Date: 07/11/2002
Source: Ministry of Education
Title: Asmal: Debate on Higher Education Amendment Bill, NCOP
SPEECH BY THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION, PROF KADER ASMAL, IN THE DEBATE ON THE HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENT BILL, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF PROVINCES, Cape Town, 7 November 2002
Chairperson
There can be little doubt that within the broad canvas of educational change and transformation, this year has been the year of higher education. The Cabinet's approval of my Ministry's proposals for the restructuring and transformation of the institutional landscape of higher education in May 2002 has set the stage for giving effect to the implementation framework for the reconstruction and development of the higher education system, as outlined in the National Plan for Higher Education.
The ensuing debate, including the legal challenge to the government's proposal to establish a single dedicated distance education institution through the merger of Unisa, Technikon South Africa and the distance education campus of Vista University, VUDEC, has placed the restructuring of higher education at the centre of the public discourse on education.
In this regard, I have been privileged in the last months to interact with a range of higher education institutions and constituencies with regard to the restructuring proposals. In addition to this, I have also received the representations on the restructuring proposals that I have invited in June of this year. These interactions and representations have been useful in assisting me to make my decisions regarding the reconfiguration of the higher education landscape.
Clearly, in our effort to ensure that future generations will graduate from higher education institutions that owe no allegiance to the geo-political imagination of apartheid's planners, we have and are making significant progress. As you may know, the Council of Unisa has withdrawn its legal challenge and the establishment of a single dedicated distance education institution is back on track. And more importantly, the ML Sultan Technikon and Technikon Natal were successfully merged and a new institution, the Durban Institute of Technology was established. Certainly, this goes a long way into strengthening higher education in KwaZulu-Natal.
Therefore, Madam Chairperson, the main reason for the introduction of the Amendment Bill is to facilitate the implementation of the restructuring and transformation agenda. As the restructuring and transformation process unfolds, it is necessary to review and amend the Higher Education Act, as the legal implications of existing policy are clarified, gaps in the Act identified and new policies introduced.
In this regard, the Amendment Bill has two purposes. First, to introduce technical amendments to clarify and bring legal certainty to issues related to the merger of institutions such as the authority to merge institutions, labour relations' implications of mergers and the implications for students in terms of the rules and regulations governing academic programmes. Second, to introduce amendments that streamline and strengthen the governance structures of higher education institutions. I intend to focus my remarks on the second set of amendments.
Good governance is the cornerstone of a well-functioning higher education system. It is the lever that enables the pursuit of academic freedom and institutional autonomy in the context of public accountability. The existence of properly constituted and functioning councils is essential to ensure that higher education institutions are able to respond to the demands of public accountability, in particular, to demonstrate financial probity and their capacity to meet national policy goals and priorities. This is, however, sadly lacking in a number of our higher education institutions.
The absence of good governance is in large measure a product of the composition of institutional councils, which are unnecessarily large - in some cases up to 50 members, and unwieldy. This is the end result of the post-1994 flourish of democracy with its focus on transforming undemocratic and unrepresentative councils. However, in invoking the spirit of democracy, little or no attention was paid to the impact of large councils, representative though they may be, on efficiency and effectiveness. In particular, little or no attention was paid to ensuring that council's had the necessary expertise to deal with their academic, educational, legal and fiduciary responsibilities. Although my Department has initiated a training programme for council members, it is clear that the necessary expertise is the product of the accumulation of social capital, which the majority of our people have been denied by apartheid.
In the light of this, the Amendment Bill limits the size of institutional councils to a maximum of thirty members, while keeping the principle that at least 60% of the members must be external to the institution.
The Amendment Bill also increases the size of interim councils, which are established to facilitate the merger of higher education institutions, from the current 5 to a minimum of 7 or a maximum of 9 members. This amendment similarly seeks to ensure that the size of interim councils provides for the expertise necessary to discharge its functions efficiently and effectively.
I want to state that the provision for the establishment of interim councils, which was introduced in the Amendment Bill in 2001, is not an attempt, as suggested in the Mail & Guardian, to centralise power in the hands of the Minister. The interim councils are transitional bodies necessary to facilitate the merger of higher education institutions. They have specific functions and a limited shelf life - six months, with a possible further six months.
The members of the interim council, except for the Chairperson are appointed from nominees submitted by the affected institutions. The fact that the Minister has the prerogative in the appointment of the Chairperson does not confer any additional powers to the Minister. There is, however, nothing precluding the affected institutions submitting nominees for the Chairperson's position for the Minister to consider.
The point that must be emphasised is that interim council's function under the same authority and autonomy as normal institutional councils.
Madam Chairperson, I now want to briefly turn my attention to a critical issue that underpins the restructuring and transformation agenda and which is not addressed in the Amendment Bill. This is the issue of access both in terms of increasing the participation rate in higher education, as well as ensuring that there is equity in access. The National Plan for Higher Education indicated that race and gender access would be facilitated by the establishment of a National Higher Education Information and Applications Service, which would have a number of benefits, including providing data on the available pool of applicants, satisfying the information needs of applicants on available study opportunities, providing careers guidance and information, as well enabling the government to monitor progress in achieving race and gender access.
In this regard, I have received the report of the Working Group appointed to investigate the development of an appropriate model for establishing a National Higher Education Information and Applications Service. The report will soon be released for public comment and I anticipate that the Service itself will be established in the course of next year.
In conclusion, Madam Chairperson, I am confident that the Amendment Bill together with the other processes that are in place to implement the National Plan for Higher Education, moves us ever closer to the goal of establishing a single national co-ordinated higher education system that is affordable, of high quality and responsive to the human resource and knowledge needs of South Africa.
I thank you.
Issued by Ministry of Education
7 November 2002
Source: Ministry of Education
Title: Asmal: Debate on Higher Education Amendment Bill, NCOP
SPEECH BY THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION, PROF KADER ASMAL, IN THE DEBATE ON THE HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENT BILL, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF PROVINCES, Cape Town, 7 November 2002
Chairperson
There can be little doubt that within the broad canvas of educational change and transformation, this year has been the year of higher education. The Cabinet's approval of my Ministry's proposals for the restructuring and transformation of the institutional landscape of higher education in May 2002 has set the stage for giving effect to the implementation framework for the reconstruction and development of the higher education system, as outlined in the National Plan for Higher Education.
The ensuing debate, including the legal challenge to the government's proposal to establish a single dedicated distance education institution through the merger of Unisa, Technikon South Africa and the distance education campus of Vista University, VUDEC, has placed the restructuring of higher education at the centre of the public discourse on education.
In this regard, I have been privileged in the last months to interact with a range of higher education institutions and constituencies with regard to the restructuring proposals. In addition to this, I have also received the representations on the restructuring proposals that I have invited in June of this year. These interactions and representations have been useful in assisting me to make my decisions regarding the reconfiguration of the higher education landscape.
Clearly, in our effort to ensure that future generations will graduate from higher education institutions that owe no allegiance to the geo-political imagination of apartheid's planners, we have and are making significant progress. As you may know, the Council of Unisa has withdrawn its legal challenge and the establishment of a single dedicated distance education institution is back on track. And more importantly, the ML Sultan Technikon and Technikon Natal were successfully merged and a new institution, the Durban Institute of Technology was established. Certainly, this goes a long way into strengthening higher education in KwaZulu-Natal.
Therefore, Madam Chairperson, the main reason for the introduction of the Amendment Bill is to facilitate the implementation of the restructuring and transformation agenda. As the restructuring and transformation process unfolds, it is necessary to review and amend the Higher Education Act, as the legal implications of existing policy are clarified, gaps in the Act identified and new policies introduced.
In this regard, the Amendment Bill has two purposes. First, to introduce technical amendments to clarify and bring legal certainty to issues related to the merger of institutions such as the authority to merge institutions, labour relations' implications of mergers and the implications for students in terms of the rules and regulations governing academic programmes. Second, to introduce amendments that streamline and strengthen the governance structures of higher education institutions. I intend to focus my remarks on the second set of amendments.
Good governance is the cornerstone of a well-functioning higher education system. It is the lever that enables the pursuit of academic freedom and institutional autonomy in the context of public accountability. The existence of properly constituted and functioning councils is essential to ensure that higher education institutions are able to respond to the demands of public accountability, in particular, to demonstrate financial probity and their capacity to meet national policy goals and priorities. This is, however, sadly lacking in a number of our higher education institutions.
The absence of good governance is in large measure a product of the composition of institutional councils, which are unnecessarily large - in some cases up to 50 members, and unwieldy. This is the end result of the post-1994 flourish of democracy with its focus on transforming undemocratic and unrepresentative councils. However, in invoking the spirit of democracy, little or no attention was paid to the impact of large councils, representative though they may be, on efficiency and effectiveness. In particular, little or no attention was paid to ensuring that council's had the necessary expertise to deal with their academic, educational, legal and fiduciary responsibilities. Although my Department has initiated a training programme for council members, it is clear that the necessary expertise is the product of the accumulation of social capital, which the majority of our people have been denied by apartheid.
In the light of this, the Amendment Bill limits the size of institutional councils to a maximum of thirty members, while keeping the principle that at least 60% of the members must be external to the institution.
The Amendment Bill also increases the size of interim councils, which are established to facilitate the merger of higher education institutions, from the current 5 to a minimum of 7 or a maximum of 9 members. This amendment similarly seeks to ensure that the size of interim councils provides for the expertise necessary to discharge its functions efficiently and effectively.
I want to state that the provision for the establishment of interim councils, which was introduced in the Amendment Bill in 2001, is not an attempt, as suggested in the Mail & Guardian, to centralise power in the hands of the Minister. The interim councils are transitional bodies necessary to facilitate the merger of higher education institutions. They have specific functions and a limited shelf life - six months, with a possible further six months.
The members of the interim council, except for the Chairperson are appointed from nominees submitted by the affected institutions. The fact that the Minister has the prerogative in the appointment of the Chairperson does not confer any additional powers to the Minister. There is, however, nothing precluding the affected institutions submitting nominees for the Chairperson's position for the Minister to consider.
The point that must be emphasised is that interim council's function under the same authority and autonomy as normal institutional councils.
Madam Chairperson, I now want to briefly turn my attention to a critical issue that underpins the restructuring and transformation agenda and which is not addressed in the Amendment Bill. This is the issue of access both in terms of increasing the participation rate in higher education, as well as ensuring that there is equity in access. The National Plan for Higher Education indicated that race and gender access would be facilitated by the establishment of a National Higher Education Information and Applications Service, which would have a number of benefits, including providing data on the available pool of applicants, satisfying the information needs of applicants on available study opportunities, providing careers guidance and information, as well enabling the government to monitor progress in achieving race and gender access.
In this regard, I have received the report of the Working Group appointed to investigate the development of an appropriate model for establishing a National Higher Education Information and Applications Service. The report will soon be released for public comment and I anticipate that the Service itself will be established in the course of next year.
In conclusion, Madam Chairperson, I am confident that the Amendment Bill together with the other processes that are in place to implement the National Plan for Higher Education, moves us ever closer to the goal of establishing a single national co-ordinated higher education system that is affordable, of high quality and responsive to the human resource and knowledge needs of South Africa.
I thank you.
Issued by Ministry of Education
7 November 2002
Advertisement
EMAIL THIS ARTICLE SAVE THIS ARTICLE FEEDBACK
To subscribe email subscriptions@creamermedia.co.za or click here
To advertise email advertising@creamermedia.co.za or click here
