Budgetary Review and Recommendation Report: Departments of Basic and Higher Education

Meeting report

The Chairperson advised that the Portfolio Committee on Basic Education had met earlier and proposed that the two Committees responsible for education issue a joint report.  The mandates of the Departments of Higher Education and Basic Education were similar.  The Department of Basic Education did more work than the Department of Basic Education, which was a small unit.  The two Committees would need to hold a joint sitting to produce a consolidated report.  It was important that the performance of the Departments was analysed in detail in the report, rather then merely including a summary.

The deadline for the finalisation and adoption of the Committee report was Tuesday, 26 October 2010.  The research team had to compile a critical analysis and submit it to the Members, who would need to submit their comments and suggestions by noon on Monday, 25 October 2010. The Chairperson would meet with the research team to ensure that the team understood what was expected in order to produce a good quality report.  The report had to clearly outline the views and recommendations of the Committees, rather than the position of the Departments.

Mr A Van der Westhuizen (DA) said that it would be difficult for the Members to read the report and present informed comments and suggestions without having consulted with the research team.

The Chairperson said that the Parliamentary researcher would attend the meeting and Members would have the opportunity to ask questions. She asked if the Members of the Committee were comfortable with the proposal.

Ms N Vukuza (COPE) agreed with the proposed action plan.

Mr Van der Westhuizen said that there was little time available for the Members to provide input.  He agreed with the proposal.

Mr Z Makubele (ANC) agreed with the proposal.

Ms Vukuza said that the Committee needed to discuss any changes before the joint meeting with the Committee on Basic Education.  It was important that the Committee presented a unified front.

Mr Makubele said that the content of the report was not something new and he did not expect many problems, provided that the report was well-constructed.

The Chairperson agreed that the report accurately reflected the Committee’s engagements.

Mr Van der Westhuizen said that one of the meetings was driven by the officials of the Department. The Committee had not yet had the opportunity to formulate its own view.

The Chairperson said that the report covered the engagements of the Committee and reflected the views of Committee. She suggested that Members studied the draft report.

Ms F Mushwana (ANC) asked what was meant by “the adoption of student rights”, referred to in the performance overview section of the report.

Ms Vukuza remarked that the key achievements of the Committee appeared to reflect the achievements of the Department.

Mr Makubele recalled that the Further Education and Training (FET) colleges had emphasised the lack of infrastructure, human and financial resources.  He felt that this issue should have been included in the report, along with the Committee’s recommendation.

The Chairperson said that the report compiled by the research team reflected the Committee’s view.

Ms Vukuza said that the structure of the report should not be determined in an arbitrary manner.  She felt that the research should have spent less time discussing the Department’s mandate and more time on the mandate and observations of the Committee.

Mr Van der Westhuizen supported Mr Makubele’s comment concerning the FET colleges.  The colleges needed more financial and human resources. With regard to the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS); he said that the appointment of a new Chief Executive Officer and the Committee’s expectation of a turn-around strategy should have been mentioned in the report.

Mr G Radebe (ANC) asked if the Committee would be considering the NSFAS annual report.  The Committee had expressed its discontent with NSFAS and he wondered what the Committee could do about the Scheme.

The Chairperson questioned if Umalusi could be expected to reach its goals if the organisation was not adequately funded.

Ms Vukuza said that NSFAS was conducting a study tour. She felt that Members of the Committee should join the tour as there were structural problems in NSFAS and there was a barrier between the Committee and the Scheme.

Ms N Gina (ANC) said that it had to be noted that the current CEO of NSFAS was only appointed in February 2010 and the report referred to a period when the CEO was not in control.

Ms Vukuza said NSFAS had made significant progress, which had to be acknowledged.

Mr Makubele asked how Fundzani Shaka operated.

The Chairperson explained that Fundzani Shaka was a fund provided by the Department, which was administered by NSFAS.

Mr Van der Westhuizen said that the qualification process for student bursaries had to be improved.  There was a need for better selection methods.

The Committee agreed with Mr Van der Westhuizen.  The Department needed to review the courses offered by the FET colleges and do a comparison with the courses offered by universities.
 
Dr J Klopper-Lourens (DA) said that it was important to obtain explicit information from education institutions on the courses offered.

Mr Van der Westhuizen added that the FET colleges had to acknowledge when they were not capable and accept guidance from the Committee.

Ms Vukuza suggested that the research team took care with the language used in the report.  The report had to be written in a firm and punchy manner and present the views of the Committee. The bottom line of the report should be the Committee’s mandate.  She requested that the research team took care to segment the report carefully and neatly.

Dr Klopper-Lourens confirmed that she would forward her comments by e-mail on Monday, 25^th October.

The Chairperson summarised the process that had to be followed by the Committee.

The meeting was adjourned.