regard to sports facilities. He said in some provinces the
schools relied on the municipalities to provide sporting facilities for the
schools.
Mr M Sulliman (ANC, Northern Cape) asked the Department what the financial
implications of adding these words would be.
Mr Boshoff said that there would be a financial implication, which would have
to be dealt with between the Department of Sports and Recreation and DOE. The
Department of Education had the responsibility of providing sports and sports
facilities at schools.
Mr Setona believed that the Department of Education was obligated to provide
sports facilities at schools. This was because there was an irrefutable link
between education and recreation and education and sport as one could not exist
without the other. Sports and recreation were important for the development of
the child. Within the context of interdepartmental collaboration it should be
the responsibility of the Ministry of Education to ensure that there ere sports
facilities at schools.
The Committee agreed with the proposed insertion.
Mr Setona noted that although the negotiating mandate had gone further to
suggest that “and support” must be inserted in paragraph (c) (ii), this was in
fact now irrelevant, because the sentiment was already captured by the wording
of 5A(2)(c), which read that “in respect of provision of learning and teaching
support material…”
Committee members agreed.
Mr Setona noted that a proposal had been made in relation to the new Section
8A(2), to the effect that the word “learner or” should be inserted before the
words “groups of learners”.
The Chairperson agreed with that proposal.
Mr Boshoff stated that if the word “random” was linked to the provision, then
this would create a misnomer between random testing and the criteria of
reasonable suspicion. It was problematic to link it to an individual because of
peer protection and so it was often difficult for a teacher to determine which
student carried the gun. The teacher would have to search the entire group. The
criteria of reasonable suspicion could be dismissed because Constitutional
principles supported it. The protection afforded by the section is that an
individual could not be victimized. The word “random” could not be used with
regard to an individual.
The Committee agreed that this change would be problematic.
Mr Setona noted that the new Section 8(4)(b) had been deleted.
Mr Setona stated that he was concerned about the fact that the Bill did not
state how schools are meant to acquire the drug testing equipment. He added
that there would obviously be financial implications on the schools and he
wanted the Department to address that.
Mr Boshoff asked the Committee to turn to page 15 of the Bill where financial
implications were addressed and where it had been stated that the minimal
financial implications would be covered by provincial school budget
allocations.
Gauteng Mandate
Ms N Madlala-Magubane (ANC) referred to the norms and
standards clause in relation to infrastructure, as contained in the new
Sections 5A(1) and 5A(2).
She stated that where the word “must” as used the MEC would be forced to comply
with every aspect of the norms and standards, even in the case where there were
financial implications that had not been budgeted for. If the word “may” was
used, this would create an opportunity for the MEC to assert and prioritise
according to the necessary allocations without fear of failure to comply with
the norms and standards.
Mr Setona said the matter had also been of concern to the Free State but it had
decided to deal with it by asking that norms and standards should be made after
consultation with the MEC, to avoid creating undue pressure on provinces.
Ms Mathabathe said the comment by Gauteng was premature, because the words
“must” and “may”, when used in that
context, related to the discretion of
the Minister to either make the norms and standards or not, rather that
relating to what was in those norms and standards.
The Chairperson stated that if there as a problem it could be dealt with in the
manner suggested by the Free State as that was what would be accommodated.
The committee concurred.
Ms Madlala said in the case of the urine testing there was no indication in the
bill whether the principal or any other teacher would have to undergo training
on how to administer such a test.
The Chairperson asked whether any training was necessary in order to administer
a urine test.
Mr Boshoff stated that training was an implementation aspect and the Department
was working on guidelines which would be sent to the schools and which dealt
with some of the terminology and some of the methods that should be used.
Ms Madlala noted that the provisions in 7(4) had been deleted.
Limpopo province mandate
There were no proposed amendments by the Limpopo province.
Kwazulu Natal Province mandate
Mr Maharaj, Kwazulu Natal Provincial representative, asked for clarity on
whether the Council mentioned in clause 1 was the same as the one mentioned in
clause 3.
Mr Boshoff said that this was explained in the definition section. The Council
in clause 3 was referred to as the National Education and Training Council.
This was a completely different concept and structure to the one referred to in
Clauses 1 and 6.
Mr Maharaj stated that the definition of illegal drug as contained in Section
4(b) did not include alcohol.
The Chairperson said that alcohol was not an illegal drug.
Mr Boshoff stated that the regulations it was stated that there was to be no
alcohol on the school premises, and this applied to students and teachers
alike.
Mr Setona thought that in the definition section, there should be inclusion of
or reference to alcohol, to make the clear statement that it was not meant to
be on school premises either for purchase or consumption. It should not only be
mentioned in the regulations.
Mr M Thetjeng (DA, Limpopo) expressed the same sentiment.
The Chairperson said that since the matter was covered in the regulations,
placing in it in the act would just result in unnecessary repetition.
Mr Maharaj was concerned with the use of the phrase “fair and reasonable
suspicion” in the new section 8A(2). He
asked whether a different phrase could be used in its place because it was too
subjective.
Mr Boshoff said there had been consultation with many leading advocates with
regards to that concept. The concept was well-recognized and well thought out.
The right to invade the privacy of another person must be linked to an
objective criterion. It could not be subject to whim.
Mr Maharaj asked who would bear the costs of the auditors referred to in
the Bill.
Mr Boshoff said that according to the South African Schools Act the
schools would bear the cost. A person with a background in bookkeeping should
be appointed so that he or she could prepare financial statements for the
school.
Mpumalanga
It was noted that the negotiating mandate had contained no
proposed amendments.
Northern Cape
Mr Sulliman said the Portfolio Committee for Education in this Province
had raised the concerns that the principal should be cautious when conducting
body searches in order to avoid violating the right to privacy of the children.
Body searches should be conducted in the presence of suitable and qualified
health practitioners. He said that the legislature, apart from making this
point, was happy with the Bill.
North West
Mr M Mahlangu (ANC, North West) noted that the new 5A (2)(a) was meant
to include transport.
The Chairperson said that scholar transport was not part of the national
policy, therefore it could not be included under norms and standards. He said
that the best the Committee could do was to ask the department to consider the matter.
Mr Mahlangu wanted clarification on the role of the police.
The Chairperson said that the police only featured when the teacher or the
principle submitted a drug or weapon to the police.
Mr Mahlangu expressed concern about the rights of the children with regards to
being searched by teachers.
The Chairperson said that there was a regulatory body, which dealt with how the
educators were supposed to act. Therefore if there were any problems they would
be addressed by that body.
Mr Mahlangu enquired about the right of the learner to consent to be searched.
Mr Setona said that there was a limitation to every right in the bill of
rights. Therefore if there was a reasonable suspicion, in that instance the
individual person’s right became limited.
Western Cape
Ms H Lamoela (DA, Western Cape) said that most of the issues of the
Western Cape had already been dealt with.
The Province had suggested that a list of under performing schools should not
be placed in the annual report. She said she was not at the meeting when the
mandate was being negotiated, but she had thought that perhaps the list should
be in the Annual Report so that the Department would be able to ascertain why
the schools were performing poorly. Sometimes poor performance was the result
of a lack of resources.
The Chairperson said that the bill was clear, and the school must talk to the
head of the Department and to state the issues that needed to be dealt with.
The Chairperson said that these issues must be taken back to the provinces so
that a final mandate could be produced.
Human Sciences Research Council Amendment Bill
The Chairperson said that he wanted to inform the Department of Science and
Technology on the proposed amendments that were to be made by the Committee to this
Bill. He read out the amendments as follows:
- Page 4, line 42, the word “in” to be replaced with “after”, so that the
phrase would read “the Minister, after consultation”.
-Page 4, line 42 the words “National Assembly” to be substituted with “parliament”.
-Page 4 line 43, insertion of the words “at least” after the word “and”. As a
result of the proposed amendment, the phrase would read, “at least two national
newspapers”.
- Page 5, line 21, the words “National Assembly” to be substituted with the
word “parliament”.
Ms Majorie Pyoos, Group Executive: Socio Economic Partnerships, DST, stated
that the Department welcomed the proposed amendments.
The Bill was agreed to, with the proposed amendments.
Astronomy Geographic Advantage Bill
The Department of Science and Technology had proposed some amendments based
on what stakeholders had suggested. These were clarified as follows:
- Clause 18(6): the word “may” should be changed to “must”
-
Clause 21(2) at line 34, should read that the “Minister may with the
concurrence of the civil Aviation Authority”
- Clause 51(4), at line 39 should indicate clearly that the person “intended to
break the law”.
The Committee agreed to the Bill, with these proposed amendments.
The meeting was adjourned.
Audio
No related
Documents
Bills
Present
- We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting
Download as PDF
You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.
See detailed instructions for your browser here.