Policy, Law, Economics and Politics - Deepening Democracy through Access to Information
This privately-owned website is operated and maintained by Creamer Media
We have detected that the browser you are using is no longer supported. As a result, some content may not display correctly.
We suggest that you upgrade to the latest version of any of the following browsers:
         
close notification
24 May 2012
   
 
 

Yesterday, the 18th Constitutional Amendment Bill was to be voted on in Parliament. However, this item was removed from the parliamentary order paper, apparently because the ANC could not muster the required 2/3 majority.

The Constitutional Amendment Bill seeks to remove the concurrent competence of provinces to manage Further Education and Training (FET) colleges and Adult Basic Education (ABET) institutions, and place it in the hands of national government.

The DA is opposed to this amendment, and will be voting against it when it comes before the House in the next quarter. The Constitution should be amended only if there is a compelling reason to do so. In this case, we do not believe a compelling reason has been put forward.

We also believe that, given the national department’s failure to manage the situation satisfactorily under the existing agreement with the provincial governments, there is no benefit to the students either. It will also impede the implementation of programmes geared towards specific regional education needs, as provinces are better placed to assess and respond to their unique needs than the national government.

Two reasons for the amendment were given during meetings of the justice and constitutional development portfolio committee: First, that there was some concern that provincial legislation could come into conflict with national legislation. Since no such case has yet arisen, and there is a provision contained in section 146 of the Constitution that provides a mechanism to deal with such conflicts, this reason holds no water.

Secondly, it was put forward that there are problems with the management of FET colleges and ABET institutions in some of the provinces. Since there are similar problems at national level, this reason, too, falls by the wayside. Trying to justify the amendment of the Constitution because some provinces cannot run their colleges efficiently is disingenuous at best.

Clearly, the two reasons given for the proposed amendment are spurious. The question that therefore needs to be asked is: What is the real reason behind this amendment to the Constitution? It creates a dangerous precedent that could affect other concurrent competencies, such as health services or public transport, and reinforce the ruling party’s drive towards centralisation.

Edited by: Creamer Media Reporter
 
 
 
 
  Photos
 
 
 
DA Shadow Deputy Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development Debbie Schafer 

																															(Picture by: DA)
 
DA Shadow Deputy Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development Debbie Schafer (Picture by: DA)
 
 
 
 
 
Advertisements:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Related social media
 
Related social media terms:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Topics on this page
 
 
 
Company
 
Industry Term
 
 
 
 
 
 
LABOUR LAW MANAGEMENT CONSULTING
 
 
 
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Online Publishers Association