Statutory Series: CHE, SAQA & QCTO 2018/19 Annual Reports
Herewith please find the meeting summary and presentation by the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA) on its integrated annual report for the 2018/2019 financial year. The integrated report is also available for download in this article. The presentation as presented by the South African Qualification Authority (SAQA) can be found below.
The Chairperson of the Board, Dr Vuyelwa Toni Penxa, indicated that it was her last year as the Chairperson of the Board. She reported that SAQA is a Section 3A entity which is governed by a board appointed by the Minister of Higher Education. She shared a few achievements and said that this was a 21st unqualified audit report. SAQA prides itself on that and the current board did not drop the baton. It also increased the international footprint – Members of conventions and participates at world reference levels and the Board passed the Addendum.
Mr Joe Samuels, Chief Executive Officer and reported that the overall performance sat at 96% in terms of achieving targets. 50 deliverables were achieved and exceeded expectations on two deliverables but only two deliverables were not achieved.
SAQA’s key contributions over the last year included advising the Minister on the TVET landscape; it commented on draft education sector policies and NQF Amendment Bill; and produced an addendum to recognise learning of refugees and asylum seekers and revised RPL Policy, amongst others.
On the Limpopo issue programme issue, it advertised the programme as a Learnership at NQF level five but at the time there was no learnership registered and there must be a qualification that the learnership culminates into. That qualification was not registered and that learnership was not advertised appropriately. The issue was how it presented it to the public.
In the current year, SAQA recruited and trained 16 interns. It also spent R212 957 on staff training, seminars and workshops. R150 420 on staff education assistance. Four members of staff were promoted, 72 staff members were recognised and awarded qualifications. 20 learning and development initiatives were facilitated in the organisation.
The CFO reported on the actual revenue received which amounted to R123 306 811 of which 54.1% came from government grants; 30.5% from evaluation fees; 8% from verification fees; 2.2% professional bodies’ fees and the remaining 5.2% constituted other income (rental, sundry and interest received).
Of R117.42 million of the budget R128.66 million was spent. SAQA made various savings through IT related costs (R4.5 million); Property, Plant and Equipment (R2.9 million); legal fees (R1.7 million); Staff expenses (R3.2 million) and Sewerage pipes (R1 million).
Over-expenditure stemmed from repairs and maintenance (R71 673). There was also expenditure that was not budgeted which included intangible assets (R764 290) – SAQA does not budget for intangible assets; Depreciation and amortisation (R3.2 million) and debt impairment (R656 386).
Discussion
The Chairperson commented that there was missing information on the presentation. There was also missing information regarding planned targets in line with the APP and what was achieved and not achieved. There was no indication of non-performance and non-achievement. The Annual Report should be reported against the Annual Performance Plan. Achievements must be clearly stated against the planned targets and reasons provided for non-achievement of the targets. The presentation fell far short of the expectations.
The Chairperson said that she felt like the document was drafted in an orientation format and was uncertain how Members would interact and engage with it.
Mr Samuels received the point from the Chairperson and indicated that in the next engagements it will be clearly outlined in the way the Chairperson suggested. However, the suggestion is heeded, and this would be rectified in the next presentations.
The Chairperson indicated that during the short break the Chief Executive Officer of SAQA requested to respond to the questions in writing as the delegation was rushing to catch flights. He asked the Members to express themselves on the matter before making a ruling on the matter.
Mr Letsie said that this was the first time interacting with the entity and it would have been better if the delegation tried and changed the flights arrangements. There are issues of concern that Members would like to raise.
Mr B Yabo (ANC) said that due to the nature of the work conducting oversight was retrospective. There must be some level of concession that must be made because these engagements were unpredictable. It is important that in the presentation of accountability one have some level of flexibility regarding what may happen, Members also need to conduct their Constitutional duty. Therefore, there must be the prioritisation of exercising oversight.
Mr Keetse said that he was of the view that the summarised report on its own was on a form of orientation and that there was nothing to discuss. Unless Members could have time to peruse the actual annual report and engage the entity later. However, in the future this should not be acceptable.
Ms Mkhatshwa said that the country needed sacrifice from everyone right now and the entity should honour the Honourable Members of Parliament.
The Chairperson said that in the nine years he has been a Member of Parliament, this was the first time he had experienced this kind of issue. He felt that this was disrespecting the House and asked the CEO to not disrespect the Committee again.
The Chairperson of the Board humbly apologised for the misunderstanding.
On SAQA, the entity did well as its audit outcome improved but Members were not happy with the presentation of its Report.
Mr Samuels said that on the number and kind of qualifications that have been produced by SAQA that Report would be furnished to the Committee. The entity has prepared a document supported by research that has looked at how qualifications have progressed over 20 years. The Report suggests that the biggest issue stemmed from economic conditions as opposed to the quality of the qualifications. The Report can be shared with the Committee.
The NQF amendment Act which was signed by the President on the 13th of August has brought teeth to SAQA and the President must now proclaim it. The legislation makes a distinction on fraudulent and misrepresented qualifications. As an entity one cannot declare a qualification fraudulent but only a court can do so.
Now, when it comes to government line function departments; there was a directive that was issued by the Minister of Public Service and Administration that compelled the departments to submit qualifications to SAQA for verifications. It was found that some of those qualifications were misrepresented and feedback was provided to the line function and it must be the one that acts.
On the public perception, the number of misrepresented qualifications is about 1% of the total number coming to us. Right up front, the individual must be aware that when they submit misrepresented qualifications their name will appear on the registry of misrepresented qualifications. At the moment, we will make an affidavit at the Police Station and then the criminal process would take its course.
On the Tshwane municipality situation, the municipality did not ask SAQA to conduct a verification of that qualification. We were asked by the Media to comment on the document and whether that qualification was registered and on what NQF level. It was up to the municipality to take action on that. The qualification was not registered on the NQF but when the Act comes into effect, the entity will have more teeth in terms of taking action on such matters in terms of who brings the issue to the police. The qualification is a very old qualification that was never registered on the NQF but the municipalities were still recognising those qualifications as valid. SAQA has made it clear that the qualification is not registered but if the employer accepts the qualification as it is, then at the moment SAQA cannot take any further action. However, the new NQF Amendment Act will change these circumstances.
The Chairperson sought clarity that if the qualification is not registered on the NQF level, the employer can still employ a person with that qualification. ‘What is the legal basis on that’ ‘What is the legal position on this is it requiring that all qualifications that are offered in this country must have an NQF level’? ‘And those that are not registered fall outside the framework’?
Mr Samuels said that the municipalities have for years been employing people with that qualification, and that legal issue is the one that must be sorted out. The NQF amendments now put in place the conditions.
The DHET Official said that there are qualifications that have international and national currency but were not registered within the NQF. Non-registered institutions cannot offer a registered qualification. So the unregistered qualification is not necessarily a fake or bogus qualification; for example, the Microsoft qualification, it has international and national standards that are sought after but it is not registered on the NQF. A fake qualification is when it has been offered and it is registered on the NQF, but the institution is not registered, that is a fake qualification. Then one gets a misrepresented qualification, but the relationship is that to offer a registered qualification, the institution must be registered but registered institutions can offer a qualification that is not registered.
Mr Yabo was perplexed about the matter because the communication was not very authentic and said that the Committee recently had the University of Limpopo that came to account on bogus qualification. There was an outcry in the public about this.
The Chairperson said that there was an expectation out there that all qualifications offered are registered with the SAQA and anything outside the recognition is not a legitimate qualification. Institutions should take qualifications that are registered with the SAQA.
The DHET official said that the University of Limpopo matter was based on accreditation to offer that qualification. The University was registered but it was not accredited to offer the course.
Mr Samuels said the short course was not registered at the NQF.
Source:
Content available under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 South Africa license.
Source: Higher Education, Science and Technology: Committee Meeting of the National Assembly held on the 16th of October 2019
Chairperson: Ms N Mkhatshwa (ANC)
