It is surprising that the proposed amendments to the Skills Development Act have elicited almost no public debate, despite the harsh criticism levelled at the sector education and training authorities (Setas) over the past year.
This could be partly due to the fact that the Setas have not wanted to attract too much attention by voicing public criticism.
The Department of Labour drafted the amendments to deal with problems emerging in some Setas since their inception in 2000. They deal largely with the management and control of the authorities through reporting and performance-related mechanisms.
The department is entitled to criticise underperforming Setas. But criticism should be balanced, so as not to create the public impression that all Setas are corrupt and incompetent.
Some of the authorities feel they have been subjected to unrealistic delivery expectations. International experience has shown that it takes many years after the introduction of skills legislation before results are seen.
There is also confusion over how delivery is measured. Are their performances to be gauged only by the amount of money paid back to companies in grants? What about the effectiveness of training and whether it fits the strategic direction of the sector and economy?
Their performances have been questioned because insufficient funds have been distributed back to companies that have paid the skills levy. Is this the Setas’ fault, or have many companies still not embraced the spirit and intention of the Act?
The proposed changes should not lead to over-regulation or more bureaucracy, otherwise they could stifle performance. Some degree of flexibility should be retained. The department should create an environment in which Setas can operate effectively, rather than working against them.
What seems to have been forgotten amid the negative publicity is that these institutions are governed by, and answer to, labour and business. Joint governance can critically hamper Setas’ performances if labour and business representatives lack a shared vision.
In the past training was a contested terrain, and how much this has changed is open to question. Building consensus between labour and business — a political process — takes time and could affect delivery.
This has been evident in the development of learnerships and the conversion from the old apprenticeship system. It is generally accepted that the development of learnerships takes time, because this is a stakeholder-driven process and a number of elements — including the development of unit standards and qualifications — must be in place for learners to be taken on.
Other obstacles include tensions between people who used to work for the old industry training boards and the “new kids on the block”. There needs to be greater cooperation and support among the Setas.
Time is required to build organisational depth and capacity among Seta staff, while plant-level training committees, a critical driver of skills development, have been slow in taking off.
The Manufacturing, Engineering and Related Services Seta (Merseta) believes the authorities should not operate in isolation from other sectoral forums such as bargaining councils. Through engagement, Setas can begin to play a more strategic role in the direction of the sectors they represent.
Accordingly, the Merseta has been in talks with the secretariat of the metal and engineering bargaining council to build a closer working relationship.
Ultimately, labour, the government and business believed Setas were the right vehicle to facilitate skills development. Are they now hanging them out to dry?
Jesse Maluleke is CEO of the Manufacturing, Engineering and Related Services Seta