Picture: @TebogoMonama
November 22 2015 at 07:30am
By Khaye Nkwanyana
Picture: @TebogoMonama
Under the Higher Education Amendment Bill 2015, transformational goals and frameworks would be agreed on between the minister and institutions, writes Khaye Nkwanyana.
Belinda Bozzoli, DA spokeswoman on higher education, has criticised the Higher Education Amendment Bill 2015 tabled in Parliament.
She has accused the minister, Blade Nzimande, of using the amendments to increase his powers to intervene in university matters, specifically with respect to issues of transformation and institutional breakdown, and hence to undermine institutional autonomy.
She calls for the bill to be removed. It is clear Bozzoli has not made an effort to engage with the proposed revisions and has no clue about the process that has led to the bill.
This revision was undertaken through a reflective and consultative process, involving the university sector and other key role-players.
The revision was necessary to deal with developments in higher education, the two most important being the publication of the White Paper on Post-School Education and Training, published in October 2013, and the Higher Education Amendment Laws of 2012.
Key role-players said there had not been proper consultation before the 2012 amendment. They also said it was clumsily worded, gave the minister too much power over universities and national institutes of higher education, and was not consistent with the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act of 2000.
In 2013, the minister consulted university vice-chancellors and council chairpersons about their con- cerns and agreed to a process for reviewing the act.
A task team of members of the department, Higher Education South Africa, Universities’ Council Chairs Forum of South Africa, and Council on Higher Education was established to improve the bill, taking into consideration the principles of academic freedom, institutional autonomy, public accountability, and the prescripts of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act.
This process has been highly consultative and inclusive.
The Higher Education Act 101 of 1997 was amended nine times between 1999 and 2012.
This revised bill is intended to strike a better balance between institutional autonomy and public accountability, deal with the outated aspects and create coherence.
It provides greater clarity about the mechanisms available for the minister to intervene.
It is common cause that the 2011/12 amendments of the Higher Education Act of 1997 led to widespread disquiet regarding institutional autonomy and the powers of the minister to override this important principle.
A much more preventive and progressive approach by the minister is proposed.
The proposals would allow the minister to act much earlier, by way of a directive, to avert the need for serious interventions later. They would also provide the minister with a range of options instead of the present arrangement where he is obliged to appoint an administrator should he wish to pursue matters further.
It is also clear that actions by the minister should begin with the issuing of a directive and, should circumstances dictate, could progress to the appointment of an independent assessor and an administrator.
Whatever the circumstances, the minister would be able to appoint an assessor or an administrator only after compliance with the legislative prescripts. The proposed amendments would require the minister to provide much more information and comply more substantively with prescripts before issuing a directive.
The new provisions would also give the minister the power to determine transformation goals for the higher education system and institute appropriate oversight mechanisms. The bill is clear that the transformation goals would have to be determined in the interests of the higher education system as a whole, and in terms of the policy on higher education, after consultation with the Council on Higher Education.
This must be read with the amendment pertaining to prior learning frameworks for the sector. These matters are identified in the White Paper for Post-School Education and Training as urgent, but responses from the sector have been inadequate or absent.
Bozzoli suggests the minister would have unfettered powers. Contrary to this, the powers of the councils and senates would remain unchanged. However, these legislative arrangements would provide the minister with a mechanism to ensure progress with regard to critical transformational matters.
The #FeesMustFall campaign illustrates the dilemma when the pace and nature of transformation are not attended to comprehensively. The prescript allowing the minister to institute appropriate oversight mechanisms should also be welcomed.
The transformational goals and frameworks would take the form of agreements between the minister and institution. The primary objective of this revision of the act was to improve the system.
The White Paper 3 of 1997 dealt in detail with the principles of institutional autonomy, academic freedom and public accountability, and made a distinction on this balance that is upheld in the bill.
Universities South Africa, the Universities’ Council Chairs Forum and the department agreed on the majority of changes proposed in the bill.
* Nkwanyana is the spokesman for the Ministry of Higher Education and Training.
** The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Independent Media.
The Sunday Independent