School Sports Policy Plan & World Cup feedback: Department of Sport and Recreation briefing

Sports, Arts and Culture

26 July 2010
Chairperson: Mr B Komphela (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Department of Sport and Recreation (SRSA) gave the Committee feedback on the World Cup, expressing thanks to all concerned, noting the comments that had been made by the FIFA President both on the successful arrangements and the tremendous hospitality shown. It was hoped that the success of the World Cup would flow over into a legacy of increased sports, including school sports and other areas. SRSA was planning to use the stadia by all types of sporting codes and associations, to prevent them from becoming white elephants. In regard to media comments about spending of parastatals on World Cup tickets, SRSA suggested that the Committee should call for comment from the various bodies as to how this spending was linked to the achievement of their aims and support of their business.

SRSA gave a presentation on school sport, outlining the various policy decisions, the action plans, the involvement of stakeholders, and cooperative arrangements between itself and the Department of Basic Education. Due to some miscommunication with the latter Department, it was not present to give a briefing to the Committee, although the Parliamentary Liaison Officer confirmed that there were cooperative arrangements in place, a strengthened relationship between the two departments, and that the approval and signature of the policy plans would be expedited. Meetings had been held with stakeholders, including the federations and associations, to try to align school codes and Federation programmes, and work was being done to finalise a development programme, with specific targets, for the forthcoming years. Directives had been given in regard to the various areas needing to be addressed at local and provincial levels. The school clusters, alignment of existing structures, ways of accessing and utilising all available funding and channelling resources more efficiently and the preparation of standardised codes were also discussed. The Department also indicated that it had made arrangements with National Lotteries whereby less well-resourced institutions, who had hitherto been unable to satisfy the criteria to access National Lotteries funding, would be partnered with and assisted by organisations or bodies that would make the applications for and receive funding on their behalf.

Members questioned whether it would not be preferable to provide standardised templates to schools so that they could make their own applications, and expressed their concerns that federations should not be permitted to “take over” so that there was little knowledge at school level about what had been paid out. There was a need to be vigilant. Members asked for further information about structures set up in Western Cape, Free State and Limpopo in particular, and were worried about an untenable situation that had arisen with lack of cooperation in KwaZulu Natal. Members asked if coaches who were also teachers could not be used at more than one school. Several Members expressed their concern that they were still not able to establish precisely what LoveLife was doing, nor the effect of the funding being given to it by various departments, and the Department suggested that the Committee should meet with this body to examine the concerns more closely. Several Members also expressed concerns about National Lotteries’ funding, the fact that less seemed to be made available for sport, the high rate of rejection, the fact that not all applications were considered timeously, and the concerns around conflicts of interest of certain Board members. Members asked for details about funding for school sports, and funding within a league system. Members also enquired about the difference between school sport and physical education in schools. They wanted more details on the sport strategy, but the Department answered that it could only present a final strategy in August, after full collaboration with all stakeholders and once stakeholders’ commitment was secured. Members were also interested in how sports assistants currently operated, and agreed that the SRSA needed to become more actively involved in the curriculum review process. Members thought that the SRSA should strive to achieve better uniformity between all sports structures. They asked about the progress of the White Paper and the blueprint for sport and sports development. Finally, Members noted that the SRSA had achieved an unqualified audit report for the past financial year, and requested that detailed follow-up reports be submitted in respect of the provinces and conditional grants.

Meeting report

Adoption of Committee programme
Chairperson's opening remarks
The Chairperson asked for the forthcoming programme to be adopted first.  He noted that on 3 August 2010 there would be a briefing by coaches of South Africa around players and performance of teams, coupled with interaction with agents on jobs within sport. The Chairperson mentioned a thought provoking email sent by him on 22 July 2010, giving some insight on the performance of the South African team during the World Cup.

On 10 August, the Committee would meet with the Director General of the Department of Sports and Recreation (SRSA) about the White Paper on Sports and Recreation. The Caster Semenya saga, and payment of those involved in the investigations would also receive consideration. He noted that the issue had not been handled correctly, but if this had not emerged, then the other problems within SA Athletics would not have surfaced. There had to be clarity on allegations around an interim committee running for nine years. This was not likely to be finalised within ten months by such a committee. He said that South African athletes were in disarray. They did not receive honorariums due to them after participating in events. A close eye would be kept on this. SA Athletics had a new sponsor because Nedbank had withdrawn its sponsorship and wanted surety on credibility. He was disturbed by media reports on comments made regarding Leonard Chuene and felt that this was not ethical whilst matters remained unresolved. Any irregularities discovered by the interim committee, other than the Caster Semenya matter, should have been taken up with the Department and reported to the Minister. The Chairperson stressed that the Committee was not accountable to the Minister and that a briefing that bypassed the Committee and went directly to the Minister was not acceptable. He also, however, noted that it appeared this had happened due to some confusion as to the channels that were followed, and an apology had been made.

On 17 August 2010 an important meeting would be held with the stadium managers and the Department of Public Works around the plan of the 2010 Soccer World Cup city stadia. The chairperson felt disturbed that teams needed to pay exorbitant fees to hire these stadia, which could result in them becoming white elephants. Tickets in the soccer league cost R20, not the R350 charged for rugby tickets, and 90 000 spectators would not raise the R1 million being charged to rent the stadium, let alone also pay security costs. It was important to meet with all the role players to discuss how the stadiums could be utilised beyond 2010. The Development Bank of Southern Africa had a bid document from the different host cities on this point.

The Chairperson said that the government had made some findings about the land at South African Football Association (SAFA) House and the land at the FNB stadium, belonging to Department of Public Works. Government was a shareholder in the development of stadia. He felt that if government had invested money in the stadia, then national government, not the municipality, should have the final say. The budget for the stadia was approved by this Portfolio Committee, who must be able to make decisions, especially when things were not going correctly. The Chairperson had requested a copy of the contract to check the obligations and relationships. There must be a positive message that these stadia must not become white elephants, as had happened in Korea and Japan where stadia were demolished after the World Cup.

On 31 August there would be a meeting with the Gauteng Cricket Board and the National Cricket Board, which would address the coup within the Gauteng Cricket Union, who could not be permitted to undermine the authority of the National Cricket Board. He had received a shocking letter from Mr Essop Pahad about the rampant racism taking place in this union.

Mr M Dikgacwi (ANC) requested that, on 17 August, representatives of both the SA Football Association (SAFA) and the SA Rugby Federation (SARFU) should be present.

The Chairperson agreed, seeing that both rugby and football should use the stadiums freely and effectively. He reiterated that the 10% ground tax needed to be paid, since the rugby and football federations ought to be allowed similar opportunities.

Mr G MacKenzie (COPE) suggested that SA Cricket Union also be present at the meeting of the 17 August 2010 as it too was utilising some of the new stadiums.

The Chairperson noted that SA Athletics should then also be represented at the meeting, although he did not feel it necessary to invite the interim committee.

The Committee adopted the programme with the changes suggested.

Overview of World Cup: Department of Sport and Recreation (SRSA) presentation
Mr Vernon Petersen, Director General, Department of Sport and Recreation, thanked the Committee for expressing its condolences when his father passed away.

He noted that this was the first meeting with the Committee after the Soccer World Cup and felt that he needed to praise the Portfolio Committee and all those involved for their hard work, oversight and their very meticulous way of calling people to account so that things happened correctly. He noted that a letter was received from FIFA’s Sepp Blatter congratulating all concerned on the success of the 2010 FIFA World Cup and saying that their hard work, passion and tireless commitment had been crucial in ensuring that the first FIFA World Cup to be held on the African continent would be remembered as a historic event. Amongst much other praise, Mr Blatter was grateful for the extraordinary hospitality.

Mr Petersen felt that the Committee should really feel proud since it had voted on the stadium development grants, provided oversight for the projects and delivery of the stadia, and would now be responsible for these facilities being used optimally. He also noted the importance of funding of the thousands of volunteers, the training and preparation that took place and the way in which they were attired. This Committee had also voted on organisational grants provided to host these events and the beautification of these cities. Most importantly, it had ensured that South Africans had access to the World Cup, by providing for a VAT-refund on tickets, and that FIFA must keep tickets in a reserve fund for Africans at a very low price, which had been unheard of elsewhere. In the past month R40 million rand had to be paid to FIFA, in accordance with the vote taken by this Committee.

The final reports reflecting what was done right and what was not done so well were being prepared. However, what was most significant was the really positive way in which South Africans came together, how the power of sport had united people and had built social cohesion. For a number of weeks SRSA had been working with the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC), looking more scientifically at the role of sport and mega events in nation-building and social cohesion. The HSRC had completed a first scoping exercise where it had tried to summarise what the scope should be of such research. It would soon be starting to interview different people in focus group discussions. SRSA would then need to capture that story properly, because ultimately the legacy of the World Cup was not only about stadia but about the people. In addition, there was a need to examine what the World Cup meant not only for football, but for the legacy of sport as a whole.

Mr Petersen said that, in regard to the recent media furore about the purchase of World Cup tickets, he felt that it was up to those parastatals who had purchased tickets to the World Cup to explain how their spending on tickets was linked to their business strategy. He had not bought any 2010 tickets. However, SRSA had organised a Local Organising Committee to deal with these matters. Ultimately, the SRSA was responsible for arrangements for the 2010 event. It did not, however, have full control over the allocation of tickets. There had been no need for the Sports Portfolio Committee to purchase tickets, knowing that, in terms of the agreement with FIFA, allocations of tickets could be made to stakeholders. However, the demand far outstripped the available tickets. He understood that there might be a dilemma with other stake holders who saw it as part of their business strategy, but reiterated that they must speak for themselves on that issue.

Mr M Dikgacwi (ANC) requested that copies of each of the finalised reports be made available to the Committee, since the final report would take the form of one comprehensive report would be drawn.

Mr Petersen said that the Inter-Ministerial Committee, which was chaired by the Deputy President, would report to Cabinet on the work of the Local Organising Committee (LOC). The terms of reference given to SRSA in respect of the report required a report-back on SRSA’s responsibilities of co-ordinating the seventeen guarantees, as well as areas impacting on mobilisation, which accounted for his comment on the impact on nation building and social cohesion. There were therefore different reports, and these would speak to different areas of responsibility and obligations. SRSA’s own report would be tabled before this Committee, in the form of a comprehensive report.

School Sports
The Chairperson said that there were schools in the country that were not providing sufficient levels of sport to the learners. Some were leaning towards offering just one particular sporting activity, perhaps either rugby or football, depending on the coach’s expertise, but this was not acceptable at school level. Children should be able to express themselves in all forms of sport at school level, from karate to athletics to team sport. The Committee was determined to ensure that schools would become a place where children could participate and grow in the sport of their choice.

The Chairperson had been impressed by the first presentation, asking that the documents be refined and a conclusion reached on the arguments presented. He was looking forward to today’s briefing that should provide a clear and unified school sports programme in all provinces, and certainty as to what events were taking place at what schools. Checks would be done to establish whether children were involved in school sports, whether the schools had sufficient equipment and whether the children playing in inter-provincial tournaments were being paid for by SRSA.

The Chairperson felt that National sports events should not be regarded as “everyday events” but should be very structured, and said that in the next few years, there should be a tournament, drawing from all provinces, once or twice a year, focusing on a particular sport at a time, rather than attempting to cover everything. Once the major codes were developed, then there would be a broadening of focus to other underdeveloped codes. This was the way to target and deal effectively with sport. He said that provinces would be having an annual Schools Football Tournament, culminating in provincial tournaments, where the province could produce a team that could play with other provinces in a national tournament. The Chairperson noted that he had asked a group of people to draw up a sports programme, that this should be made available to the Director General so that he could decide whether the Department could benefit from their resources and, if so, implement it.

The Chairperson said that school sports had been a long-running issue, and he was confident that it would be resolved. He had told the media that he could not comment at the moment, other than on events such as Craven Week events. He mentioned the importance of sponsorship of the various age groups. It was suggested that the under 12s form part of the school sports league and not an outside league. The Chairperson knew there were 4 900 Level 2 coaches in football, which meant that every school could have a coach; if they were prepared to volunteer their services, their travelling expenses could be met, and this would make an impact on football. He said that in rugby there were already people going through skills development programmes and more than 7 000 people were on level one, meaning that 7 000 different schools could benefit. He urged the Committee to pursue school sport aggressively.

Mr Petersen agreed that this matter had been long running, and noted that on 4 May 2010 the Department had shared with the Committee its comments on progress and ideas as to what was being done in the area of basic education and what was contained in the policy proposal, as well as the structural arrangements being put in place, to give effect to revitalising school sports. He thought that everyone had a clear understanding that the policies would be put to the relevant structures like MinMEC and Cabinet, and that in the meantime there would be a process of developing sectors and specific strategies to give effect to that. He said that SRSA, Department of Basic Education (DBE) and other stakeholders must lift out a specific strategy that spoke to the policy framework.

Mr Petersen felt that a real opportunity would be lost if the hype of the World Cup was not used to propel school sports forward in many different ways. He commended the Committee for engaging with SAFA about its role, to ensure that resources were put to ensuring that development happened in school sport. Similarly, there was a need to engage with the other federations to build on the renewed interest in sport amongst young people. SRSA, for its part, had asked relevant sporting communities to come up with a post-2020 mobilisation effort, to take some of these new found heroes in football and athletics to the schools, to encourage pupils to get closer to them and encourage the athletes to motivate and urge school children to become active and to excel in the field of sport. The final touches were being put to a concept document that he was working on, with SAFA and Athletics SA, to launch a campaign during August. The main challenge was to keep the momentum going. Quite a bit of work had taken place between 4 May and today. He noted that Ms Naidoo would report further on the Sport and Recreation School Sport Strategy.

Further than the strategy, he noted that it was necessary to ensure that SRSA and provinces commenced a Basic Education strategy with other critical partners, who could include the federations, the Olympic Committee (SASCOC), non-government organisations (NGOs) operating in the field of school sport, the United School Sports Association of South Africa (USSASA) and the Sports Trust. They would all look towards an integrated plan for 2014. UK Sports had been quite successful in turning around and revitalising school sports in the United Kingdom of Great Britain (UK) and was very keen to assist and provide the expertise of the UK Sport Trust to help achieve this objective in South Africa. Other partners had also expressed a strong desire to help, and several meetings had involved, for instance, highly-placed Ministers from Germany, and the German Minister for Development and Cooperation, who had offered assistance because of the success of the World Cup. Their proposal was awaited. The Germans people had given large amounts of money to the World Cup 2010 Legacy, to be utilised for youth development through sport, youth  life skills development through sport, and other initiatives. In the absence of any independent organisation that could facilitate the development of school sport, the South African Sports Trust had been called into discussions and it was encouraging partnerships to help poorer schools to access resources, in order that school sport really happen. The Sports Trust was very keen to focus on school sport as a major thrust of its work.

There had been major debate in May around the lack of resources for school sport. This was taken up with the National Lotteries, particularly their sport and recreation distribution agency. It was agreed and was already being implemented that NGOs or other organisations would be used to partner with poorer schools  who could not access Lotto funding, either because they did not qualify for funding or lacked experience in completing the applications. He said that part of the qualification for funding involved having an audited financial report for a number of years, and many poor schools did not spend money on this. However, there was no reason why a creditable organisation with an audit track record should not act on behalf of such schools, and therefore Lotto had adjusted its rules to make it possible for intermediary organisations to access funds on behalf of poorer schools, to ensure that capacity was built and that funding did reach rural and previously disadvantaged schools.

The second area of agreement was the clustering approach, and schools were now already being clustered, through the Mass Participation Programme (MPP). It was agreed to resource the schools that appeared to be at the core of such clusters and to provide them with the necessary support to assist the schools around them.

The third area of agreement was the funding of tournaments. In the past there was always a struggle to fund provincial or national tournaments, resulting either in reducing the number of tournaments, the number of codes participating, or restricting the age groups. SRSA had stressed to the National Lotteries that not only SRSA’s limited resources should be used to ensure that tournaments could happen, but also that the federations should be able to access funds for provincial, national and international tournaments. The foundations for such resourcing had been laid and the ideas around school sport could now start to take shape.

Once the plan for school sport for 2014 had been drawn, SRSA wanted to ensure that funding would not be a stumbling block. Whilst SRSA would not approach National Treasury (NT) for money in the forthcoming financial year, it did want NT to look at a long-range funding plan, and he had already asked that they engage with this. NT had called together the SRSA and Department of Basic Education (DBE) to unpack what was in the provincial budgets, and to translate this into desired outputs for the sectors, and identify the gaps and implications for future funding. Although some of the reporting at this stage might seem repetitive, he would like to highlight work in progress.

Ms Rohini Naidoo, Chief Director: School Sport, SRSA, acknowledged the commitment of the Portfolio Committee to school sports issues. Although there had not been much time from May until now, she repeated that strategic discussions had taken place to take the process forward.

The draft policy presented on 4 May had subsequently been tabled at the different structures within SRSA and DBE, and was currently with the Minister of Basic Education for signature and endorsement. The document had been shared with all federations through SASCOC and own meetings, some comments had been received and more were awaited. A parallel process would prepare the ground for the implementation of the policy. The DBE had also held discussions with the provincial structures, schools sports structures and sporting federations, who had been brought together, as far as possible, over three days. The focus of these discussions had been the 2011 program, budgetary issues, and the practical implications around cancellations, non-delivery and similar risks. The opportunity was also taken to look at all the sectors consolidating programmes. The Director-General had indicated that it was not so much a case of budgetary constraints as looking at where the money was situated, and trying to consolidate it to achieve the maximum impact, rather than repeating “double-dipping” that had happened in the past in code tournaments. There was also a re-think about the league structures, how these could be revitalised and made competitive, and how to work with the talent identification and scientific support groups as well.

Ms Naidoo noted that there were a number of skills that could be sourced and people with these skills had been invited to meetings, where it was agreed that they should now work jointly with federations in developing joint consolidated plans for schools. The three areas of focus were skills development, establishment of a league structure, and talent identification and support. Assistance was already been given to those who needed it and the school groups had agreed that whatever funding was available, from the down-sizing on national tournaments, should be used here. Its success would largely be based on the support of the federations and the skills of people working towards the tournaments. It was also agreed that this process would give support to USSASA.

While the school sport structures were being formed, the code groupings and federations had agreed that Service Level Agreements (SLAs) would be drawn on behalf of the school code structures, since that was where money could be transferred. Meetings had been held with all 15 codes, with only rugby needing still to be completed. SAFA would look at the age group tournaments, with girls’ football and disabled access being major areas of focus. USSASA and SAFA must not “double-dip” but should consolidate all work and utilise the more than 4 000 coaches, most of whom seemed to be teachers who were very active in sport, including at community level, and come up with a plan how to assist through community and cluster groups.

In regard to cluster groups, Ms Naidoo said that work through the MPP was taking place in about 3 200 schools, with Cluster Co-ordinators and Sports Assistants in place.  The blueprint for the school sports programme application was currently being reviewed, to decide how many clusters could be formed from the schools. SRSA had engaged with LoveLife, who also had 1 500 cluster facilitators. If consolidation took place, and effective work was done, then 2 000 clusters could be launched over the next three years, to support the school sport structures.

School Sport Structures
Ms Naidoo then reported on the school sport structures. Free State, Western Cape and Limpopo had functioning sport structures from local up to provincial level. Eastern Cape had not set up an umbrella structure yet, although it had local and district structures. All the provinces so far had aligned their structures to the Education District, from the local level. KwaZulu Natal had some problems between the provincial SRSA and DBE and the MEC for sport in that province had requested discussions with the MEC for education. Northern Cape and North West Province had set up discussions with federations to facilitate the process of establishing structures. Northern Cape had a really good proposal, considering its limited funding, but was attempting to  restructure to serve the schools and community. Gauteng was in the process of aligning existing structures to the draft policy document, but its local level structures were in operation. Mpumalanga had set up 67 circuit structures and was in the process of developing a constitution for its school sport structure, although it had not yet set up the provincial structure.

SRSA was putting together a diary and programme to undertake monitoring visits to all the provinces to validate their reports and examine alignment of the processes around the country.

Ms Naidoo reminded the Committee that Mr Petersen had earlier discussed issues around Lotto funding. Lotto and the Sports Trust were working with school sports to put together a programme focussing on facilities and equipment, particularly the Section 20 schools and disadvantaged schools, and sharing of facilities. The MPP was being considered in the disadvantaged areas.  

Ms Naidoo reiterated that new funding was not being sought, but there were attempts to consolidate all possible funding. SRSA was able to account fully for the grants to provinces and how these were being used. The voted funding at provincial level was being analysed to establish exactly what money was available for school sports and how the school sports strategic objectives could be met. This had not previously been done. Meetings were held with NGOs and LoveLife, as also with Mr Price, who was undertaking the Red Cap Education Programme, and developmental work in sport, piloting this in Port Elizabeth. Businesses seemed keen to invest in sport now that there was some structure in place, and SRSA would have to present its strategy to interested business partners.

The full and consolidated calendar of events and plans would be made available before end August, and would include all proposals from the federations.  The 2012 – 2014 calendar would also be drawn.

Department of Basic Education (DBE) comment
Mr Randall van der Heef, Parliamentary Liaison Officer, Department of Basic Education, submitted an apology on behalf of the Director General of Basic Education. There had been miscommunication on dates, and he was only informed of the Committee’s meeting this morning.

Mr van der Heef was inspired by the Chairperson’s opening remarks, as well as by the passion shown by the Chairperson and the other Committee Members regarding sport. He agreed that school sport had long been a “hot potato” passed between SRSA and DBE. He commended the officials from SRSA on their report and confirmed that there was now much improved co-operation and understanding on school sport issues.

He said that he would ensure that the Minister of Basic Education expedited the perusal and signature of the policy document, and said that public comment would be sought on a joint agreed document from the Minister of Basic Education and the Minister of Sport and Recreation.

He was concerned with the comment about problems in KwaZulu Natal, but said that it seemed clear where these problems emanated. He would refer back to the DBE any issues that the Committee wished to comment upon, or have improved or expedited.

Mr Dikgacwi felt that instead of using NGOs to assist particular schools with their application for funding from the National Lotteries, it would preferable to provide a standard template to these schools, both to make this process easier and to divert the money for use by the schools themselves. He also expressed his concerns about the involvement of federations. He said that, for instance, clubs who were assisted by federations were often not even aware that monies were paid out. These gaps must be closed.

Mr Petersen said that the credibility of these other organisations was important, and mentioned the Sports Trust, with whom specific agreements were made. The National Lotteries (also referred to as Lotto) was asked to simplify its forms. However, the issue did not only revolve around the forms and applications, but around other requirements, such as audited financial statements being required for a number of years. If assistance was not granted through intermediary organisations, the funding would not be made available because the requirements would not be deemed to be met. It was also necessary to look at how the funding was being used and to have some system that would give a full account of how it had been used. It was important that vigilance be maintained, to avoid any intermediary organisation skimming off any funds to which it was not entitled.

Mr Petersen agreed that it was dangerous if the situation outlined in respect of clubs and federations did become a practice. He wanted to insist that national federations take responsibility for the individual codes, so that school sports would be developed as an equal part of the federations’ responsibilities. This would mean that the federations must ensure that tournaments at provincial and national level were successful. There might be a possibility of federations accessing funds from Lotto, to really provide for children to compete at both provincial and national levels. Individual schools and clubs still also needed to access funds for themselves, and not through the Sports Trust or intermediary organizations.

Mr Dikgacwi requested that Ms Naidoo provide information regarding structures that had been set up in Limpopo, Free State and the Western Cape, to enable Members to check the structures and verify that they were being implemented properly. It appeared that some issues of racism had surfaced and that some of the schools may be left out of these programmes. It was necessary to know who was involved and which schools were affected.

Mr Dikgacwi commented that the coaches who were teachers could be used in schools where there were no teachers at all.

Ms Naidoo felt that this comment was fair and needed to be looked at. She agreed that it was necessary to establish from which schools these coaches were drawn, and whether they could be used in other schools.

Mr Dikgacwi asked for more information on LoveLife, where it was working, and what it was doing.

An ANC Member wanted to know whether there were any time frames regarding the school sport structures, particularly in respect of the issues highlighted in KwaZulu Natal.

Ms Naidoo mentioned that there were time frames. She had indicated that by the end of this financial year structures should be set in place, up to provincial level, and national structures would be set in place by the end of the next financial year.

Mr Mackenzie (COPE) questioned the high rate of rejections by National Lotteries in respect of funding applications. He asked how Mr Petersen, who served on the Lotteries Board, felt about these rejections and whether there was not a conflict of interest.

Mr Petersen indicated that Government did not access funding from the Lotteries and therefore there was no conflict of interest. All accessing of funding was done through the distribution agencies and other structures and there did not appear to be any contradiction. However, he shared the concerns regarding the high rate of rejection. The reason behind partnering poorly resourced schools and other organisations was done precisely to try to reduce the rejection rate, since most of the rejections arose through the information not being supplied as requested, or the criteria not being met.

The Chairperson supported the comments that there was no conflict with Mr Petersen being a board member of the National Lotteries. However, he had been informed about rampant conflicts of interest, with almost all Lotto Board Members belonging to SASCOC, and said that members of the federations were sitting on the board, and were biased towards applications from their own federation. The funds were not being directed to where they were most needed. Matters needed to be done in an ethical way; currently the way of working was not right. Members of the Board should not be player and referee together. Nominations to the Board were an issue. Some of the Lotto Board members were only there to benefit from the 10% they were receiving for assisting with completion of the application forms. Although the intention of the Lotteries Board had originally been to benefit sport, in fact sport was benefiting little at this stage. The concept had changed, and National Lotteries were looking at building new structures, as well as renovating existing facilities. He commented that in fact Members of Parliament were ideally placed to inform the Lotteries Boards where the real needs lay, and should point out the lack of sporting facilities in certain areas. The Lotteries Board did not follow the State of the Nation Address priorities. Matjiesfontein was an example of upliftment that was facilitated where funds were made available. The Chairperson expressed his shock that only 150 out of the 4 000 applications received in one year were adjudicated upon.

Mr Petersen just wished to clarify that he was not a member of the Lotteries Board, but he was a member o the National Lotteries’ Sport and Recreation Distribution Agency. He agreed with the Chairperson’s concern around conflict of interest should a person be both player and referee. He assured the Chairperson that there were safeguards in place.

Mr MacKenzie asked whether DBE allowed any extra funding for coaches at schools, and whether it was  investing in this programme, in conjunction with school sports.

Ms Naidoo explained that the funding for school sports lay with the provinces and not with the national department. She said that, in respect of the coaches and schools operating as a league system, SRSA had clarified that school sports was to be regarded as an extra-curricula activity falling outside the time structured for academic subjects. However, this seemed to be causing many problems in schools. SRSA would ideally like to see at least one to two hours extra curricula activity, per child, per school and stressed what the benefits could be. She requested that, since transport became a huge problem after hours, the question of Saturday leagues could be considered. However, if Saturday leagues took place, then teachers could not be held accountable, because the timing took it outside the activity of school sport. The coaches, clubs and federations, however, could be held accountable. Many of the federations were currently working on Saturdays. If a Saturday league did happen, then the governing body of the school would be responsible for the provision of sport in the schools, must account for it, and get parents or community volunteers to support children during the Saturday leagues.

Mr van der Heef indicated that he was satisfied with Ms Naidoo's answer to Mr MacKenzie's question but would elaborate further with the Committee on this point, as he did not, at the moment, have his full answer prepared.

Mr Dikgacwi asked for clarity regarding LoveLife and school sport strategy.

Mr J Van Der Linde (DA) felt that LoveLife should only receive monies for the specific areas of work it undertook, and that finances for sport should be separate. He did not feel that the services of Love Life were beneficial.

Ms Naidoo suggested that LoveLife should be invited to make a presentation to the Committee. This organisation was working closely with school sports, to align their programs with those of SRSA. She admitted that there had been some problems over the last few years with the accountability and way of running the programmes and work by LoveLife.

Mr Petersen agreed that a presentation by LoveLife would be useful on the extent to which it was aligning itself with the Department. Love Life was grappling with a question posed during the last meeting, in regard to money allocated from the SRSA budget. It could answer the Committee’s questions on LoveLife structures, assess how its groundbreaking methods were working, and explain how it used sport as a way of teaching life skills, particularly the fight against AIDS and in favour of strengthening of sport.

Mr Dikgacwi expressed his frustration over the lack of visible evidence as to what work was actually being done by LoveLife, commenting that the only real reference to them appeared on billboards, not on the ground.

Mr Petersen said this concern was expressed previously. He could not really say too much about it now, but reiterated that it would be useful if the Committee could question LoveLife directly on what it had done to take up the challenges presented during the last meeting, both in terms of accounting for what they were doing on the ground, and in terms of integrating their programmes to advance the course of sport and recreation in South Africa.

The Chairperson wanted to avoid embarrassment when doing the budget. He reminded the Committee that the new budget would be done in terms of the Money Bills Amendment Procedure and Related Matters Act, and the Committee would have to agree on elements of the new budget to be presented. The necessary checks and balances must be in place. The Committee would be reluctant to pass the budget if it was not satisfied with the position of LoveLife. He asked how the output of LoveLife services would be measured. He was concerned that when all the allocations from SRSA, and the Departments of Social Development, Health and Education to LoveLife were added together, they exceeded the budget for sport, and emphasised that LoveLife was receiving money from all these departments. He thought that LoveLife should not be running tournaments, but instead should be running awareness campaigns within the tournaments organised already by the departments..

Ms Naidoo noted the question concerning strategy. She asked that the Committee give her until the end of August to respond fully, since SRSA was still waiting on strategy reports to come through from the federations. If their proposals were not included, then the federations would be unlikely to implement the strategy properly. She noted that there would be stakeholder meetings in August, during which the commitment of all stakeholders should be obtained, and then the document would be finalised.

Mr Petersen added that he viewed the strategy as a two-phase process. Firstly, in his capacity as Director General, he had to take responsibility for drawing a coherent response to sport and recreation, including the challenges of school sport. Secondly, he had to facilitate an integrated strategy, by use of equal partnerships, and take advantage of the opportunities offered by UK Sport, the German Development Corporation and the Sports Trust to drive that comprehensive integrated approach. He, like Ms Naidoo, also looked forward to broad commitment and ownership of the programmes.|

Mr MacKenzie asked where physical education (PE) appeared in the context of the changing education system. He asked if PE would be aligned to the new sports document, and how that could take place.

Mr van der Linde felt that better training could be provided for sports assistants, and that there should also be better co-ordination He noted that in Beaufort West schools, a sports assistant had nothing to work with, and there was no infrastructure. He asked how the sport structures fitted into the school curriculum and felt that teachers should be involved, as had previously happened, when at least two teachers at the school were trained in the area of physical education.

Mr Petersen said that the curriculum review process could possibly be expanded upon by the Chairperson. Until now, the component in basic education related to the organisation of mega-events, such as events for schools and inter-schools. There had not yet been thorough engagement on the curriculum and school sports. It was, however, recognised that there was a need for SRSA to enter that debate, and become part of the process of curriculum review, to ensure that PE happened in the desired way. He would still need to engage with DBE on these issues.

Ms Naidoo added that her division had been dealing with the issue of Sports Assistants. There was a need to review the process. Currently, sports assistants were volunteers, received a small stipend and served only two to three hours per day. Their work basically revolved around co-ordination and taking care of the equipment. She said that when there was a review of the process, and the setting up of clusters, there would be a need to address issues such as training.

The Chairperson asked Ms Naidoo whether co-ordination and benchmarks had been checked and standardised with regard to the structures that she had addressed, in Free State, Limpopo and Western Cape. He asked how the Free State school sports was organised and what the issues were there.

The Chairperson indicated that the Committee would not allow the school sport structure to run as it was at present, and would engage in vigorous debate with the DBE. He felt that school sport would be a basis for development and the feeding ground to rekindle the interest of children in sport, to enable them to engage in diversity of sport later in their lives. He noted that a decision had been taken to include PE as part of the curriculum, so that every child at every school should be encouraged to move his or her body. He thought school sport should rest squarely with SRSA. PE formed part of the DBE’s responsibilities. He thought that having 35 to 45 minutes of school sport prior to the start of the academic timetable would rekindle interest in sport.

The Chairperson felt that SRSA must look at achieving uniformity of sports structures, applying one set of rules to all schools in all provinces.

The Chairperson, in regard to assistance offered by the UK and German governments, was reminded that the governments of Japan and Korea had no problem in meeting the expenses of the South African delegations and wondered about the “paralysis” of the South African government in displaying equal generosity. He explained that paying for visitors from other nations would build relationships. During the World Cup, the SABC had clearly indicated what could be done when money was properly spent; their presenters immaculate and eloquent. The Kenako village was also impressive and people appreciated it.

The Chairperson was satisfied with the clustering of schools.

The Chairperson asked whether a blueprint for sport existed, containing a sports development programme,  and said that the funding for sport should be governed by this policy document. Such a document would be instrumental in having an effective sporting system in the country and would be a guiding document towards healthy sport.

Mr Petersen said that the answer to whether there was a blueprint was both yes and no. He would not want the Committee to postpone any engagement around the White Paper, pointing out that this work was already far advanced. The White Paper would introduce broad policy parameters in the different areas of sport, and that was the important precondition to having the blue print that all seemed to agree would be desirable. The national sports plan would flow out of the White Paper. Instructions had been given that work should start on this immediately. It was also necessary to look at how the Department was being organised and structured to give effect to such a national sports plan, which should then really become the blueprint. Once that national sports plan was in place, all the parties, including National Lotteries, federations and other macro structures should act in concert to make that plan a reality.

The Chairperson requested that SRSA provide detailed follow up reports from the provinces. These must include information on the conditional grants given to these provinces and how they were utilised. The Auditor-General required these reports from all provinces to establish what these grants were yielding. He commented that some documents were not reaching the Department at all, whilst others were submitted late, and provinces were not prioritising what was required by the National Department. There needed to be more efficiency and accountability within the provincial offices. He added that work ethics and accountability of the provinces would be assessed by Members, as they travelled from one province to another. The question of overlapping “territories” in certain provinces must be addressed. He stressed that the problems arising in KwaZulu Natal must be resolved and should not recur.

Mr Petersen requested more information on the last points, so that the matter could be properly addressed.

Mr Petersen said that he had met with the Auditor-General on the previous day. SRSA, for the first time in six years, had achieved an unqualified audit opinion. He was determined to run a clean ship and to have good governance. When it came to the issue of the conditional grants, he noted that, because SRSA was such a small department, there was often room for misunderstanding. Operations would be done through facilitators, and it was often not appreciated that the process of getting the work done happened at the level of other provinces or federations. There were huge amounts involved in conditional grants sent through provinces. Various structures had been put in place. He would report back in this regard.

Committee business: adoption of outstanding minutes
Minutes of the previous meeting were tabled and adopted, without any amendments.

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.

Share this page: