House debates Bill for qualifications board [1]
Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 10:26. Updated on Thursday, May 1, 2014 - 21:03.
From the House, Minute No. 39, Tuesday September 7
- Confusion over the role of a Review Committee, to review the Board or to review the Schools to ascertain if they have upheld standards set by the Board.
- Confusion over the refunding of money after the licence of a school was cancelled. Some argued that the Board should refund the school and other argued that the Schools shoulc refund the students.
- The Bill for the establishment of a Qualification and Accreditation Board was passed.
Speaker - he urged the members to move forward with their debate on the Bill and to avoid repeating themselves. He also reminded Cabinet Ministers to start tabling their Annual Reports to the House.
The Legislature was dissolved and the Chairman of the Whole House Committee took his chair.
Chairman - called to proceeding to continue with the Bill for the formation of the Accreditation and Qualification Board. He said that they were up to Clause 18 of Section 4.
'Isileli Pulu - he wanted to know the involvement of the Minister of Education in the formation of a Review committee, which he was not too sure was to be established by the Board or by the Minister.
Minister of Education - said that the three-member Review Committee would be made up of a Chairperson, which could be the Chairman of the Board, or a new Chairman to be appointed by the Minister of Education. He said that if the Chairman of the Board were to Chair the Review Committee then two new members would have to be appointed.
Deputy Prime Minister - said that the clause was confusing, because it was not clear who was to appoint the three-member Review Committee, and what they were supposed to be reviewing. He said that the clause was very vague.
Minister of Education - said that the Board should be responsible for the selection of members to the Committee to review what it has been doing.
Dr Feleti Sevele - pointed that the Review Committee according to the Bill was to review the Schools not the Board. He said that the Board set the standard for the schools and the Review Committee was to review the schools to see if they upheld the standard that was set by the Board. He said that the Review Committee was not to Review the Board.
Minister of Education - said that he would go along with whatever the committee decided. He said that the Review Committee would review the Board and the classrooms and other things and if that was the case then maybe the review should be carried out by the Board itself.
Dr Feleti Sevele - said that unfortunately the two ministers who were directly involved in the drafting of the Bill, the former Attorney General and the Minister of Police were no longer in the House. He moved for the Bill to be withdrawn for some revision before it was reintroduced into the House.
Fineasi Funaki - did not think there was anything obscure or wrong with the Bill, he disagreed with the motion to withdraw the Bill.
Deputy Prime Minister - He disagreed with Fineasi Funaki, and believed that the Review Committee was to review the schools and not the Board. He said that something was missing from the Clause and it created confusion.
Minister of Justice - said that Clause 17 was very clear. He suggested for members to read the Bill properly.
'Etuate Lavulavu - told the House of what he knew about the procedure and how schools were reviewed overseas, and there were five diferent kinds of review teams.
Chairman - said that what the member was talking about would be presented to the House in a later date following the passing of the Bill.
Prime Minister - raised a point that the House should not just impose things from overseas on the country, but the approach should be to bring in only what is good for Tonga.
'Etuate Lavulavu - moved for the Bill to be withdrawn for further improvement.
'Akilisi Pohiva - suggested for the Bill to be returned to the Select Committee, where 'Etuate was a member and he presumed that the member raised his concern in the Committee.
'Etuate Lavulavu - said that he was not allowed to speak at the meeting so he told them that he would speak in the House.
'Akilisi Pohiva - moved for the Bill to be returned to the Select Committee, he said that there was an impasse and they could not move forward.
Noble Tu'ivakano - pointed out that there was a new Attorney General. He suggested for the Bill to be returned to Crown Law for further amendment.
Noble Fakatulolo - said that an appeal committee was established under Clause 21, and it was clearly spelled out that the members of the Appeal Committee was to be appointed by the Minister of Education. He said that it was more appropriate for the members to be elected by the Board, and if that was the case then sub-clause 2 of clause 18 should read the same as sub-clause 2 of clause 21.
Minister of Justice - he said that the concern by 'Etuate Lavulavu about the right to appeal was clearly spelled out under Clause 20. He pleaded for members to read the Bill properly.
Deputy Prime Minister - he supported Noble Fakatulolo, and that the Bill should be specific on who to appoint the members of the Committee, the Minister of Education or the Board.
Minister of Justice - suggested for the Deputy Prime Minister to read Clauses 17, 18, 19 and 20. He would then understand that Education Providers appoint the members of the committee.
Trevor Guttenbeil - corrected the Minister of Justice when he said that it was the Education Providers who appoint the committee. He said that that was not what was stated in the Bill. He proposed an amendment to sub-clause 2 of Clause 18 to read ... The review team shall be appointed by the Board as follows.
Minister of Justice - wanted to know if the Member wanted to delete the involvement of the Education Providers as it was stated in sub-clause 1 of Clause 17, and left for the Minister and the Board to elect the committee. He said that the intention of the committee was to carry out internal review of the schools.
Trevor Guttenbeil - pointed out that sub clauses to Claue 17 further clarify that members of the committee should be appointed from various sectors of the community, and he pointed out that the review team is to review the school and not the Accreditation and Qualification Board.
Chairman - called for votes on the amendment to sub clause 2 of clause 18. It was rejected 11-9. For it were, 'Akilisi Pohiva, Dr Feleti Sevele, 'Isileli Pulu, Trevor Guttenbeil, 'Etuate Lavulavu, Noble Fotofili, Noble Fakatulolo, Noble Vaha'I, and Noble Tu'ivakano.
'Etuate Lavulavu - wanted to make a comment on Clause 18.
Chairman - reminded the member that they have already passed Clause 18.
'Etuate Lavulavu - objected that they have passed the amendment but not the clause.
Chairman - said that Clause 19 has been moved and seconded.
Dr Feleti Sevele - said that Clause 19 clashes with what they have just passed. He said that those who voted for the amendment believed that the Review Committee was to review the board, but under Clause 19 it was to review the schools.
He also felt that a period of three months that was given to a school to comply with a recommendation that was given by the board was too short. He pointed out that most private schools, particularly technical institutes were not properly staffed and if they were pushed to have better teachers, it would take them more than three months to recruit new staff. He suggested 12 months.
Minister of Education - said that 12 was too long. He suggested for three months to remain, but leave it for the chairman of the board to decide if there was a special need.
Dr Feleti Sevele - withdrew his motion, but he asked for clarification of Sub-clause 5 of clause 19 which talked about refunding. He wanted to know who was refunding whom.
Minister of Education - he said that if a school was to be closed down it must refund the school fees that have been paid by students.
Dr Feleti Sevele - said that the clause was talking about the Board refunding others, and not schools refunding students.
Minister of Education - said that when the Board cancelled the registration of a school, it then has to refund the schools.
Dr Feleti Sevele - said if that was the case then the wording of the clause was wrong. He proposed an amendment to read and the Board shall refund.
Trevor Guttenbeil - said that the refund was by schools, if it was closed down, to students who have paid their school fees. He said that if the registration of a school was cancelled it was the same as a vehicle owner paid for a warrant of fitness test, and if he failed the test there was no refund, but for the owner to go and fix his vehicle.
Fineasi Funaki - said that the clause was very clear, he said that in the case of a cancellation of a licence, the board refund the school and the school refund the students.
Minister of Education - asked to let him check at the 3.00pm break and then reported back.
Chairman - called for proceeding to continue with Clause 20 and leave Clause 19 to be clarified by the Minister of Education after 3 pm.
'Etuate Lavulavu - said that clause 19 deal with the right of schools to appeal because of dissatisfaction over a board decision. He suggested that before schools actually got to the stage of appealing, there should be a probation period.
Noble Tu'ivakano - said that there was no need for a probation period, because warning has been given.
Minister of Education - returned after 3pm and told the House that the refund was by the schools to students who have paid their fees, and not from the Board to the school as some were led to believe.
'Etuate Lavulavu - with regards to the composition of the Appeal Committee, he objected to the fact that the Minister of Education appointed the chairman of the committee.
'Akilisi Pohiva - move for the right to appoint the chairman to remain with the Minister.
Chairman - called for on the Bill. It was carried 14-0.