Dhet Response to the Comments Received from Stakeholders on the Higher Education Laws Amendment

DHET RESPONSE TO THE COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM STAKEHOLDERS ON THE HIGHER EDUCATION LAWS AMENDMENT BILL (B24 – 2010), SKILLS DEVELOPMENT LEVIES AMENDMENT BILL (B25 -2010) AND HIGHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING LAWS AMENDMENT BILL (B26 – 2010).

1. SUMMARY OF THE COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM ROLEPLAYERS ON THE HIGHER EDUCATION LAWS AMENDMENT BILL (B24 – 2010) MADE BY THE SECRETARY OF THE PORT FOLIO COMMITTEE AND THE RESPONSES BY THE DHET THERETO:

1.1. Mark Kerruish (Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL South Africa)

Mark Kerruish is a private provider of educational services in the language sub-sector. He is concerned that the ramifications of the proposed amendments will make the provision of nationally crucial training and education services even more impractical. TESOL offers the courses that do not fit the South African Qualifications Authority categories and classification. SAQA registration is compulsory, and he tried to register his certificate courses through SAQA four times over the last decades and was told simply that it did not have capacity. He feels that the amendments will bury the existence of private providers who offer certificates courses that cannot be categorised or classified by SAQA.

DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSE: The Comments from Mr Kerruish seems to refer to a grievance on how SAQA treated its certificates in the past. In the written submission he did not express any views on the content of the Bills. During the public hearings he raised the issues of short courses and how it fits into the draft legislation. The NQF Act is a framework for qualifications and as such it focuses on the development and registration of qualifications and part- qualifications. The NQF Act move away from learning programmes and learning courses but refer to qualifications which is defined as learning programmes that links to a specific qualification or part-qualification as registered on a specific level on NQF. If the short course is not registered as a qualifications or part-qualification it will not have the protection or status of a qualification or a part-qualification and will not be acknowledged as a qualification or a part-qualification. It is also not possible then for an institution or provider to offer or provide such short course as a qualification or part- qualification.

2.2. Independent Institute of Education (IIE)

The submission is concerned with Section 2 and 3 of the Bill and the consequences of the proposed amendments for education generally and for private higher education service providers specifically.  The submission is also concerned with the term “offered” which needs to be defined. This term is introduced into the Act without there being any definition of the term as this adds additional uncertainty and lack of clarity.  It further alludes to the fact that the amendments to the Act may have the effect of isolating South African higher education from the rest of the world and that the amendments unreasonably impact on the relationships between local and international providers of higher education to the detriment of South Africans.  It will have the effect of both limiting the activities of low quality or unscrupulous providers (local and foreign)  Discourage the presence of some high quality providers that could assist in meeting the national agenda.  An overseas institution which does submit to that process will almost certainly face the question of what to do when the requirements of the SA process conflict with the requirements of regulators at the seat of that institution.  The Bill cannot be promoted in its current form if there is any likelihood that its effect would be either to deprive or discourage students from access to a range of education opportunities and relationships just on the grounds of their being international.  The proposed section 65 (d) to the Higher Education Act introduced by Section 3 of the Bill repeats the provision of section 51(2) but extends the prohibition on offering unregistered qualifications to all persons. The reality is that part of qualifications cannot currently be registered on the NQF so even if reasonable, this is not enforceable  The further statement that no certificate or diploma (or degree) can be offered by a private higher education institution unless it is registered on the HE sub framework of the NQF could be read to mean that ALL certificates or diplomas are higher education qualifications and this is currently not the law.

DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSE: This commentator focuses mainly on the proposed amendments to section 51 (clause 2) and section 65 (clause 3) of the Higher Education Act and section 3 of the NQF Act (clause 9). Mr Bendette is of the view that the amendments contained in clauses 2, 3 and 9 of this Bill is not a technical amendment and these amendments will introduce new substantial law. Mr Bendette’s view is that it would cause reputable overseas higher education programmes to be illegal if offered in the country.

Theses clauses contained in the Bill are in our view not an extension of any current legislation or policy. The Bills contain technical clarification that is required to implement qualifications in the higher education qualifications in the sub-framework FOR Higher Education of the NQF and the interaction between the provisioning of higher education qualifications and occupational qualifications.

Overseas qualifications or programmes are referred to in the current Higher Education Act as programmes provided by foreign juristic persons. Section 54(1)(b) and section 54(3) of the Higher Education Act together with the definition of “a foreign juristic person” make it clear that foreign institutions are required to be registered under the Higher Education Act (HEA). These institutions must be registered if they provide higher education. The definition of “higher education” refers to a qualification that meets the requirements of the HEQF. The HEQF in paragraph (b) contained in the Act defined as “the policy referred to in section 7(b) of the National Qualifications Framework Act as the sub-framework for higher education”. Section 4 of the National Qualifications Framework Act makes it clear that the NQF is a comprehensive system approved by the Minster for the classification, registration, publication and articulation of quality assured national qualifications. Section 5 of the NQF Act further states that the objectives of the NQF are to create a single intergrated national framework for learner achievements. Section 7 provides that the NQF is a single integrated system which complies of three coordinated qualifications sub-frameworks of which one of the sub-framework has been identified by the Act as the sub-framework for higher education as contemplated in the Higher Education Act. There can be no doubt that the current legislation as contained in the HEA and the NQF Act already requires that overseas qualifications must comply with the HEA and the sub-framework for higher education as reflected in the HEQF. There is therefore no extension to the current legislation.

The need to include amendments to section 51 of the HEA is linked to the amendments to section 65 which required a new section to differentiate between the approaches required by institutions offering higher education qualifications on the NQF sub-framework as contained in section 7(b) of the NQF Act and the need to offer occupational qualifications in the sub-framework of trades and occupations as reflected in section 7(c) of the NQF. The need for higher education institutions to have the flexibility to offer occupational qualifications became more eminent as a result of the transfer of the skills development functions from the Minister of Labour to the Minister of Higher Education and Training. The amendments are addressing the implementation of qualifications on the NQF as a whole and in particular the new phenomenon that the previous skills programmes are now required by law to be reflected as trade and occupational qualifications. The trades and occupational qualifications (Section 7(c) of NQF Act) and the higher education qualifications (section 7(b) of NQF Act) overlap with one another in respect of levels 5 – 10 on the NQF but the qualifications are lumped in distinctive coordinated subframeworks. These amendments are an attempt to coordinate the complex arrangements to different types of qualifications on the NQF as contained in different and distinctive subframeworks on the NQF and provide legal certainty in the implementation to higher education institutions offering qualifications within both subframeworks. The amendment to the provisions of section 51 is linked to the fact that foreign juristic persons are already part of the current Higher Education Act and is to clarify their involvement in offering or providing higher education.

During the discussions in the hearings, the terminology used in clause 3 (new section 56D) concerns were raised that the scope of wording to diploma and certificates were too wide and needs to be better defined. Professor Moore suggested the following wording “56D(1) No person may offer award or confer a degree, or a higher education diploma or a higher education certificate unless such ...”. The proposal of Prof Moore is an improvement on the current wording of the clause as it clarify the general interpretation of a diploma or certificate to be within the ambit of the definition “higher education”. It is further proposed that there should in additional to the proposal of Prof Moore be considered the insertion of the words “as contemplated in the HEQF”.

At the hearing Mr Bendette focuses mainly on the difference between “provide” and “offer”. This is a very technical reason which tries to justify that in his opinion that the Bill is an extension of the policy framework and that proper consultation on the impact of the usage of the word “offer” has not taken place by the Department and therefore these three clauses cannot be accommodated in this Bill. It is the Department’s view that the word “offer” and “provide” are both used in the current Higher Education Act and that the current policy including the joint ministerial statement which form the basis of the policies on which the National Qualifications Framework Act was drafted, already contained the principle that all qualifications or part-qualifications must be registered on the single intergrated framework for qualifications. There is therefore no new policy to introduce and therefore no need.

2. SUMMARY ON SKILLS DEVELOPMENT LEVIES AMENDMENT BILL (B25- 2010)

2.1. Tekelo J.M. (Student Leader of learnerships under Free State Premier’s Office)

The submission is not specific whether it supports or disagrees with the proposed amendments in the Bill. However, it raises concerns around the issue of learnership stipend being little. Tekelo believes that the learnership stipend of R720.00 per month paid to trainees is very little and they were not awarded certificates upon completion of the training. It again points out to the fact that they were not absorbed into employment after training though they were promised training and employment. Tekelo felt they have exploited by the Premier of the Free State for his own gains.

DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSE: Comments are received from Mr JM Tekelo who is a learner with a learnership of the Free State Premier’s office. He objects against the small amount he received monthly as a stipend as part of the learnership programme. There are no comments on any clauses contained in the Bills. 3. SUMMARY ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING LAWS AMENDMENT BILL (B26-2010)

3.1. Mr. Archie Mokone (Adult Learning Network (ALN)

 The definition of Adult Education and Training is incorrect. There is mere substitution of ABET with AET which according to ALN is wrong as Adult Education denotes more than programmes at NQF 1.

Is it therefore suggested that an amendment be effected on the definition of adult education and training to read: “adult education and training’ means all learning and training programmes for adults on levels 1-4 registered on the national qualifications framework contemplated in the NQF Act, 2009 (Act No. 67 of 2008).

 ALN seeks clarity and certainty to be provided by the Bill around centres as currently the Act refers to: 1. Public adult learning centres (purpose of the act); or 2. Adult education and training centres (section 25J of the Bill)

It is suggested that the Bill must reflect the appropriate term.

 ALN support the rest of amendments reflected in the Bill

DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSE: The main comment relates to the amendment of the Adult Education and Training as contained in the Higher Education and Training Laws Amendment Bill which refer to national qualifications on level 1 of the NQF. The commentator wants an extended scope of qualifications to include levels 2 – 4. This amendment proposed by the commentator would have policy implications as the main focus and capacity to deliver qualifications to adult centres are mainly within level 1 of the NQF. It might be that the commentator got confused between the ABET sublevels 1 – 4 which are contained in level 1 of the NQF. It is our view that adult education centres already struggle with capacity to deliver qualifications on post level 1 (general education) and an extension at this point of time to further education and training would be very difficult if not impossible to deliver. The mandate to deliver further education and training levels 2 – 4 on the NQF, is with the FET colleges and a qualification within the Trades and Occupations sub-framework is provided by providers accredited by the QCTO. This comment is not supported.

During the public hearings the commentator had to clarify his understanding amongst others the definition of educator. The views that he expressed is that there is a need to clarify the definitions which will give the meanings of the educator to be replaced by the submissions that refers to a practitioner. He acknowledges that he need to have a professional to deal with the learning process in a structured learning environment needs to be reflected in the definition. It is the view of the Department that the definitions that are currently applicable to AET centres be retained and any need to amend the definitions should be left to be dealt with in future legislation.

3.2 Sidwell Tshingilane (Chairperson Ekasi Development Projects)

 It supports section 51 of higher education and training of 1997 which requires institutions to be registered according to Company Act 61 of 1973), but are concerned worried about the increase in number of fly by night education institutions especially in areas like Johannesburg CBD, Braamfontein, and Pretoria.  Proposes that the Department employs more inspectors to deal with the mushrooming of fly by night institutions.  Propose that National Qualifications Framework be reviewed because institutions seem not to understand the NQF Act and also government departments when require interns they do not recognise NQF

Section 65 (d) in act 101 of 1997 Concerned about the delays of the accreditation processes in the SETAs  Supports the amendment of Director-General of Labour to Higher Education and Training.  Recommends the establishment of an advisory committee to Higher Education Minister which will facilitate the progress in Higher education challenges.

The NSFAS Act no 59 of 1999 Sidwell sees access to university as a challenge to most youth. They recommend that the Minister monitors the outcomes and performances of NSFAS. They further suggest that NSFAS do more in terms of public relations to inform the public about the services they offer. Higher education and Training must ensure that unskilled people have easy access to the FET colleges.

The proposed section 26 (g) of Skills Development Act

 The section on regulating the appointment of Chief Executive Officer is not clear, and there is a need for clarity  Propose that the appointment be based on competency not political appointment  Propose that QCTO staff should be given maximum period contract of three years

NQF Act Clause 2.4.2

 Welcomes the proposed amendment

DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSE: This commentator also mainly reflects on the amendment in the Higher Education Amendment Bill relevant to section 51 of the Higher Education Act. The comments relate to the concern by “fly-by-nights educational institutions” and supported the idea of a registration according to the Companies Act. The commentator actually missed the fact that the requirement to be a company when a applicant apply for registration as a private higher education institution is part of the current legislation and is not a new amendment brought by the amendment Bill. The commentator further makes supporting comments to the Bill and advises on some managerial or implementation issues flowing from the current legislation and questions the amendment to section 26G of the Skills Development Act as contained in the Higher Education and Training Amendment Bill but it seems to be more of a matter of needing clarification than objecting against the inclusion of the amendment in the Bill. Overall it is very positive on the amendments contained in the Bills.

3.3 Mr. Siphiwe Mbara (Student at University of Cape Town, in Public and Policy Administration)

Section 1 of the Adult Basic Education and Training Act 52 of 2000  The substitution for the definition of the “adult basic education and training” for “adult education and training” is not acceptable as it allows a room for ambiguity in the terms of education levels/bands, functionability and efficacy of the use of the terms.  Mr. Mbara proposes the withdrawal of the amendment in definition as a result of the following: - If it is still maintained that level 4 of the Adult Basic Education and Training (as it still exists) is in accordance with the provisions of the National Qualifications Framework and equivalent to grade 9 in public schools;-

- It is unnecessary, irrelevant and confusing to change the definition as proposed discarding the existing definition (and thus affecting efficacy & connotations).

- There is functionability in the use of “basic”

- Division and allocations of levels in the new administration of the republic of South Africa where the equivalent level 4 of the public schooling is deemed basic education band/level under GET in the new Department of Basic Education under honourable Minister Angie Motshega since 2009, July.  He is also concerned that this level might be the exit point of the GET phase, nonetheless, it is neither entry point nor introductory in the higher education phase/band. As a result of this – he would not expect the proceedings to be headed by the Department of Higher Education and Training but by the relevant department which looks and has got full mandate on the execution, monitoring and evaluation of the educational services in basic education. He further suggests this matter must be dealt under the Department of Basic Education or at least with it.

Chapter 4A – Section 25G

1. Mr Mbara is concerned that Section 25B of Chapter 4E does not provide any powers to political heads of education to: i. Monitor ii. Develop/ design iii. Employ/ Promote/ Fire

Employees/ educators as defined in terms of section 9 of the National Policy Act 27 of 1996 or section 41H of the Further Education and Training Colleges Act 16 of 2006. 2. Section 20C and all its subsequent sub-sections do not give any powers or areas of participation to the political heads with respect to employment and or selection of educators, post-establishment for educators, service provision to Adult Basic Education and Training.

3. The only persons, as ordered by the inserted chapter 3A to provide management of educators, programmes, education policy and other services thereto are; a. Minister b. Heads of Department c. Members of the Executive Council

4. He feels that this will push and perpetuates criticism to the influencing factors that lead to demanding of remedial plan within 90 days from the political heads. He is not concerned about time period but by the material point which is the transfer of duty of remedy from the persons indentified in the inserted chapter 3A to the political head.

5. He calls upon the reflection of these proposed withdrawals against Bill B26-2010 in terms of monitoring and evaluation from the following sections:

 Section 25B  Section 20C ss1-3  Section 20D

as they do not invite or afford the political heads participation in the design and setting of education department services altogether.

This proves irrelevancy, unjust duty transfer, time-consuming, expensive, and may be attractive to conflicts within the education departments within spheres of the government co-ordination and potentially political conflicts into the department.

Following this, subsequent sections in the inserted chapter 3A that elaborate on the functions of the processes in section 20C have also isolated political heads’ participation. In this respect, he recommends that it is important to read them in terms of section 41I of the Further Education and Training Act 16 of 2006 for (the):

I. Consistency and relevancy II. Limitations of conflicts of duties III. Limit conflict and unnecessary disturbance of the education department’s coordination and so as how they adhere to the promotion of the republic’s constitutions’ call to co-operative governance. IV. In the interest of serving results with efficiency and integrity to the ABET candidates.

DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSE: This commentator objects mainly against the deletion of the word “basic” from adult basic education and training and consequential changes thereto. The thrust of his argument is that this Act should be part of the responsibilities of the Minister of Basic Education and suggested that the amendments to the ABET Act should be withdrawn. Our position on this comment is that school education falls within the domain of the Minister of Basic Education whilst all other education and training is with the Minister of the Higher Education and Training and the amendments proposed are merely to give effect to this legislative position as contained in Proclamation 44 of 2009. The commentator fails to acknowledge or to appreciate that all the powers and functions that he reflect on is actually transferred from the National Education Policy Act and there are no new provisions contained in this Bill. The need of Chapter 4A of the ABET Act is to allow the legislation that was primarily transferred to the Minister of Basic Education, but were acknowledged in the Proclamation to the extent that it is applicable to ABET centres, be transferred and insert as legislation under the control of the Minister of Higher Education and Training. This amendment aims to make the implementation and management of the current Act more user friendly, without changing anything of substance thereto. The request of the commentator to withdraw these specific sections and clauses as identified, is not making sense as they are contained in current legislation.

3.4 Dr. SG Mabizela (Chairperson of UMALUSI) and Dr. MS Rakometsi (Chief Executive Officer) (UMALUSI)

Definitions

 The Umalusi representatives are concerned about the definition of the term “further education and training” and “adult education and training” which do not reflect the new and emerging understanding of the sector, and it is therefore suggested that both Acts be revisited in terms of these definitions that continue to make NQF levels central to the definitions i.e. FET (NQF 2-4) and AET (NQF 1).

 They propose that the definitions be linked to the purpose of basic education schooling (i.e. general education), and adult and vocational education and training in respect of the post- compulsory schooling stream.

Policy  Umalusi welcomes the provision made in both Acts for national policies and the clarification of the responsibilities of the Council of Education Ministers (CEM) and HEDCOM in respect of adult learning centres and FET colleges. However, it advices that policies which are currently envisaged as discrete and separate, should be conceived on the basis of an intergrated single AVET system for post-compulsory schooling candidates. They further suggest that provincial competencies could be spelled out in such a policy.

Specific comments on the Amendments to the FET Colleges Act (NO 16 of 2006)  Section on “Directive Principles of national Education Policy” 41 C (F) refers to achieving an integrated approach to adult education and training within a national qualifications framework

Comment It should read Further education and training rather than adult

 Section on “Further Education and Training programmes”, 12 (b) section (5) has been included which read “A college may apply to the Quality Council for Trades and Occupations established in terms of the ….. for accreditation as a Skills Development provider in order to offer qualifications registered on the sub-framework for Trades and Occupations…”

Comment

Umalusi would like the same provision to be made to the sub-framework of qualifications for general and further education and training (as has been made for QCTO)

Amendment should read as follows: ‘A college may apply to Umalusi the Council for Quality Assurance in General and Further Education, established in terms of the … for accreditation as a FET institution in order to offer qualifications registered on the umalusi sub-framework of qualifications as contemplated in section… of the National Qualifications Framework Act, 2008’

 Section on “Limitation of Liability” 49 (1), (2), (3) –

Comment While this section does not form part of the proposed amendments Umalusi nevertheless wishes to indicate that it may be necessary to also include liability of the State iro of private colleges – at the moment it only includes liability iro of public colleges.

 Section on “Further Education and Training programme” 43 (1) indicates “the Minister may prescribe minimum norms and standards for further education and training programmes within the sub-framework of further education and training on the National Qualifications Framework that are offered at colleges.”

Comments

Firstly, the amended act does not define the term “programme” and it is therefore not clear what the Minister will set norms and standards for given Umalusi’s mandate to develop qualifications for a sub-framework of qualifications for general and further education and training. (Does programme mean curriculum? qualification? Learning programme?)

Secondly, there is no ‘sub-framework for further education and training on the National Qualifications Framework”- sub-framework developed and quality assured by Umalusi includes qualifications related to basic education, adult education as well as those for further education and is entitled. “The qualifications framework for general and further education and training”, Further education cannot therefore be singled out as if on a separate framework.

Specific comments on the Amendments to the Adult Basic Education Act (No 52 of 2000)

 Umalusi welcomes the effort at creating coherence in the adult education and FET systems through linking of adult education and vocational education.  It further welcomes the amendments that address the appointment of educators in PALCs as this will stabilize teaching and learning, the uncertainty of which has bedevilled adult education since inception. Umalusi anticipates that this newly created stability will reflect in the adult education success rate in future.  It proposes the following additional amendment to ensure that the quality of adult education learning is ensured: (As modified from the FETC Act section on “Academic Board of Public colleges” 11.91 (b) and (c)

Under section “Functions of Governing body” the following should be included:  Establish a committee for monitoring of academic standards and quality promotion,  Ensure that the requirements to provide learning against standards and qualifications registered on the National Qualifications Framework are met;

Umalusi welcome the linking of the two Acts through the amendments, however, it would like to see a more integrated post-compulsory schooling system established through the national education policies envisaged.

DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSE: Umalusi as one of the quality councils is an important role-player in the implementation of the NQF Ac. However, in the general comments they reflect on policy positions which are clearly substantial changes be made to the current legislative framework. The proposals of the Bills under discussion are aiming to bring about technical amendments to assist the implementation of the current legislation within the new responsibilities of the minister’s statutory functions (transferred to him through the Proclamations of 2009). The main thrust of the general proposal by Umalusi is an attempt to extend the scope of Umalusi as a QC for qualifications on NQF levels 1 – 4 to NQF level 5. This would bring uncertainty as it is not clear if the request is to make Umalusi responsible only for a portion of qualifications on NQF level 5 or that they will be responsible for the totality of qualifications reflected on level 5. If it is just a portion it would be very difficult to identify which portion as section 6 of NQF based on the prescribes that descriptors differentiate between qualification levels on the NQF as it is contemplated in section (6) of the NQF. This approach does not differentiate between education qualification within the specific levels of the NQF and has no overlapping position when it defines the scope of responsibility between Umalusi and the CHE. This proposal is premature as the policy implications and consequences must be thoroughly researched. The proposal will infringe on existing rights assigned by the legislation to the QCs for higher education (the CHE), higher education institutions and students in those institutions in NQF level 5. Even though we are aware of this concern as raised by Umalusi the whole structure and nature of NQF need to be reconsidered to (remember the amendments of 2008 by the introduction of the new NQF Act took approximately 8 years to be consulted as it contains very complex principles that needs to be addressed within such a framework). The request is not being supported and should be addressed during this parliamentary process. Furthermore the views of the role-players affected by the substantial policy deviation has not been obtained or considered as yet by the Department. This is a matter that would be considered in future amendments to legislation after policy have been adopted by the Minister. Policy must guide the need and the implementation of the legislation (if this proposal is included in such policy). Even if the current legislation stay unchanged, there is flexibility in the NQF Act as it allows the CHE to delegate any of its functions as a QC (including those applicable to the qualifications of NQF level 5) to any capable body which body surely must include another QC such as Umalusi. The example of the N6-qualification can easily be resolved by guidelines of the Minister to the NQF under section 8(2)(c) of the NQF Act where the Minister may guide in the CHE to delegate the function in the interim.

Umalusi further comments on specific issues contained in the legislation as reflected in the three Bills. The first comment under this category is the reflection in the amendments in the FET Colleges Act through the new section 41(c)(f) as contained in the HETLA Bill to the word “adult” instead of “further”. The usage of the word “adult” in the context of policy making by the Minister is to include the broader context of adult education and training including the links with qualifications offered by the other sectors within the ambit of adult education post school or outside school education. However, if the wording of this paragraph is amended to reflect only further education and training, such amendment will also be acceptable. The second comment relates to Umalusi to become the QC of some trade and occupational qualifications falling in the domain of the QCTO. The approach suggested by Umalusi would have the same difficulties to be incorporated in these Bills as we have responded to under the general comments stated above. These are substantial amendments to the legislative framework and need policy to guide the implementation of such position if it is accepted. The third comment they made reflects to section 49 of the FETC Act, which section is not part of the Bill and once again will require substantial amendments to give effect to this request. This may be part of further legislation in future. The next comment relates to amendment to section 43(1) of the FETC Act as contained in clause 12 of the HETLA Bill. The Bill refers to the sub-framework of further education and training on the NQF and the clause should have referred to general and further education and training as contemplated in section 7(a) of the NQF. This proposal is fully supported and should be accommodated within the Bill. The programmes that are referred to in section 43(1) must be linked to the qualifications on the sub-framework as stated above and the sub-clause should read . “(1) The Minister may prescribe minimum norms and standards for further education and training programmes applicable to qualifications within the sub- framework for general and further education and training as contemplated in section 7(a) of the National Qualifications Framework Act, that are offered at colleges.”;

This specific comments on the amendments on the ABET Act is supportive to the Bill. It is however, interesting to see that Umalusi welcomes the appointment of educators in public adult learning centres as if it is new law introduced in the Bill whilst in fact it is merely a repetition of the current powers and functions as contained in the Employment of Educators Act as it is applicable to PALC. Umalusi goes further to request an inclusion of an academic board as part of the functions of the governing body of AET centres. Once again this is a huge policy direction and needs skill and capacity to implement. This may be part of future legislation and should not be included in the Bill.

During the public hearings two further comments received from the Port folio committee were made available to the Department. The first is comments by Mr Justice Mhlakaze. This submission supports all the amendments eventhough it specifically refers to the definition of adult basic education and training and be changed to adult education and training. He supports the need to delete basic. He further specifically referred to section 3A of the Bill. It is presumely a reference to Chapter 3A which is an insertion of the employment provisions into the ABET Act. He is in favour of introducing the employment provisions into the ABET Act. He also acknowledged the need to introduce Chapter 4A into the Bill.

Last comments were received from INKANYEZI Foundation. This submission is dealing with the challenges that are phasing the higher education system. The comments are all of a general nature and are not specifically to any provisions contained in the current laws. It therefore needs no further comments from the Department.