Kickboxing SA briefed the Committee on its current challenges around recognition. The history of the organisation was given, noting that it was formally established in 2005, and was officially recognised by the Department of Sports and Recreation (SRSA). Later in the same year, SASCOC was established, but Kickboxing SA had never managed to have its application to this body recognised. Firstly, SASCOC claimed that it should have made application under the amateur body MASA (which Kickboxing SA thought was incorrect, since it was a professional body). Secondly, despite assurances in 2006 that the matter was being considered, no resolution was reached. Thirdly, a breakaway group, consisting of promoters, trainers and managers was later formed, was suspended by Kickboxing SA, but this group had applied to SASCOC for recognition and it was granted. Despite discussions with SASCOC, the Department and the Minister, no finality on the registration of this body as professionals, and recognition of Kickboxing SA, was ever reached. This breakaway group had been organising fights, and Kickboxing SA was concerned that several health and safety directives were being ignored, including allowing a 16 year old to fight a 22 year old. Members asked for confirmation of the status of other groups or clubs, commented that the Department had been tardy in dealing with the issue, and ruled that a full answer on the questions raised must be provided to the Committee, both from the Department and SASCOC, by the end of the month.
The Department of Basic Education (DBE) and the Department of Sports and Recreation (SRSA) gave a presentation on the current status of school sport. They had signed a collaboration framework for the coordination and management of school sport, which gave rise to the establishment of the National Coordinating Committee of School Sports. The DBE was responsible for Physical Education, Extra-mural School Sport activities, Inter-school leagues- and schools up to district level. SRSA was responsible for entry level into sport and recreation, including competitive sport in schools from provincial to international level.
Some of the problems with school sports were outlined as lack of predictability in the system, some schools did not offer School Sport, poor educator commitment, and allocation of time, money, equipment and community support, as well as learners having to pay to compete. The mission was to organise school sport within an inclusive and integrated school sport programme for all learners, irrespective of ability. The objectives were set out. The policy still had to resolve issues of governance, management and coordination, as well as the roles of the stakeholders and to get clarity on funding. The steps taken so far were fully outlined, and it was noted that the policy should be finalised by November 2010. In respect of physical education, a plan would be rolled out from September, and learning and teaching materials had been developed. SRSA said that one of the main challenges lay in whether the federations could give support, and other challenges were identified as school readiness, stakeholders’ involvement, the absence of facilities and resources. The participation in competitive events and talent identification programmes were described. There had been a problem with the 2009 summer games. The School Sport Mass Participation Programme was launched in 2006 and had included more than 4 000 schools, although some did not have the funds to continue with it once the grant had ceased.
Members were generally pleased that the two departments were now working together, but several commented that the planning had taken far too long and was not showing tangible enough results. An organising body was needed, and some felt that SASCOC should not be involved. They suggested that Lotto funding be sought, and that businesses should be partnered. There was a desperate need to ensure that facilities were made available, and Members wanted to hear the departments’ plans for schools in rural areas who had no close schools with whom to partner. They wondered if much could be done to promote local government involvement, and were worried about capacity. Members also asked how the implementation of the objectives would be measured, why funding was allocated to the major codes, instead of promoting the smaller codes, how much of the budget was allocated for amateur sport and how progressive the provinces were, as there was insufficient transformation. All agreed that the challenges must be dealt with, especially the funding, and that monitoring was vital.
Chairperson’s opening remarks
The Chairperson noted that he had been phoned by a City Press Journalist, who had read to him three letters written by people complaining about the Department of Sport and Recreation (SRSA). The journalist had written an article alleging that Mr Komphela had “agreed with the complaint” about the Minister and the way he was dealing with the issue, but had also said that the Committee was complimenting the Minister. The Chairperson pointed out that the article contained distortions of the facts. The Committee and the Chairperson were satisfied with the way in which the Minister was acting, and the allegations of discontent with the Minister were not correct.
He noted that a certain Mr Borat had often sent letters of complaint. The Transformation Action Committee was supposed to listen to federations and find out what the challenges were. The Committee would have to discuss the matter and see how, together, they would be able to resolve them.
The Chairperson noted that a letter had recently been received from Kickboxing SA, alleging that they had aired their grievances but had not been able to get a hearing with the Minister. He asked the delegation from Kickboxing SA to outline its challenges.
Kickboxing SA Briefing
Mr Mosito Mphaphathi, President, Kickboxing SA and Mr Eddie Cave, Technical Director, Kickboxing SA, briefed the Committee on the challenges that Kickboxing SA was facing. Kickboxing SA was formally established in 2005 with recognition by the Department. This was the same year that SASCOC was established. In the same year, guided by the legal department of the Department of Sports and Recreation (SRSA), under Adv Boschoff, Kickboxing SA made an application to SASCOC, but this was turned down. When the reasons were requested, Kickboxing SA was told it should have applied under MASA, the karate structure, which was also the amateur mother body. Mr. Mphaphathi explained in writing that the amateur body, MASA, must not be confused with the professional body, Kickboxing SA. The professional body was in fact the one that should be the mother structure. No response was received. Later in 2005 a further letter was written to SASCOC. SASCOC responded in 2006 saying that it would respond, but nothing further was done.
In 2007 SRSA advised Kickboxing SA to elect a permanent structure. The election was held in Durban. A full Executive was elected, including the President, Chief Executive Officer, Technical Director, Treasurer and Public Relations Officer.
In 2008, an issue arouse when some members organised an underground event. Mr Mphaphathi explained that if a promoter wanted to put up a fight he had to apply for sanctioning so that the professional body could ensure that the matching of fighters was proper, to avoid unnecessary injuries. The safety of artists, venue and money was important and the professional body needed to ensure also that no one was underpaid. The
underground fighters operated without controls, and promoters and managers would do their own thing. They were exploiting fighters, not looking after safety issues, and there were no doctors or medical checks. The relevant trainers and managers were called in and were suspended, after admitting to competing in the illegal event. Hearings were planned.
However, the same three members then applied for professional status with SASCOC under MASA, and they were given recognition as a professional body in January 2009. Mr Mphaphathi queried this with the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of SASCOC. SASCOC then said that these three people were members of MAFA and were entitled to register as professionals. Mr Mphaphathi disagreed, saying they were members of Kickboxing SA. He also noted that they had been suspended, and asked what criteria were used to deem them as professionals. He noted that since MASA was not a professional body, its members could not run as professionals. A meeting was recommended to resolve the issue.
Mr Mphaphathi requested SASCOC to co ordinate the meeting. That day, he got a SMS from the President of the Amateur Kickboxing body, stating that he, the very person with whom Kickboxing SA was in dispute, would be chairing the meeting. He wrote to SASCOC requesting a meeting with it, but received a response that he should have attended the meeting with the amateur body.
Mr Mphaphathi argued he could not have attended that meeting because of the conflicting interests, and therefore the dispute should be addressed by SASCOC. Kickboxing SA and the President of SASCOC met on Thursday. SASCOC claimed that there was no problem, because they did not deal with the professional body, and only the Department did so. Mr Mphaphathi asked for that in writing. Although it was agreed that this would be done, the President later changed his mind, saying that he did not want to interfere with the professional body, and that SASCOC had no jurisdiction to do professional boxing.
That week there was a professional tournament in Pretoria. The newly formed body was sanctioned for the event, by SASCOC, despite SASCOC having claimed that they had nothing to do with the event and did not deal with the professionals.
Mr Mphaphathi raised this matter several times with the Minister and wrote several letters to the Director General of SRSA, and the Minister. Kickboxing SA had meetings with the Department, where it was stated that SASCOC was in the wrong, but the issue never took off the ground. SASCOC said it would not engage with the issue because it was a legal matter for the Department to resolve. There had been no response from the Minister’s office except to say that the matter had been handed over to the legal division.
Mr Mphaphathi was concerned because the safety of fighters was not being considered by this new body. There had been a number of complaints about this body, because it consisted of promoters, trainers and managers. A fighter might be set up to fight in Durban and Johannesburg on the same day, which was exploitation. The new body was not neutral. The worst scenario was at the March tournament in Durban where a 16 year old was pitted against a 22 year old. The promoters were putting on their own shows, employing their own referees and judges, and running their own body.
Mr Mphaphathi challenged SASCOC on the issue of transformation within the body. The entire executive of MASA was white, and the amateur body was the same, showing no transformation since its inception ten years ago. SASCOC was not interested in transforming sports in South Africa. When SASCOC was asked if it had received minutes of the meeting or the attendance register at which the group allegedly became professional, SASCOC responded that this was not its concern and it was not prepared to offer a platform for complaint. Mr Mphaphathi said that if the issue went back to SASCOC it would never be resolved.
Mr Mphaphathi concluded by stressing that Kickboxing SA was the professional structure and there was no need for another structure. The professional body could not run under the amateur body, since it was correctly the mother body, under whom the amateur body fell. They were then accountable to SASCOC not MASA.
Mr Cave added that Kickboxing SA was recognised by SRSA, yet it had effectively let this body down by never backing it. The democratically elected body of Kickboxing SA should be recognised. The new body consisted of promoters, managers and trainers, all of whom had a vested interest in making money out of the fighters, not organising the sport. They wanted to run their own show, not answer to a body looking after the welfare of fighters and enforcing the rules. This was wrong.
The Chairperson requested that the letters in question be put on record. The letter saying that the Minister was not interested in dealing with the matter also needed to be on record. Clarity on the presentation was needed to formulate the way forward.
The Chairperson noted that this was not the first time that the SRSA had not shown a strong will in dealing with people on the outside. It was a bad reflection on the Department. The Chairperson was aggrieved at having effectively been “ambushed” by City Press on a matter he did not know about. The Department was duty bound to respond to people, and it was quite incorrect that there had been no response from 2007.
Ms Sumayaa Khan, Chief Operations Officer, Department of Sport and Recreation South Africa, asked for background information on the issue. She stated she would look at the correspondence and respond to the Director General, Minister, Chairperson, Committee and Kickboxing SA in a week.
Mr D Lee (DA) said this was a serious matter. He asked when kickboxing was started in South Africa. There were many organisations who claimed to have started kick boxing, and many bodies and people who represented the sport. He cautioned that the Committee should not be talking only to one group but should be speaking to all those who claimed to represent the sport. He noted that some group had been elected to represent South Africa. He said that all the players must be brought together and the Committee should ensure that all was in order.
Mr M Dikgacwi (ANC) said this was not a happy situation. Kickboxing did not start in 2005 but it was organised under one umbrella in that year. The Department should do something different this time. The leadership of Kickboxing SA was being questioned and indirectly undermined. However, its own organisation was not quite in order, as although it had been given recognition, a new structure was also being acknowledged. He asked about the structure and funding, and the current status. He enquired about the relationship with affiliates and with SASCOC. Finally, he asked if Kickboxing SA could outline its successes as well as its complaints. He asked if it had a constitution.
The Chairperson responded that SRSA had recognised the body and the new mandate.
Mr L Suka (ANC) was worried that the application to SASCOC by Kickboxing SA was still not approved. He asked to have all parties present when dealing with this matter.
Mr C Frolick (ANC) asked for more information on SASCOC, all federations that were part of SASCOC, the Department’s interaction with entities, and a memo stating what all the issues were.
Mr Mphaphathi responded by clarifying the issue of the structures in the country. He stated there were only two bodies - one amateur and one professional. Those bodies were formally established through the requirements of SRSA. There were minutes and an attendance record kept. Professional and amateur bodies did not run together. Professionals were promoted by promoters and money was involved, whereas amateurs were fighting for trophies. The people who had visited Mr Lee were from the amateur body. Members had clubs, and he cautioned that there should not be confusion between clubs and organisations. Only one organisation was recognised.
Mr Mphaphathi said that when Kickboxing SA’s board was established in 2005, all role players were involved and invited to participate in the structure. All provinces were represented. There was also inclusion of the technical team and medical team. He applied twice, and this was on record, to SASCOC and was declined but the failure to be registered was due to SASCOC wanting Kickboxing SA to register under MASA. SASCOC was considering the application, and was still considering it to this day. However, the new body was recognised straight away.
He noted that funds were not given from the Department. When the promoters promoted an event, they would contribute a certain fee, which was put to administration. The constitution of the body was very clear. The election was constitutional and the term was not over yet.
The Chairperson said that the Department had been too slow in responding. The correspondence had been sent to him. He noted that the Director General unfortunately had tendered his apologies and could not be at this meeting.
The Chairperson commented that the splinter group who had sanctioned the fight between a 22 year old and 14 year old was scary; injuries could well result and the matter must be contained as soon as possible.
Mr Lee asked if the names of the people who organised the fight could be given.
The Chairperson added that the club, place and promoter information should be given.
Mr Mphaphathi said it was a cage fight, which was in any event illegal for under 18s, and it was done at a professional event.
The Chairperson requested that Ms Khan deal with this matter as fast as possible, because of the risk of injury. SRSA had approved and recognised Kickboxing SA long before the advent of SASCOC. He wanted to know why SASCOC had refused to give recognition. Surely the letter of recognition merely required that they do due diligence and approve the structure. He did not understand how SASCOC could have a different view from the Department, as the Department was ultimately responsible.
Mr Mphaphathi interjected and confirmed this recognition was given before SASCOC was established. The Sports Commission recognised professional kickboxing. The problem was given to the Sports Commission, and when SASCOC took over, it was told of the previous problem, but did not want to hear of it.
The Chairperson asked for the list of federations from the Department, how the Department interacted with them and what their status was insofar as SASCOC was concerned.
The Chairperson stated that SASCOC corresponded with Kickboxing SA in bad faith. Kickboxing requested recognition from the Sports Commission. SASCOC had refused to communicate with Kickboxing SA but recognised the splinter group. SASCOC was dividing sport in the country. He requested that the Department must communicate with Kickboxing SA and assist this structure.
In answer to the suggestions by Members that other bodies be consulted, the Chairperson said that the Committee would deal only with the recognised groups, and it was clear that there were two; one for amateur and one for professional, under whom the clubs must fall. The Committee was dealing with Kickboxing SA as a recognised professional structure. He insisted that SASCOC must respond as to why the application of Kickboxing SA was declined, and Ms Khan must respond to the Committee, by the end of the month. It seemed that an injustice had occurred between the Sports Commission and SASCOC.
Chairperson’s opening remarks
The Chairperson commented that SASCOC must deal with high performance. SASCOC dealing with schools and sports councils was completely wrong. SASCOC prepared teams for international purposes. The Chairperson had heard this case and handed it over to the Department.
The Chairperson then spoke of the directive given by the President at the conference in Polokwane, on the question of school sport and evaluating the state of the sport municipal infrastructure grant. He noted that basic facilities were lacking and this caused an injustice. In the past, 444 basic structures were built every year but he questioned how many had been built in the last 7 years. If the grants were not being used, they must be returned to the Department. The Municipal Infrastructure Grant (MIG) and sports programmes had amalgamated. The Committee needed to review the position of the grant. The Chairperson and Mr Lee were not seeing eye to eye on issues of transformation. Mr Lee said it must start on school level, but the Chairperson disagreed, and felt that it was incorrect that one woman was heading sport in nine provinces.
The Chairperson said that there could not be differences on these issues. Transformation must include sports administrators and referees. He wanted a holistic approach to transformation, resulting in real change. There was a profound document and press conference where a revolution in sport was called for, but it never happened.
The Chairperson said that there had been steps back in development of school sport. There seemed to be lack of interest or will in the Department of Education and SRSA, and this was very serious. The Department of Education and Department of Sport and Recreation must not get involved in turf wars. The provincial Departments of Education had a responsibility for physical education and the Departments of Sport Arts and Culture had a responsibility to Wednesday sport. He wanted the departments to inform the Committee on questions of who would be paying for the educators at school level, why in some schools there was no teacher employed to deal with sports, why some schools, but not others, had sports councils, and a dedicated teacher allocated to deal with Wednesday sport. A school sports body must be formed. There was no school sports, except in Model C schools. The Minister was impressed on 28 March by the launch of the Free State School Sport, which was driven by teachers.
Mr Dikgacwi took over as Acting Chairperson.
Department of Basic Education presentation
Mr Themba Kojana, Chief Director, Department of Basic Education, gave a presentation that she noted had been put together by the two departments: Department of Basic Education (DBE) and SRSA. The critical issue was the school sport policy. The two departments needed to assess a road map for the development of that policy. The two departments signed a collaboration framework for the coordination and management of school sport, which gave rise to the establishment of the National Coordinating Committee of School Sports. The teachers unions and school governing bodies sat in to sanction the event, as well as the programme on school sport. The respective provincial departments also entered into similar frameworks regarding the management and coordination of school sport.
Before 2005 there were “issues of turf” as to where school sport should be located, but this issue had long passed. Both departments initiated a process of writing a school sport policy aimed at providing a sustained strategic direction in the governance and management of school sport in South Africa. The draft policy document was circulated to and commented upon the school governing bodies, teachers unions, school sport codes, SASCOC and Sport Federations. The Department of Education was responsible for Physical Education, Extra-mural School Sport activities, Inter-school leagues- and schools up to district level. SRSA was responsible for entry level into sport and recreation, including competitive sport in schools from provincial to international level.
Mr Kojana said that the problem was the slow demise of school sport: The problems included lack of predictability in the system, and some schools did not offer School Sport. There was a problem of educator commitment. Allocating time for PE and School Sport was also a problem. Learners were expected to pay to compete in some competitive programme events. Other challenges were the lack of facilities at schools and/or in the community, lack of equipment in schools – especially in disadvantaged areas, lack of a system for talent identification, retention and support, and the fact that schools and clubs functioned independently so there was no continuity.
Mr Kojana stated that the mission was to ensure that school sport was organised within an inclusive and integrated school sport programme for all learners, irrespective of ability. It would promote healthy life-practices, mutual respect and career opportunities. The mission was to mobilise communities to strengthen the culture of learning and teaching in schools through their direct involvement in school sport activities. There was a wish to promote competitive, mass based recreational and extra-mural school sport activities.
The school sport objectives were to use school sport to develop functional and vibrant institutions of learning and centres of community life, and to ensure and increase access to facilities and school sport programmes. They also aimed to build and sustain the development of all learners to participate in school sport programmes. Educators, coaches, and community volunteers were to deliver quality school sport programmes, schools were to offer school sport programmes and infrastructure for school sport activities. The identification of talented learners was slow, but was also named as an objective.
The policy needed to resolve issues of governance, management and coordination. Clarity was needed on the roles of stakeholders. He said there could be no village without a federation. Funding was a key issue, and in fact summer games had had to be suspended for lack of funding. The policy on the issue of funding must be urgently resolved. There was also a need to agree on the roles of federations and SASCOC in school sport and the programme location.
Mr Kojana noted that the respective Deputy Ministers of Sport and Recreation and Basic Education had met. They agreed that a Joint MinMEC must be convened to ensure that collaboration on school sport took place at all levels. The school sport policy needed to be finalised as a matter of urgency. NACOC needed to be co-chaired by the Directors-General, and should explore the possibility of establishing a School Sport Trust to mobilise resources for sustaining school sport programmes. In the United Kingdom, for instance, the lotto had the responsibility to fund school sports. South Africa should do the same. The draft school sport policy document was presented in April 2010 for noting and would be tabled at HEDCOM on 10 May 2010 for consideration and approval. Following that, there would be presentations to MinMECs, a presentation to the Parliamentary Committees (hopefully joint presentations) and finalisation of the draft for public comment, either at a national seminar or convention. The policy should be finalised by November 2010.
The plans were to ensure predictability and restore confidence. A circular would be sent out to all schools reaffirming the need for all schools to offer school sport. The approved and funded comprehensive school sport calendar was to be sent to schools by end October. There was a plan to initiate and/or sustain implementation of PE in all schools. There was a need for the departments to ensure implementation across the system and then review time allocations in two years. There was a need to ensure that learners were playing sport with dignity. The plans aimed to provide resources and equipment to schools, and to expand partnerships aimed at supporting schools, creating framework agreements on sharing of facilities. A Joint School Sport Policy Framework should be in place by the end of financial year.
He noted that in regard to the curriculum for physical education, the DBE, in partnership with the provinces, would be rolling out a national Physical Education plan from September 2009. Learning and Teaching Support Materials were developed and distributed to all provinces. Five day training workshops were held successfully in the Eastern Cape, North West, Free State and Limpopo. Eastern Cape and Gauteng discussed this policy in depth in the presence of the MECs, where the disabled, school governing bodies and teaching unions also contributed.
Department of Sports and Recreation presentation
Ms R Naidoo, Chief Director, SRSA, gave a presentation, saying that she was hoping for sustained solutions and support as an outcome of this meeting. She agreed that SRSA wanted to move away from matters of turf battles, and get to what was the role of SRSA in school sport. SRSA’s mandate was to create an enabling environment to ensure that as many South Africans as possible had access to sport and recreation activities, especially those from disadvantaged communities. SRSA coordinated, supported, funded, monitored and reported on mass based school sport activities and national school sport competitions. The policy was to consolidate the work.
SRSA viewed school sport as an effective vehicle to achieve several impacts. Although talent identification was being facilitated, this was presently done via an old style of operation, and needed to move to a more focused process, also working together with businesses. SRSA had been promoting athlete retention, and saw schools as a vehicle for mass participation. SRSA facilitated transformation in school sport although the support groups were needed; school sport was the starting point for transformation. The biggest challenges were whether the federations had the capacity to support and deliver.
The Collaboration Agreement of 2005 prescribed a model, whose principle was agreed upon, but the implementation was not agreed between the stakeholders. Some of the biggest issues in sport included school readiness, slow demise of sport in school, stakeholders moving out, absence of facilities and resources. Six levels were agreed upon. DBE, Provincial Education Departments, the school and school governing bodies would deal with inter curricular activities. Inter-school programmes needed to be built upon and sustained. The problems included how to support learners, and, for instance, transport them to games, how to structure the learning programmes so that they had access to facilities to roll out the Wednesday programme. In Kwa-Zulu Natal the business plan for the mass participation programme included initiating matches. In the Western Cape, after-school programes were supported by the provincial Department of Sports. Between regions, there was a focus on provincial level of competitive sport, and the national inter provincial groups were supported by SRSA. SASCOC’s role was to prepare talented athletes on an international level. Resources – both financial and human - were needed to implement this model.
She then described participation in National/Regional (COSSASA) competitive events. Talent identification and development for learners who display different levels of skills and ability in a particular sporting discipline was presented in an age specific context. Schools participated at provincial and national levels. From 2006/2007, 13 870 learners participated in the competitive national events and COSSASA events. In 2007/2008, 12 327 athletes were participating at national level, while the figures for 2008/2009 were 13 370 and yet in 2009/2010, 8 500 learners. Questions must be asked why there was such variance in figures, and why were events not held in following years.
In 2009/2010, the difficulties were around the summer games, resources and the challenge for the national departments to coordinate as event organisers and funders. Questions were asked about the risk involved, and the issues of 3 700 people needing accommodation, food and transport, and how fraud would be prevented. The scheduling of the Summer Games must be reviewed to accommodate school exams and closure of service providers by mid December. Problems arose from the summer games In the future hostels must be used. This should not happen again.
The SRSA School Sport Mass Participation Programme (SSMPP) was launched in 2006, with the specific aim of delivering sport to seriously disadvantaged schools, largely in rural areas. To date more than 4 000 schools in nine provinces had been included in the programme. Schools, however, had to take ownership for the growth and development of the programme once the grant had ended. This posed a challenge for many schools that did not have the financial and material resources to sustain the programme. If the sports coordinator were to leave, the programme would die. There was a need to look at developing sustainable solutions. Other role players were needed to support this program. The SSMPP’s primary focus was on six codes of sport: athletics, netball, volleyball, cricket, rugby and soccer.
The socio-economic profile of schools was illustrated in a baseline study by the University of Johannesburg in 2008. In a high income school R798 was spent on a learner per year whilst in a low income school R7 was spent. This illustrated the financial constraints of low income schools and their huge challenge in sustaining the programme.
The Model of Delivery for SSMPP was illustrated, starting from the National Treasury grants to SRSA, who transferred funds to provinces, who would then develop a business plan and submit monthly and quarterly reports to SRSA and Treasury. SRSA conducted monitoring and evaluations and visited provinces quarterly.
Schools in the SSMPP received sport equipment, attire, coaching programmes, a Sports Assistant to facilitate the sports programme within the school, and a Cluster Coordinator to manage the league programme for schools in the cluster. Sports Assistants were volunteers who received a stipend. There were some labour issues. In the absence of teachers undertaking sport, the sports assistant was doing a full day’s work. Therefore money is going into sustaining the sports assistants. Provinces faced challenges of how many educators they could train in the six codes. The aims were not met because of funding.
There were very few cluster coordinators per province. The number of athletes registered was outlined. Budget was the biggest issue. Statistics were shown of the School Sport Mass Participation grant, and it was noted that many of the athletes were now participating in competitive tournaments at National level. The figures demonstrated that, with support in initiating sport programmes in schools, the numbers of learners that did participate in mass based sporting activities increased by more than 100% per year.
The benefits of SSMPP were outlined. These included opportunities to participate in different codes of sport. Schools received equipment in the identified codes of sport. Intra-cluster and inter-cluster festivals were now replaced by the inter school leagues. Other benefits included improved health, the recognition of the school in the programme, with consequent new enrolments, the creation of a new sporting culture within the school, and career opportunities for Sports Assistants and cluster coordinators, as well as coaching in Education training. Sports Assistants and Cluster Coordinators were trained annually in event management, sports administration, first aid and HIV.
The budget was split between school sport, legacy and Siyadlala. 100 million was given in 2010 and was distributed to all provinces no grant money was kept.
Mr Lee was happy to see the two departments present and working together. However, he commented that school sport was happening in a vacuum, since there was not one body organising school sport, and he asked when this would happen. An organising body was needed. He asked what was the role of SASCOC, and complained of its interference in school sport, which he thought should be run by school people, without SASCOC having any controlling role.
Mr Lee asked if assistants and co-ordinators were volunteers, and how much their stipend would cost the Department.
He noted that there was a huge rollover in the Lotto, and there was a huge need to fund sports. He noted that if there was no sports facility, all plans would be futile, no matter how good the sports people. He recommended that, if not already done, the departments must approach the Lotto.
Mr Suka said it was crucial to talk about sport and education. In the absence of a sports policy that governed sports nothing could be done, and he asked if such a policy existed. It was an indictment that departments were moving at a snail’s pace on sport and physical education. In 2005 a memorandum was signed, but five years later there was still talk of “policy”. There was a serious vacuum. He asked why it had taken so long to reach this point and what the policy developers and legal people were doing. There was a lack of enthusiasm. The MIG grant was a serious matter, and he asked what was not being implemented, and if the necessary steps had been taken. He wondered if the right environment had been created yet. He noted that the Committee had decided to meet quarterly with the Department, and he asked whether the list requested by Mr Frolick for a list in the constituencies had been provided.
Mr Dikgacwi asked about the monthly and quarterly reports and wondered if there was sufficient capacity. He asked what informed the allocation of funds, since it still seemed that rich provinces were getting larger amounts than provinces like Northern Cape.
The Chairperson answered that the allocation of funds was by population distribution, but it had recently been decided that poverty levels should be taken into account.
Mr G MacKenzie (COPE) noted that many fine objectives had been stated, but he wanted to know how these would be measured. He also commented on the lapse of time since formulation of the plans. They key was transformation. If learners did not have facilities then they would not succeed. There was a need for infrastructure and facilities to be put in place. In Richards Bay there were 648 schools with only one development officer trying to sustain them, which was impossible. There was a total lack of facilities. He proposed partnerships with business people to address the backlog of infrastructure development. He noted that real funding must be allocated and asked how much of the budget was allocated for school sport.
Mr J van der Linde (DA) said that facilities, structure, functioning, Lotto funding and the lack of working policy and sports assistants were the issues. He asked what control was being exercised and what facilities were available to help people to do their jobs, such as equipment, or help in rural areas. He commented that money going to rural areas was not being spent properly. From 2009, two coaches per term were supposed to be introduced. He asked how far this had gone. He noted that Physical Education had started in 2005, but training would begin only in 2011. The Departments should not do away with PE as a subject; that was the start of the problem with school sport. Teachers should be trained and should arrange school sport. He said that another problem was the six codes: he wanted to know why the focus was on codes with money, and what was happening to the smaller codes.
Mr Frolick gave credit to the departments for their work. He said the MPSSP needed to fuse, with quality and sufficient officials in place. SASSA was tournament driven, but showed problems of transparency and corruption, and drive was needed to oversee the programme. Thousands of schools were involved. Government could not monitor them all. He pointed out that with 150 different sporting codes, it was necessary to prioritise the funding. He asked what the federations were doing on the ground, and what proportion of the money was directed to the development programme. Little of the budget was diverted into the amateur side. He also wanted to know how progressive the provinces were; money had been spent but there was still no transformation. He agreed that specifics were needed, to enable members to study the situation on the ground.
Mr J McGluwa (ID) stated he was emotionally and politically angry. He wanted the minutes to be given to the Deputy Minister. He wanted details of the oversight and monitoring process. He noted that he was busy with a programme where schools were producing players of national soccer club quality. He said that hope of success lay with implementation, oversight and monitoring. School sport was currently messed up and the way forward must be found. He asked for submission to the Department of ten names for assistance.
The Chairperson said that the Minister was happy about school sport, which was a huge priority. The issue of school sport had been on the agenda for many years. The Memorandum of Understanding gave hope, but this two page document never really took off. . There would be public hearings around school sport for all provinces, but that was not conclusive. He said that the main challenges must be dealt with so that school sport would flourish. Academia and sport were linked. He agreed that something must be done in rural areas where there were no facilities. There were no model C schools close to certain rural schools, and he wanted to hear what would be done to ensure that facilities would be available for these schools.
He noted that in Port Elizabeth the DBE was trying to do more. School Governing bodies should deal with governance and policy, but leave sport for the school councils. The model of funding for quintiles 1 to 3 found that SRSA had sometimes delivered equipment, but there were no facilities. Basic facilities were critical and deliberate assistance was needed.
Mr Kojana said the DBE was dealing with monitoring at a national level and would develop a mechanism to deal with monitoring at lower levels.
The Chairperson noted that getting municipalities to play a role in sports would be a tall order because they had huge problems with finance. He felt positive that the two departments were working together with the same will and direction.
The meeting was adjourned.
- We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting
Download as PDF
You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.
See detailed instructions for your browser here.