OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA - Parliament of the ... 2017/15... · Wednesday, 14 June 2017] 3...

Wednesday, 14 June 2017] 1

ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS NO 79─2017

No 79—2017] FOURTH SESSION, FIFTH PARLIAMENT

PARLIAMENT

OF THE

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

ANNOUNCEMENTS,

TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS

WEDNESDAY, 14 JUNE 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLINGS National Assembly and National Council of Provinces 1. Minister of Police ................................................................................. 2 COMMITTEE REPORTS National Assembly 1. Justice and Correctional Services ......................................................... 2 2. Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs ................................ 3 National Council of Provinces 1. Security and Justice ............................................................................. 4 2. Petitions and Executive Undertakings .................................................. 7

2 [Wednesday, 14 June 2017


TABLINGS National Assembly and National Council of Provinces 1. The Minister of Police

(a) Report of the Independent Police Investigative Directorate for the period 01 April 2016 – 30 September 2016, tabled in terms of section 9(n) of the Independent Police Investigative Directorate Act, 2011 (Act No 1 of 2011).

COMMITTEE REPORTS

National Assembly 1. Report of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and

Correctional Services on the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill [B40 - 2015] (National Assembly – section 75), dated 14 June 2017

The Portfolio Committee on Justice and Correctional Services, having considered the subject matter of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill [B40B- 2015] National Assembly – sec 75, recommitted to it and classified by the JTM as a section 75 Bill, reports the Bill with an amendment [B40C- 2015] The Amendment is as follows: CLAUSE 1 1. On page 3, from lines 33 to 35, to omit all the words from “being” up to “offence”, and to insert:

“being subjected to any civil claim for the alleged breach of a duty of confidentiality or a confidentiality agreement arising out of the disclosure of— (i) a criminal offence; or (ii) information which shows or tends to show that a substantial

contravention of, or failure to comply with the law has occurred, is occurring or is likely to occur;”.

Report to be considered



2. Interim report of the Portfolio Committee on Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs on the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Amendment Bill [B8 – 2017], dated 14 June 2017

The Portfolio Committee on Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (the Committee), having considered the subject matter of the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Amendment Bill [B8 – 2017] (National Assembly – sec 76) (the Bill), referred to it and classified by the Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM) as a section 76 Bill, reports as follows: The Bill was referred to the Portfolio Committee on 28 March 2017 (see ATC 28 March 2017). The Bill seeks to amend the provisions of the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act, 2003 (Act No. 41 of 2003) (Principal Act). The Committee is currently deliberating on the Bill and intends to finalise its report in compliance with National Assembly (NA) Rule 288. Whilst inquiring into the subject of the Bill and conducting the public hearings and Committee deliberations, the Committee realised that it may be necessary to amend other provisions of the Principal Act, which were not included in the Bill.

The Committee now seeks to amend certain other provisions of the Principal Act, for an example section 3B of the Principal Act. The Committee thus requests the permission of the NA in order to report on further amendments to the Principal Act other than those presented in the Bill. NA Rule 286(4)(c) stipulates that if the Committee is dealing with a Bill amending provisions of legislation, “the Committee must, if it intends to propose amendments to other provisions of that legislation, seek the permission of the Assembly to do so.” Recommendation In terms of NA Rule 286(4)(c), the Committee recommends that the National Assembly grants permission to inquire into, and amend additional provisions of the Principal Act. Report to be considered.



National Council of Provinces

1. Report of the Select Committee on Security and Justice on the Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill [B2B– 2017] (National Assembly – sec 75), dated 14 June 2017:

The National Assembly referred the Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill [B2B– 2017] (National Assembly – Section 75) (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Bill) to the National Council of Provinces for concurrence on 11 May 2017. The National Council of Provinces referred the Amendment Bill for consideration and report to the Select Committee on Security and Justice on 11 May 2017.

Subject of the Amendment Bill

The Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill, 2017 (''the Amendment Bill''), among others, emanates from the judgment of the Constitutional Court in the case of De Vos N.O. and Others v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others [2015] ZACC 21 (''the De Vos case''). On 26 June 2015, the Constitutional Court declared section 77(6)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977 (Act No. 51 of 1977)(''the principal Act''), to be inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid to the extent that it provides for the compulsory imprisonment of an adult accused person and the compulsory hospitalisation or imprisonment of children.

The Amendment Bill aims to amend the principal Act so as to provide the courts with a wider range of options in respect of orders to be issued in cases of findings that accused persons are not capable of understanding criminal proceedings so as to make a proper defence by reason of mental illness or intellectual disability. The composition of the panels provided for in section 79 of the principal Act came under scrutiny in the Western Cape High Court case of S v Pedro [2014] JOL 32061 (WCC)(''the Pedro case''). The Amendment Bill further aims to clarify the composition of the panels concerned in line with the Pedro case.

The Amendment Bill has a Constitutional deadline of 26 June 2017 for Parliament to complete its work.

LAMOSA1 Judgment and the public participation process

The NCOP developed a practice note to address the shortcomings in the public participation process highlighted in the Lamosa Judgement that dealt with Section 76 Bills. The LAMOSA judgement dealt with the Section 76 process and did not test the Section 75 process. However, the judgment noted that it is incumbent on each house to facilitate public involvement in all legislation referred to it. The Constitutional process for Section 75 does not require the NCOP to receive mandates from the provinces, as a S75 Bill,

1 Land Access Movement of South Africa and Others v Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces and Others CCT 40/15



by its nature, does not affect provinces directly. The Committee is required to enquire into the subject of the Amendment Bill and facilitate public involvement in the legislative process and does so by advertising the Amendment Bill for public comment.

The Committee advertised the Amendment Bill on 25 May 2017 in national as well as local newspapers in all the official languages calling for public comment on the Amendment Bill. The Committee received four submissions on the Amendment Bill. Three of the submissions did not address the subject of the Amendment Bill but the submission from Ms A Duncan was acknowledged by the Department as important but did not deal with the Constitution Court requirement at hand. The matters raised by Ms Duncan would require additional legislation to amend the principle Act.

Submissions received

INDIVIDUAL OR ORGANISATION

CONTENT OF THE SUBMISSION

1. Private Individual: Vuyo Msizi

Submission highlights the need to involve more women and children in the processes as they are affected by the Amendment Bill.

2. Private Individual: Matlala

Bill must be amended to protect witnesses and victims of crime, particularly to ensure the protection of witnesses from communities who may take the law into their own hands. The submission particularly highlights the need to protect whistle blowers.

The submission is therefore that the Amendment bill must be strong enough to protect whistle blowers so that citizens can report crime freely without fear of victimisation.

3. Individual:

Michael Mondlhane

In regard to the criminal bill, if the death penalty could be returned we would have no killers and rapist who rape our children daily, drug dealers will be taken away from our streets.

4. Anne Duncan Questions she raises: What if there is no bed in the correctional health care facility?

Is there any intention to provide more facilities for the Mental Health needs of our society outside of a prison.

Recommendation: That communication between the courts and prisons specifically any reports from the District Surgeon is attended to in the appropriate hospital and that they don’t be allowed to sit in prison without treatment or the opportunity to stand trial.

Her Personal Experience:

In October 2016 my sister was arrested due to transgressing a Protection Order and landed up in Pollsmoor Prison Female Centre.



The District Surgeon Dr Marianne Tiemensma report (as requested by the Wynberg Court) clearly reads that my Sister go for Formal assessment and included in her report is reference to a previous diagnosis of Bipolar. Dr Tiemensma also states in the report that my sister be seen by a visiting Psychiatrist. Two months after being in Prison my sister had yet to see the visiting Psychiatrist. I tracked down the visiting Psychiatrist to Pollsmoor, Dr Jaques Malan and gave him my sister's Prison Number and subsequently sent him a copy of Dr Tiemensma's report. Dr Malan did see my sister (once to my knowledge). Prior to me sending a report, he had not seen a report and I understand that there was nothing in my sister's Pollsmoor file. I obtained a copy of Dr Tiemensma's Report from the Prosecutor at the Wynberg Court after requesting a copy of the report. In various attempts to contact the authorities at Pollsmoor I have not been able to establish if they have seen a report.

Enquiry into the subject of the Amendment Bill

The Select Committee invited the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development to brief the Select Committee on the purpose and content of the Amendment Bill on 7 June 2017.

The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development addressed Ms Duncan’s submission and indicated the matter raised was substantive in nature and would require additional legislative amendments. The Amendment Bill before the Committee emanates from a High Court judgment that declared certain provisions unconstitutional. Parliament is required to consider correcting the provisions as indicated in the judgment and may not amend additional areas of the Criminal Procedure Act unless given permission to do so by Parliament. The Department indicated the amendments proposed by Ms Duncan would be considered and further legislation would be tabled in Parliament to remedy the matter.

The Select Committee would monitor the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development’s drafting of the amending legislation.

Consideration of the Amendment Bill

The Committee acknowledged the Constitutional Court imposed deadline related to this Amendment Bill but expressed its dissatisfaction with the length of time the National Assembly Committee processes take to complete the Bills, in general, on its agenda. This places undue pressure on the National Council of Provinces to meet any court-imposed deadline.



The Select Committee on Security and Justice having deliberated on and considered the subject of the Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill [B 2B-2017] (National Assembly – Section 75), referred to it, reports that it has agreed to the Amendment Bill without proposing further amendments.

Report to be considered.

2. Report of the Select Committee on Petitions and Executive Undertakings on the Hearing of the Africa Skills College Petition, Dated 08 June 2017

1. BACKGROUND

The Africa Skills College petition (petition), dated 23 March 2015, was referred to the Select Committee on Petitions and Executive Undertakings (Committee), for consideration, by the Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) on 12 June 2015. The petition is submitted by Ms Keamogetse Vos and Ms Lerato Lobelo on behalf of the learners at the Africa Skills Further Education and Training (FET) College (College).

For contextual purposes, it is important to note that the College is situated in Thembalethu, George, Western Cape Province and is registered as a private college that offers N1-N3 Engineering programmes. In addition to offering these Engineering programmes, the College also offers other Skills Education Training Authorities (SETA) accredited skills development programmes. The College is legally registered under the name of Africa Skills Training Solutions (Pty) Ltd and it trades under the name of Africa Skills College – Private Technical and Vocational Education and Training College. Furthermore, as part of training and development, the College provides training to learners or apprentices by placing them with supportive host employers to ensure the best practical work experience.

In the petition the learners level the following specific complaints against the College and its administration: 1.1 The Principal of the College was dismissed from his previous

employment after he was found guilty of fraud and corruption; 1.2 The Principal has recruited learners from Kuruman, in the Northern

Cape Province, and enrolled them at the College under false pretences. During their enrolment the said learners were promised a stipend of R1500 per month but only received a stipend of between R700 to R800 per month, in contravention of the terms and conditions of their academic contracts and enrolment. And this has



resulted in the majority of learners returning to Kuruman without completing their studies;

1.3 The College failed to pay some learners their full stipends in March 2015;

1.4 The College management is constituted of only white people and the wife of the Principal is a Director at the College; and

1.5 Learners live in fear of being intimidated and have been interdicted from exercising their constitutional right to peacefully protest.

The petition further indicates that prior to approaching the NCOP, the petitioners met with the management of the College, on 9 March 2015. Following this meeting, the College management paid the outstanding stipends to a few learners while the stipends for other learners remained unpaid. Also of importance, the petition states that the petitioners have done the following, in an attempt to resolve the issues raised in the petition, but to little or no avail; 1.6 Written to the Department of Higher Education and Training

(DHET), on 11 March 2015, and the DHET responded to say it had requested the College to furnish it with additional documents and this had not been done, by the College, at the time that the petition was submitted to the NCOP.

1.7 Written to both the Premiers of the Northern Cape and the Western

Cape, on 16 March 2015, in relation to the issues raised in the petition, and have not as yet received a response from either of the Premiers.

1.8 Contacted the Skills Education and Training Authority (SETA) and

the SETA informed them it was unable to locate the correct structure or person to deal with the concerns raised in the petition.

1.9 Staged protest action on 17 March 2015 and presented a

memorandum to the College outlining a list of their demands however nothing fruitful came out of this protest action.

1.10 Laid charges, with the South African Police Services (SAPS),

against the College and its management however SAPS has been of little or no assistance.

1.11 Approached community ward councillors, on 18 March 2015, and

requested them to intervene however when the ward councillors attempted to engage the College on the issues raised in the petition, the College management refused to listen to the community ward councilors and sent them away.

As regards the relief sought, the petition requests the intervention of the NCOP in addressing and resolving the above mentioned complaints against the College and its management.



2. HEARING ON THE PETITION

The Committee held a hearing on the petition on 12 October 2016. The purpose of the hearing was to allow the petitioner and the relevant stakeholders to make first-hand oral submissions on the petition.

2.1 Committee Members and Officials

The following Committee Members were present at the hearing on the petition:

2.1.1 Hon S G Thobejane, ANC, Limpopo (Chairperson of the Committee);

2.1.2 Hon M J Mohapi, ANC, Free State;

2.1.3 Hon J M Mthethwa, ANC, Kwa-Zulu Natal;

2.1.4 Hon G M Manopole, ANC, Northern Cape;

2.1.5 Hon M T Mhlanga, NC, Mpumalanga

2.1.6 Hon D L Ximbi, ANC, Western Cape;

2.1.7 Hon T Wana, ANC, Eastern Cape

2.1.8 Hon M Chetty, DA, KZN; and

2.1.9 Hon B Engelbrecht, DA, Gauteng.

The Committee Members, present at the hearing, were supported by the following Parliamentary officials:

2.1.10 Mr N Mkhize, Committee Secretary;

2.1.11 Dr M Gondwe, the Committee Content Advisor;

2.1.12 Adv T Sterris, Committee Researcher;

2.1.13 Ms C Maledu, the Committee Assistant, and

2.1.14 Ms N Fakier, Executive Secretary.

2.2 Stakeholders

The hearing on the petition was attended by the following relevant stakeholders:

2.2.1 Petitioners, Mr L Langa and Mr L Ncamile; 2.2.2 Representatives of Africa Skills College (College), Ms R Meyer

and Ms E Harmse



2.2.3 Representatives of the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET), Mr M Lumka, Mr S Fredericks, Mr M Buthelezi, Ms K Dazela and Ms N Rasmeni;

2.2.4 Representatives of the Skills, Education and Training Authority (SETA), Ms J Irish-Qhobosheane; and

2.2.5 Representatives of the South African Police Services (SAPS), Major-General K Senthumule, Major-General P Mbotho and Lieutenant -General N Masina.

2.3 Submissions by the Petitioners

Submissions on behalf of the petitioners were led by Mr L Langa (Mr Langa) and Mr L Ncamile (Mr Ncamile). In his submissions, Mr L Langa submitted that he was familiar with the issues raised in the petition after a group of learners had approached him and complained about the unfair and exploitative practices taking place at the College. Further in his submissions, Mr Langa informed the Committee that from his experience and knowledge the following unfair and exploitative practices had taken place and continue to take place at the College:

2.3.1 Flawed disciplinary processes. Learners are disciplined before they can attend disciplinary hearings. For instances a learner was called into a disciplinary hearing by the College management and before the learner could attend the hearing, the learner was suspended.

2.3.2 Falsifying of learner records. Learner records are in certain circumstances falsified by the College management. Take for example, a learner will be on record as working at place A, during job placements, however upon being quizzed about working at place A, the learner will indicate he or she has never been to place A.

2.3.3 Forging of learner signatures. In some instances learner signatures are forged by the College management. A member of the College management, actually admitted to forging learner signatures at a meeting of learners when he stated that if the College urgently requires the signature of a particular learner and the College is unable to get hold of that learner, it has no choice but to forge the signature of that learner.

2.3.4 High dropout rate of black learners. The College has a high dropout rate of black learners. The College starts out with a large number of black learners at the beginning of each enrolment year however as much as 90 percent of these learners do not end up being trade tested or qualifying. Yet their white counterparts end up being trade tested and ultimately qualifying.

2.3.5 Unfair treatment of black learners in job placements. Black learners are treated unfairly during job placements. The job placement of black learners with host employers is often accompanied by an instruction that the learner cannot be paid because they are paid a monthly stipend. On the other hand, the placement of white learners is not accompanied by a similar instruction and white learners are



permitted to receive some form of payment during their job placements. Furthermore, during job placements, black learners are made to carry out work or duties which have no bearing or relation to their respective field of study or trade. For example of a learner was made to sweep floors and make tea, on a daily basis, during his placement with a host employer despite being an electrical engineering learner.

2.3.6 The exploitation of learners by placement companies. Some placement companies, in the George area, exploit learners during work placements by requiring them to carry out duties which have no bearing or relation to their respective field of study or trade. Other companies even go so far as to get rid of their permanent staff so as to make use of the services offered by learners from the College in order to save on their wage bill.

2.3.7 Payments for placements. The College flouts regulations by receiving payment from individual companies for placing learners at those companies (and there is evidence to this effect).

2.3.8 Continued funding for expelled learners. The funding attached to expelled learners continues to be provided to the College after learners have been expelled. This issue has been raised with the SETAS and various funders and nothing has done about it and neither has any explanation been given.

In his extensive submissions, Mr Ncamile, also related how he was subjected to an unfair disciplinary hearing by the College management after he objected to the conditions of his placement. He further informed the Committee that he is one of the learners that has been affected by some of the unfair and exploitative practices that Mr Langa alluded to in his submissions. In this respect, Mr Ncamile submitted that after he complained about his work placement, to the College, he was instructed to do his practical work whilst he should have been finalising his theoretical work. He then went back to his host employer to continue with his practical work and spent a week doing something that is not related to his field of study. Upon returning to the College, he realised his learner card has been blocked and when he enquired why his learner card was blocked he was informed by the College management that it was not prepared to engage with him.

Mr Ncamile further informed the Committee, that it was only after the police were called in to intervene, that he was allowed to enter the College premises. And while he was relating his side of the story to the police he was asked by the College to sign a document pertaining to his disciplinary hearing. He refused to sign the hearing document as it alleged he had been absent from his host employer.

Further in his submissions, Mr Ncamile, stated that the majority of black learners dropout as a result of the racism, victimisation and corruption taking place at the College and as they feel the quality of education they are receiving at the College is not in up to standard. He also submitted that when learners raise their grievances and concerns with the College, instead of being assisted, learners are threatened with termination of their contracts.



Also in his submissions, Mr Ncamile highlighted and maintained that the following unfair practices were taking place at the College:

2.3.9 A large number of black learners, at the College fail and there are no plans in place to reduce or lower this failure rate ;

2.3.10 As part of its recruitment process the College requires learners to a contract with only the Services SETA and not with the National Skills Fund (NSF) as well;

2.3.11 Local learners are not accommodated or given meals. As such, only learners from outside the Province benefit from the accommodation and meals offered by the College yet all learners have more or less the same funders;

2.3.12 The College makes unauthorised and unwarranted deductions against learner stipends;

2.3.13 In December 2014, learners were required to sign for unpaid leave because host employers were closing for the Christmas holidays;

2.3.14 The evaluation of learners is questionable as quarterly progress reports for the same year are always inconsistent;

2.3.15 The forging of learner signatures as explained by Mr Langa in his submissions;

2.3.16 The entire College staff complement is made up of white staff members and some of them are related (i.e. either married to one another or are blood relations); and

2.3.17 During work placements white learners, in contrast to their black counterparts, are placed with suitable host employers and carry out duties or work related to their specific trade and field of study.

In concluding his submissions, Mr Ncamile indicated that, at some stage the College had informed him that his funding had been terminated in June 2016, as he had not been in class for 9 months due to the learner protests. However the NSF later informed him that his funding had only ended in October 2016.

2.4 Submissions by Africa Skills College

Submissions on behalf of Africa Skills College (College) were led by Ms E Harmse (Ms Harmse). Ms Harmse introduced herself as the Managing Director of the College. She further explained that the College is a skills development provider for a number of Skills Education Training Authorities (SETAs). Further in her submissions Ms Harmse, admitted that there was learner dissatisfaction in March 2015 and this led learners to stage protest action. However during and after the protests the College implemented a number of processes and actions, namely, a learner enquiry process; strengthening of learner support services system; creation of Learner Representative Committee; regularising communication with learners; updating of learner induction and splitting up of learners with induction per funder/SETA to eliminate confusion.



In her submissions to the Committee Ms Harmse also responded to the following specific complaints made against the College: 2.4.1 Corruption As the regards the complaints of corruption, Ms Harmse informed the Committee that in her view, the complaints were prompted by a misunderstanding of how the College operates. She also explained that as a private service provider, the College provides artisan training for a number of SETAs, namely, the Services SETA; Chemical Industries and Education Training Authority (CHIETA); Construction, Education and Training (CETA); Fibre Processing and Manufacturing SETA (FP & M SETA); Safety and Security Education Training Authority (SASSETA) and the National Skills Fund (NSF). And the different sponsors have different payment structures and deliverables. Ms Harmse also informed the Committee that the stipend amounts vary between the different SETAs from R1500 to 2500 per month. She further submitted that because the SETAs do not always pay learners on time, learners are under the mistaken impression that the College takes their monies. Further according to Ms Harmse, because the College is a private Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) College its’ funding is different from that of public TVET colleges and as a consequence, the College receives its funding when it delivers evidence as per the agreement with funders. She added that the College is required as per the agreement with funders to deliver according to deliverables and as such it will receive the money according to deliverables and not up front or for a full year ahead like public TVETs. She also added that the College receives the money from funders in tranches, therefore SETAs or funders have the right to immediately terminate the funding for the College. Ms Harmse further informed the Committee that stipends are paid directly to learners by the College and the College is required to submit evidence, in the form of a payslip and proof of payment to the SETA, before the SETA can release the next tranche of monies. In concluding her submissions, in this regard, Ms Harmse informed the Committee that each SETA or funder monitors or audits the College on its contract deliverables at regular intervals throughout the funding period. She also informed the Committee that, in general, SETAs have in place a strict administrative system for the monitoring and auditing of contracts that service providers need to report on or comply with and this system includes the submission of the following: attendance registers for training centre and host employers; proof of payment for learner stipends; learner progress reports; reports on phase tests; facilitation, assessment and mentoring reports; workplace vetting and monitoring; and learner logbooks. 2.4.2 Ill-treatment With respect to the allegation of ill treatment, Ms Harmse submitted that learners expressed their dissatisfaction with the late payment of the SASSETA stipends, on 6 March 2015, when they locked the training



centre’s gate and prevented all learners and staff members from entering the premises. Subsequently, on 9 March 2015, the learners staged a protest outside the training centre and also barred other learners and staff members from entering the College premises, burned tyres, and blocked off the street. The police were called to intervene and upon their arrival they requested the aggrieved learners and the management to follow them to the Thembalethu Police Station (police station). At the police station the learners initially refused to speak to the management however later in the day, 15 learner representatives and a community member met with management. During this meeting learners indicated they had grievances in relation to the termination of learner agreements, racism and unpaid stipends and the management agreed to prioritise these concerns and address them. Also according to Ms Harmse, the management requested learners to return to class so that they can prepare for exams but the learners indicated that they will only do so once their grievances have been resolved. In her submissions Ms Harmse further informed the Committee that during the protest action staged by the learners, the College arranged a bus to transport learners back to their host employers as artisan training is its main training stream, however, the protesting learners blocked the road and refused to allow the bus to pick up the learners. On 17 March 2015, the learners handed a petition to the College during a protest march and also chose learners to represent them in meetings with the management. She added that a total of 7 meetings were held with learners in this regard, yet notwithstanding these meetings several learners remained aggrieved and volatile. There were even incidents of intimidation and of fellow learners and staff members being threatened, at which point the College was left with no other option but to seek legal advice and obtain an interim court order aimed at protecting other learners that wanted to attend class as well as to protect staff members. The court order was awarded to the College on 21 August 2015. In concluding her submissions in this respect, Ms Harmse submitted that the following solutions emanated from the meetings held during the protest action:

2.4.2.1 All learners whose contracts were allegedly unfairly terminated were contacted in order to establish if the learners felt aggrieved and wished to be re-instated as apprentices. Furthermore, all terminated learners evidence was audited by an independent consultant to verify if the correct procedures and processes were followed in terms of SETA contracts and labour laws;

2.4.2.2 Meetings were arranged with all the relevant SETAs or funders to address learners on their funding and to clarify all related queries;

2.4.2.3 One on one sessions were held with staff members to discuss the alleged racism and discrimination taking place at the College and the management concluded that all staff members subscribe to the vision and mission of Human Capital Development and changing people’s lives;



2.4.2.4 Extra classes were agreed on to prepare the learners for national exams;

2.4.2.5 Learners were encouraged to put their individual grievances in writing in order for the College to handle each learners’ grievance with individual attention and care;

2.4.2.6 Learners refused to sign attendance registers, as this would mean that they acknowledge that all their grievances had been resolved, as such it was agreed that for the period of the protest learners need only tick the register as proof of attendance;

2.4.2.7 Established a communication unit, at the commencement of the protest action to communicate and contact all stakeholders (such as sponsors, clients and employers) including learners daily regarding the situation and progress made; and

2.4.2.8 Requested all stakeholders to visit the College and conduct an audit to see if it had done something wrong and to speak to the learners in an effort to assist in the resolution of the grievances. And for the period March 2015 to August 2015, numerous visits were conducted by various sponsors including the DHET, Auditor General, Services SETA, NSF and CHIETA.

2.4.3 Racism As regards the complaints of racism at the College, Ms Harmse informed the Committee that the College has existed for 10 years and as a training provider it is required to comply with numerous legal requirements. She further informed the Committee that there had been no formal complaint lodged in relation to the allegation as such it was difficult for the College to handle or resolve the matter. 2.5 Submissions by the Department of Higher Education and

Training

The submissions by the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) were led by Mr M Lumka (Mr Lumka) and supplemented by Ms J Irish-Qhobosheane (Ms Irish- Qhobosheane), Mr S Fredericks (Mr Fredericks) and Mr M Buthelezi (Mr Buthelezi). In his submissions to the Committee, Mr Lumka introduced himself the Chief Director responsible for SETAs within the DHET. Mr Lumka informed the Committee that they were mandated by the DHET, in July 2015, to conduct an oversight visit to the College and address the issues raised in the petition. And on 27 August 2015, they visited the College however as most of the learners were out on job placements with host employers, they were only able to engage with a handful of learners on that day. Mr Lumka further submitted that the learners that they interacted with, on that day, confirmed that there had been issues around the payment of stipends however the issues were now resolved. He further submitted that given that they interacted with only a handful of learners they were unable to substantively engage a considerable number of learners on the complaints of racism and corruption levelled against the College. He added that the DHET had found the College wanting in the area of employment equity as its total staff compliment is all white.



Ms Irish - Qobosheane made submissions in response to the issues relating to SASSETA. In her submissions Ms Irish - Qobosheane stated that SASSETA was placed under administration at the end of February 2015 and this contributed towards the huge delay in the payment of stipends to learners across the country. She further submitted that the issue was now resolved and SASSETA is paying stipends to learners, across the country, on time. Also in her submissions Ms Irish - Qobosheane submitted that SASSETA meets with learners on a regular basis and in the course of monitoring programmes at various institutions of higher learning. She cited as an example a meeting SASSETA held on Monday 10 October 2016 with 25 learners from the College. In concluding her submissions Ms Irish - Qobosheane submitted that SASSETA has strict agreements with all its service providers, including the College. And in terms of these agreements, where a learner fails to attend classes for no valid reason, SASSETA will deduct monies from the learner’s stipend in respect of the classes the learner failed to attend. She added that service providers are also not paid where learners drop out of the institution and are required to prove that stipends have been paid to individual learners. Further in concluding her submissions, Ms Irish - Qobosheane indicated that SASSETA encourages the formation of Learner Representative Councils as they assist it to pick up on issues and to deal with learners and this is important as SASSETA concludes agreements with both service providers and learners. Mr Fredericks made submissions in response to the issues of the National Student Fund (NSF). In his brief submissions, Mr Fredericks informed the Committee that any implementing agent of the NSF is required to open a dedicated back account and this allows the DHET to freeze the account, where the need arises. He further stated that the NSF also requires monthly and quarterly reports from implementing agents and these reports are verified by the DHET during site visits. And during such site visits the NSF scrutinises inter alia invoices log books of learners; proof of payment of learner stipends; and a register of calculations for purposes of ensuring compliance by various institutions of higher learning. Mr Fredericks further stated that the amount agreed to with the College in relation to the stipend to be allocated to each learner is R1500. In concluding his submissions, Mr Fredericks submitted the NSF has stringent quality management processes in place and it is satisfied with compliance of the College in relation to these processes. Dr Buthelezi made submissions in relation to registration of private colleges. In his brief submissions Dr Buthelezi submitted that before a college can become a service provider for SETAs and it is has to register with and be accredited by the DHET. He further submitted that during the DHET’s site visit to the College in August 2015, the College admitted that its top management is all white and the DHET demanded that the College address this anomaly. The College later presented the DHET with its Employment Equity (EE) Plan however the DHET is yet to visit the College and ensure it is making progress with its EE plan.



2.6 Submissions by the South African Police Services

The submissions by the South African Police Services were led by Lieutenant –General N Masina (Lieutenant General Masina). In her brief submissions to the Committee Lieutenant General Masina explained that although a total of 6 cases were opened at the Thembalethu Police Station (Thembalethu) in relation to some of the issues raised in the petition, none of the cases relate to fraud or corruption on the part of the College or its management. Further in her submissions, Lieutenant General Masina informed the Committee that all the cases were opened in 2015. In concluding her submissions, Lieutenant General Masina requested the Committee to permit Major General P Mbotho (Major General Mbotho) to provide some detailed background into the nature and outcomes of the 6 cases opened at Thembalethu. In his submissions, Major General Mbotho, informed the Committee that the following cases were opened in relation to some of the issues raised in the petition:

2.6.1 Thembalethu Case No:- 222/03/2015 : The case related to a complaint of intimidation and the complainant in the case, Ms Lobelo, complained of being intimidated by the College management. The case was investigated and presented to the Senior Public Prosecutor (SPP) for a decision on 18 June 2015 and the SPP declined to prosecute the case.

2.6.2 Thembalethu Case No:- 77/03/2015: The case related to a complaint of reckless and negligent driving. The complainant and victim in the case, Mr Japhta, complained that he was injured by a vehicle driven by Mr Hough, a lecturer at the College. During the investigation of the case, Mr Hough explained that his vehicle collided with a learner or learners, who were part of a group of learners who attacked him and the collision occurred whilst he was trying to flee from the learners. The case was presented to the SPP after the investigation and on 21 August 2015, the SPP declined to prosecute the case.

2.6.3 Thembalethu Case No:- 79/03/2015: The case related to a complaint of malicious damage to property and the facts of the case are similar to those of Thembalethu Case No:-77/03/2015 above. However, in this instance, the complainant is Mr Hough and his complaint is levelled against Mr Japhta. In the case Mr Hough alleged that his vehicle was damaged by Mr Japhta. After the complaint was investigated and presented to the SPP, the SPP declined to prosecute the case on 21 August 2015.

2.6.4 Thembalethu Case No:- 171/03/2015: The case related to the illegal march that the learners of the College embarked on, on 13 March 2015. The complainant in the case is the State as per Warrant Officer Mhlana alleging that the learners marched without authorisation on the stated date. The case was investigated and presented to the SPP for a decision and on 21 August 2015, the SPP declined to prosecute the case.

2.6.5 Thembalethu Case No:- 242/03/2015: The complainant, in the case, is the College management, as per Mr Harmse, who complained that the learners had defied a court order by protesting at the College.



Following the investigation of the case it was forwarded to the SPP and the SPP declined to prosecute the case on 11 January 2016.

2.6.6 Thembalethu Case No:- 78/03/2015: The complainant in the case is the State as per Warrant Officer, Van Rooyen, alleging that the on 6 March 2015, learners of the College marched without authorisation. The case was investigated and presented to the SPP for a decision and on 21 August 2015, the SPP declined to prosecute. (See the attached presentation marked as Annexure A hereto).

3. OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS The Committee made the following observations and findings in relation to hearing on the petition: 3.1 The Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) is aware

of the complaints that learners have levelled against the College and on 27 August 2015 the DHET conducted a site visit to the College. However, during the site visit it was unable to conclusively establish the veracity of the complaints of racism and corruption levelled against the College as it only managed to interact with only a handful of learners.

3.2 The petitioners have also brought the issues raised in the petition to the attention of the Premiers of the Northern Cape and the Western Cape as well as the relevant SETAs, however, they have received little or no assistance from these bodies.

3. 3 The Safety and Security Education Training Authority was placed

under administration at the end of February 2015 and this contributed towards the huge delay in the payment of stipends to learners across the country.

3.4 The total staff complement of the College is all white and it was

requested to rectify this anomaly during a site visit by the DHET in August 2015.

3.5 The National Skills Fund imposes stringent quality management

processes on all its implementing agents which include the submission of monthly and quarterly reports and site visits by the NSF.

4. RECOMMENDATIONS

After deliberating on the submissions made during the hearings on the petition, the Committee recommends the following: 4.1 The Committee notes that the complaints contained in the petition

fall within the competence and purview of the National Department of Higher Education.



4.2 The Committee, therefore, recommends that the petitioners refer the complaints, contained in the petition, to the National Department of Higher Education in order for the complaints to be thoroughly investigated and resolved.

Report to be tabled for consideration.

Date post:	08-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	hakhue
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA - Parliament of the ... 2017/15... · Wednesday, 14 June 2017] 3...

Documents