Request for input on Skills Development Amendment Bill 2011 5

Hi to all members, please see below request for input.  I’ve copied in full.  The Amendment Bill makes major changes to the management and control of Setas.  Please read and give your personal input, or through any of your associations.  You might also like to look at the discussion by Johannes on the CHE accreditation (or more correctly non-accreditation) of private providers.  If you are involved, please give your input.

“The Portfolio Committee on Higher Education and Training invites stakeholders and interested parties to submit written submissions on the Skills Development Amendment Bill [B16-2011]

The purpose of the Skills Development Amendment Bill [B16-2011] is to: amend the Skills Development Act, 1998, so as to define certain words or expressions and to delete certain obsolete definitions; to amend provisions relating to the establishment, amalgamation and dissolution of SETAs; to provide for the incorporation of a subsector of one SETA into another SETA; to provide for the composition of an Accounting Authority for each SETA; to regulate the eligibility to become a member of an Accounting Authority; to provide for the approval of a constitution for every SETA; to regulate the conduct of a member of an Accounting Authority, or of a member of the staff, of a SETA when engaging in business with the SETA; to require members of Accounting Authorities to disclose any conflict of interest with the relevant SETA; and to repeal certain provisions which became obsolete as a result of the transfer of the administration of the said Act to the Minister of Higher Education and Training; and to provide for matters connected therewith.

Public hearings on the Bill will be held at Parliament on Tuesday, 8 and Wednesday, 9 November 2011.

Comments can be emailed to the Committee Secretary Mr Anele Kabingesi at by no later than 12:00 on Thursday, 3 November 2011. Please indicate your interest in making a verbal presentation.

Enquiries tel Mr Anele Kabingesi: (021) 403 3760; cell: 083 412 1585

Issued by: Adv I Malale, MP Chairperson: Portfolio Committee on Higher Education and Training.”


Share on Social Media

Leave a comment

5 thoughts on “Request for input on Skills Development Amendment Bill 2011

  • Sylvia F. Hammond Post author

    Today (8 November 2011) I attended the Portfolio Committee on Higher Education and Training public hearing.  Presentations were made by the Wholesale & Retail Seta, BUSA and the Health and Welfare Seta. 

    W&RSeta raised issues of: Seta Board voting rights for the chairperson, nomination of Ministerial appointees to be consulted with NSA, timing of Board & Exco meetings to ensure Board remains “oversight” not become “operational”, a Deputy Chairperson, Finance & Remuneration Committees to be separate, conflict of interest of persons related to Board members to be reviewed, absence of chairperson not more than 3 months, and requirements for quorum.  

     Busa requested repealing of employment services & productivity SA to await NEDLAC, more flexibility for Setas given their different economic sector conditions, the Act to concern policy & principles rather than operational matters, Ministerial appointees should not have voting rights but be able to meet with Minister to report on Seta Board activities without having voted for any party or issue, and very strongly that the State as “employer” should pay its levies as private employers do. (The Chair Adv Malale confirmed that Cabinet had taken a decision that State departments should be contributing.) Also called for business to be taken seriously when they make proposals about implementation of matters such as artisan training – otherwise they will leave and lower level people will be sent to Boards with adverse affects on implementation. 

    HWSeta asked for the disability sector (Disability Allinance to be included in their Seta Board given the regular use they need to make of the health sector.  Inclusion of the Bargaining Council to be reviewed as employers & labour are already represented and also requested that given the volume of State provision of health care, that the State should contribute to skills levies.      

    A further meeting will be held tomorrow.

  • Sylvia F. Hammond Post author

    Marietta,  following Zerelde’s comment – do you think that APPETD would be prepared to distribute the draft document to interested members for comment before finalisation?  It might be beneficial in the long run to take a more inclusive approach?? 

  • Zerelde Uys

    Thanks for the reply. I absolutely agree that we shouldn’t duplicate, and should maybe best leave this to the representatives of APPETD. However, how will we be sure that all aspects of importance to all stakeholders and role-players will be covered? I fully respect the views and experience of the representatives, but why does it always feel as no-one really understands the small provider? (Please forgive me…)

    My major concern is focused on the administration of the system and the resulting service delivery of the SETAs. I believe that if this implementation aspect is neglected, no policy will be successful in any case. And this in itself will very quickly bring many private provider to a standstill. Enough previous discussions to prove the point.

    I would not want to go as far as requesting an opportunity to make a presentation. Would however be prepared to contribute if this is a relevant topic.   

  • Sylvia F. Hammond Post author

    Hi Zerelde,

    I’ve been to the HE portfolio committee meetings, and a number of other committees, and there is quite a wide variation in what they receive. However, the standard format is to submit a written document and to include a request that you may be allowed to to attend and to present to the committee, in order to explain further, answer questions the committee may have, and discuss alternatives that may be suggested.  (A number of delegates may attend but they would want to know in advance who they are and what organisation they represent.)

    Then the submission should be in plain language.  You need to balance the fact that the Ministers sitting on the committees come from a range of backgrounds and can range from quite junior to very knowledgeable experienced members, and on the other hand the lawyers and legal drafters also need to understand on a technical level what is proposed and the amendments required – preferably word for word. 

    So a straightforward step by step document on what is the issue, how did it arise, what is the effect (particularly financial, hampering workforce development and education, reducing unemployment and poverty.) Then what are the proposals to solve the problem – word for word if possible. The document can then be supplemented with footnotes and references to specific clauses and documents.  So it reads easily, but all the details is available for further confirmation and research.

    The committee will deal with proposed amendments, word for word to finally accept the revised draft.

    Then for the presentation, prepare a Powerpoint presentation that highlights the document content, summarises the issues, and concludes with the proposals.    

    I have noted that the committee really appreciates good constructive comments and proposals – as it helps them to make a contribution.

    I’ve noted Marietta’s comments and agree that there shouldn’t be repeating of the same thing, rather collaborate and do a joint presentation.  However, if there are different points of view, then possibly separate that out.  I’m considering submitting a proposal myself on Interns – but it doesn’t have anything at all to do with this discussion.  I’ve also diarised to attend both days.

  • Zerelde Uys

    Sylvia, is it possible to give some guidelines as to how one should provide comments? Things like the format, referencing to specific clauses necessary, how much detail, who should be doing so, etc.

    Please make this a learning experience….and so that we don’t mess this up with insignificant or sub-standard submissions. One tends to think that Acts and Bills are best read by lawyers, but I guess we are at a point in time where we really need to take this serious and speak when we get the opportunity.