MARIE SUKERS | Bela bill will devastate schools, especially small rural ones

Unfortunately, the opinion piece by Elleck Nchabeleng MP “Opposition to Bela bill not informed by reality nor merit” is in itself not informed by reality or merit.

Nchabeleng carefully curates his list of facts to hide the truth as well as the hidden impacts of certain clauses in the Basic Education Laws Amendment (Bela) Bill.

He tells us… “The National Council of Provinces has supported the Basic Education Laws Amendment (Bela) Bill with an 8-1 split”. What he conveniently doesn’t tell the reader is that the eight ANC provinces, who voted in favour of the bill, did so against the will of the majority of South Africans.

In parliament’s portfolio committee on basic education, the ANC was too scared to report on the public’s opinion of this bill. In the National Council of Provinces (NCOP), for example, more than 80% of people in the Northern Cape made submissions in rejection of the bill – yet the ANC in this province, just like in many others, took marching orders from Luthuli House and voted to adopt it, thus overriding the will of the people.

South Africans have overwhelmingly rejected this bill – as admitted by parliament legal services. This is largely because of several clauses whose impacts are hidden. These clauses will make the jobs of officials easier but will in turn devastate schools and the lives of pupils attending them.

Furthermore, this bill will allow for the closure of small schools without the MEC having to give any reasons to the affected community. A process will have to be followed, but as we experienced under apartheid, no reasons for an official’s decision will need to be given.

It will be up to the community to demand reasons under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, and they will need expensive legal representation. All that is needed to fix this is that all schools, irrespective of size, be treated the same in the bill.

The refusal to do this is doubly disappointing because while the NCOP select committee under Nchabeleng's leadership made concessions to the powerful Fedsas (Federation of Governing Bodies of SA Schools) and teachers' union SAOU on school admission and language policy, small rural schools – who have no one to speak for them – did not receive the same consideration. This anti-poor measure will impact South Africans in rural areas disproportionately.

Communities are also deeply concerned that the minister of basic education will use the regulatory powers she is asking for in respect of the management of pupil pregnancy to turn the department of basic education’s school abortion policy into a school abortion law.

Currently, the policy allows for pupils as young as 12 to be referred for abortions without parental consent. The African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP) shares the concerns of many South Africans who fear that this will be used to cover up the rape of pupils by teachers.

The ACDP’s focus is on prevention, and we believe the best form of prevention is a policy of free aftercare for all. The children of the unemployed, working-poor, low-income earners, and any family that needs assistance, must be as safe as the children of those who can afford aftercare.

One of the most serious is the decision taken in Gauteng to silence children who wanted to make oral submissions on the bill. To not allow children to have their voice heard, on a matter that primarily affects them, is a clear violation of children's constitutional rights, as enshrined in the Children’s Act.

Fortunately, the bill will now have to go back to the National Assembly – where the ACDP will once again fight for our small rural schools and girl pupils.

• Sukers is ACDP's member of parliament