STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT : Proposed skills development strategy and SETA landscape

1. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT: Proposed skills development strategy and SETA landscape

2. CONTENT • Background • Stakeholder engagement methodology • Feedback from commissions • Governance • Quality Assurance • Shared Services • Legal • Grants • Conclusion

3. BACKGROUND • The Minister of Education gazetted a document titled” Proposal for the New Skills Development Strategy (NSDS) and Sector Education and Training Authorities (SETA’s) landscape within the context of an integrated and Differentiated Post School Education and Training System (NSLP-2015)” • All SETA’s to engage with stakeholders and solicit inputs for submission in January 2016 • AgriSETA engaged with stakeholders from the Agricultural sector on 8 December 2015

4. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT METHODOLOGY • All stakeholders present received a resource pack that included the gazetted proposal; • The CEO of AgriSETA presented the proposal and inputs and comments were solicited from the audience; • All the stakeholders present were divided into 5 commissions with the objective of discussing the meaning and impact of the proposed document

5. Commisions • The following commissions were established: • Governance • Quality assurance • Shared services • Legal • Grants • The focus of the commissions were to discuss: • The current situation • What is working and what is not; • The proposed changes to the current scenario and the impact thereof; • The implications of the proposed landscape

6. Feedback from Commissions • Governance • The current situation • AgriSETA is governed by a semi-autonomous board appointed for a 5 year period • Oversight is done through various committees and sub committees ensuring compliance with the relevant legislation; • The Board reports annually to the minister through DHET and tables an annual report in parliament;

7. Governance cont. • Proposed changes • The Governance function be taken over in totality by DHET; • A perceived delineated role of industry in the functioning of SETA’s • The centralization of authority in the office of the minister • Defeating the separation of powers of the minister • Contradicts the letter and spirit of the Skills Development Act • Renders the SETA vulnerable to political abuse • A perceived widening gap between Industry and skills development.

8. Quality Assurance • Clarification is needed on the following: • Will the Quality Assurance function reside with the SETA or QCTO; • The budget proposed is not indicative of where the tasks of QA will be funded from; • The composition and functioning of Occupational teams and representatives is not clearly defined; • The QCTO and QA function in using SETA resources. What will the future of QA beyond 2018? • If the QCTO takes over QA function, what will happen to the employees?

9. Quality assurance cont. • What works well? • The Quality Assurance function established through SAQA is well defined and has worked well. • The turnaround time for certification is reasonable. • Quality assurance providers have a good relationship with the AgriSETA and the service is reasonably fast.

10. Quality Assurance cont. • What doesn’t work well? • The Articulation of current SETA qualifications to public institutions • The registration of qualifications takes long. • How will the QCTO increase their capacity because as it stands they lack capacity and they will not function any better on timing like the SETA? • Transitioning of the new QCTO system from SETA QA • No support from QCTO in execution of tasks delegated to QA. • OFO not so clear in terms of the occupational linkages and specialisations.

11. Support/shared services • What is working? • The current support functions are centralized and easy to manage. • There is clear accountability and accessibility • Effective communication (both internal and external) • There is proper control • What does not work? • Inadequate capacity to provide all support functions (contract management and supply chain and IT). • Constant outsourcing on certain functions (finance and IT )

12. Shared Services Cont. • Implications of Proposed Changes • Independence and decision making is removed from the SETAs to a shared service centre. • There is a high possibility of RED-TAPE which will reduce efficiency, result in role conflicts and the results thereof will be poor service delivery. • The cost implications thereof are huge (cost for running a shared service centre). • The current support systems will be redundant. • The implications of the proposed landscape • Skills delivery will be compromised as a result of the confusion, role conflict and red-tape. • Favouritism, one SETAB in the cluster favoured over others.

13. Legal • What is working? • Skills development is a product of consensus by Governing Business and Labour • The current skills development processes and the SETA landscape serves the Intended aims & purpose of Skills Development Act and Skills Levy Act • Workplace skills development • National skills priorities • Sector based “authority” on fund, skills planning • Constitutionally empowered • Ring fenced - decentralised nature of accumulated funds

14. Legal Cont. • What doesn’t work well? • The legal premise of the SETA system was built on solid grounds and it is still relevant to date. What remains a problem is interference by government and politics (capping of funds as a typical example). • Proposed changes • Complete removal of SETAs autonomy • Reduction of SETAs to advisory entities • Removal of skills planning functions from the sector involvement (sector committees and related) to top down approach by government

15. Legal Cont • The impact of the proposed changes • Non-alignment between skills needs of the sector and the delivery processes as a result of top down skills planning processes • Delayed implementation of discretionary processes due to red-tape • The impact of the proposed landscape to the sector • The employers will be reluctant to pay skills levy. • Skills delivery is be reduced

16. Grants • The Commission specifically looked into the comparison of the current funding model versus the proposed funding model. • What works well? • SETAs have authority to disburse Discretionary Grants. • Stakeholders have access to Discretionary Funds. • Administrative process for both Mandatory Grants and Discretionary Grants works well and funds are easily accessible. • The process of communication with the SETA is shorter and simpler.

17. Grants cont. What works well Cont. • The AgriSETA is responsive to sector training needs. • The AgriSETA staff has a good contextual understanding of the sector needs. • AgriSETA has sound financial management coupled with clean audits. • Current SETA structure promotes accountability for funds.

18. Grants cont. • What does not work? • Decrease in Mandatory Grants from 50% to 20%. • 20% is too little to encourage stakeholder to submit WSP and ATRs. • Disbursement process for Discretionary Grants: • Refunds take too long to be processed and employers have to carry training costs. • Employers are discouraged to take up learners in fear of the risk not to get funds.

19. Grants cont. • Impact of proposed changes • Access to funding for Discretionary will be restrictive, not certain of the time frames. • The proposed funding model is cumbersome: • 9.9% - application by SETABs for sector specific initiatives. • 39.6% - application by SETABs to NSF for PIVOTAL funds. • Sector focus / priorities will be diluted in favour of national needs. • Status of Advisory Boards will not be able to influence national needs.

20. Grants cont. • Can AgriSETA access funds from the Cluster funds or sector funds? • Will Cluster 3 deliver optimum benefits to the agricultural sector? • Being part of the cluster may impact AgriSETA’s good performance. • Centralisation / shared services may lead to job losses in the SETA. • Increased beurocracy may lead to more inefficiency.

21. Grants cont. • Introduction of the proposed model may lead to employers not being motivated to claim funds. • Relationship between the sector and the SETA will be impacted negatively due to increased beurocracy. • The proposed model will take away autonomy from levy paying companies (Integrity of the system may not be intact)

22. Conclusion • General comments • The DHET should keep the current SETA system and only deal with the bad SETAs. • Suggest that Mandatory Grant change from 20% to 50%. • DHET should only “fix what is broken” with minimal changes to the system. • Focus on building skills for workers. • Avoid putting forth other beurocracies.

23. THANK YOU