Staff presentation on - Roles and Responsibilities: Content Advisor; Analysis of Budget Vote 20: SRSA, Researcher

Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Committee Section staff gave presentations on the roles and responsibilities of the Committee, the national budget process and an analysis of Budget Vote 20 for the Department of Sports and Recreation (SRSA). A legacy analysis of the sector was also provided. These presentations highlighted several pertinent issues on which it was suggested that questions be put to the Department when it briefed the Committee. These included expenditure on the Mass Participation Programme (MPP) of SRSA over the period 2008/09-2011/12, as the return on investment on the programme seemed fairly insignificant, compared to the population size of South Africa. It was also indicated that numbers reported were not backed up with breakdowns either of participants or codes. It was suggested that the programme on Facilities Coordination had seemed underfunded for some time, and clarity was needed on changes of names in programmes. Members were concerned at the high percentage of under-spending, despite the fact that SRSA was actually asking for more funding, and the possible correlation between vacancies at senior level and lack of performance. An analysis was needed of the legacy from the 2010 FIFA World Cup. Questions also needed to be asked on the budgetary allocations for Boxing SA and loveLife, which received funding also from other departments and sources, provincial allocations and spending, consultancies and insufficient transformation. The Committee Section confirmed that in other countries the Minister of Sport was permitted to intervene to ensure that sports activities were in line with what the countries wanted to achieve, and there was a need for amending legislation to prevent certain undesirable practices in sponsorships.

The Department of Sports and Recreation confined this briefing to programmes and budgeted amounts not covered in earlier briefings. The SRSA was due to meet shortly with National Treasury and could update the budget figures after that, and Members were also asked to make any input to amplify the strategic and performance plans prior to that meeting. The Chairperson asked that, upfront, the presentation must cover under-spending in particular. SRSA and National Treasury (NT) were engaging at present on determination of funding priorities. SRSA explained that in 2012 it had begun to review its structure to realign it to the National Sport and Recreation Plan (NSRP) and there had, from then to now, been a moratorium on further recruitments whilst the structure review and skills audit were completed, and SRSA had now begun to align staff to posts and recruit for any additional staff needed. In the meantime, allocations for recruitments had been used on other programmes. SRSA described its “Active Nation” programme, a replacement for the previous “Winning Nation” programme, which was dependent on provinces, as a major driver was school sport, but said that it was reluctant to release money without knowing it would be used properly. SRSA had done an audit of sports and found that six provinces were not performing well. Explanations were given on under and over-spending, and SRSA maintained that sometimes there were genuine savings, for instance where SRSA budgeted for larger contingents than actually arrived.

Members asked about loveLife, and what it did for sport, requested an update on Caster Semenya, and whether SRSA had reached its disability quota. They urged that all challenges in the way of sport development progress needed to be addressed, even if they impacted multiple departments. Members wanted a breakdown of allocations to provinces, explanations on the targets and achievements. One Member suggested that the previous Committee may not have exercised stern enough oversight, and suggested that non-performing provinces be sanctioned, but incentives given also to encourage better performance. Provincial breakdowns from national federations were also needed.  Members suggested that there not be over-emphasis on savings, and questioned how SRSA could claim to be saving, when it was using consultants, wanting a breakdown of what they were doing. More details were requested on the Mass Participation Programme. It was noted that the grant framework emphasised spending on disability and rural areas.

The SRSA, answering the questions, raised other important points in relation to school sport, noting that one of the unions had encouraged its members not to do extra-mural activities, and the Schools Act needed to be amended, with the support of the Department of Basic Education, to improve school sport. There was far insufficient funding for training of enough coaches to make a difference to schools sport, with only 380 being trained as against the ideal of 17 000. SRSA also wanted to amend the National Sport and Recreation Act to target improvements in certain codes, including soccer.  SRSA did not have the capacity to place everything in sport under administration, which was why it was targeting particular codes needing intervention. It agreed that the output from the previous “Winning Nation” programme had been insufficient in comparison to the investments. SRSA had to emphasise development, whilst SASCOC would concentrate on elite sport. The changes to school leagues were described. SRSA made the point that the budget still allowed only for some parts of the NSRP to be implemented.

The Committee adopted, in principle, its draft Report on the budget vote, after a break. Comments and recommendations made by Members included the need to streamline some programmes and strategic goals that appeared to be repetitive, amendments needed to the legislation, and how SRSA would ensure that all children, irrespective of their financial and geographic background, could get the same opportunities. More information was needed on funders. Members recorded their “shock” that so much of the Boxing SA allocation was put to administration, and that SRSA developed amateurs but not professionals. The entities were expected to improve their governance, and perhaps further conditions should be put on grants. SRSA itself should apprise the Committee of changes to its own programmes, as well as those that depended on other departments. Members asked if the Committee could ensure that the Municipal Infrastructure Grants for sports were indeed used for their intended purpose. It was noted that the contradictory claims between SRSA and Netball SA on the Netball League must be sorted out, that provincial legislatures should be asked to monitor the mass participation School Sport Championships and that if funding was to be redirected, then the number of schools must be increased. Finally, the minutes and Committee programme were debated and changes adopted. 

Meeting report

Analysis of budget vote 20: Sports and Recreation South Africa: RSA, Committee Section briefing
Mr Mphumzi Mdekazi, Committee Researcher, said that his presentation on the budget of the Department of Sports and Recreation (SRSA or the Department) was based upon and summarised from the Estimates of National Expenditure (ENE). He advised the Committee to not shy away from asking questions on the expenditure of the Mass Participation Programme (MPP) of SRSA over the period 2008/09-2011/12 as the return on investment on the programme seemed fairly insignificant, compared to the population size of South Africa. Moreover, the numbers of participants quoted in the SRSA Annual Report were never backed with source breakdowns and what the dominating codes were that made up those numbers. Mr Mdekazi said that it seemed illogical not to be able to discover another Benni McCarthy, Breyton Paulse or Makhaya Ntini within those numbers, given the amounts on MPP.

He also noted that the programme on Facilities Coordination had seemed underfunded for some time.

Mr Mdekazi asked the Committee to note page 447 on the 2014/15 ENE book.

The Chairperson asked Mr Mdekazi if the summarised version which members had in their possession contained the same information.

Mr Mdekazi replied in the affirmative.

The Chairperson interrupted Mr Mdekazi asking him what “active nation” meant.

Mr Mdekazi said that this was exactly what he was speaking to when advising the Committee to ask for clarity of the name changes in the SRSA budget vote. 

The Chairperson recommended that Members should be allowed to ask questions of clarity as Mr Mdekazi was giving his presentation.

Mr M Mabika (NFP) noted that he was lost, and did not know which year the budget analysis referred to

Mr Mdekazi assisted him by explaining what the references were. When the Chairperson asked for more clarification, he explained that the 2013/14 financial year had ended at end March 2014.

Mr S Ralegoma (ANC) agreed that, in order for the Committee to understand the current budget, there needed to be a historical narrative of expenditure within SRSA in previous years.

Mr Mabika said that what Mr Mdekazi was presenting was not what was actually happening at SRSA.

The Chairperson reiterated that the 2013/14 financial year ended in March 2014, and the Committee needed to have a historical account of SRSA’s expenditure trends before engaging with SRSA on its 2014/15 budget. The purpose behind this budget analysis was to brief the Committee on spending trends and other issues.

The Chairperson said she was particularly concerned that there were such high percentages of under-spending although SRSA had pleaded for the Committee’s support to increase its budget allocation. Additionally, the understaffing issues could now be linked to that under spending, and it was best to deal with that problem, so that rural sport development could be better prioritised.

Mr Mdekazi noted that there had been 42 vacancies at SRSA in November 2013, between levels 7 and 10, which essentially represented senior management at SRSA, which of course could be linked to the 9.5% under spending.  

The Chairperson noted that there was no analysis on the 2010 Federation of International Football Association (FIFA) World Cup (WC), and was concerned over that.

Mr Mdekazi responded that the last allocation for the WC was R559.6 million, and there had been no other major event since, which was why the analysis for that spending was not relevant in this year

The Chairperson asked how the Committee would know how that money had been spent.

Mr Mdekazi suspected that the FIFA Legacy Report could shed more light on that.

Mr P Moteka (EFF) agreed that the Committee needed to know how those funds had been spent. He also reaffirmed that SRSA had under-spending only within allowable limits on Infrastructure Support.

Mr Mdekazi added that what made the FIFA unit relevant was that it had been included in the ENE book for three years after the WC. Although the Director General of the Department would be in a better position to answer questions relating to the WC expenditure, Mr Mdekazi would also investigate that matter.

He pointed out that the budget for Boxing South Africa (BSA) had increased from around R8 million to R10.1 million per annum.

Ms B Abrahams (ANC) asked why loveLife received a special budget. She pointed out that loveLife was receiving funds from different departments.

Mr Mabika asked if loveLife could be invited to account to the Committee. He also felt that accounts should be given by relevant parties on rural schools sport facility development.

Mr M Seshoka (ANC) noted the correlation on the amounts being spent on consultants with the number of vacancies in SRSA. However, it was not clear what kind of consultants were used, and what services they were rendering to SRSA.

Mr Moteka was quite concerned about SRSA under-spending, particularly when SRSA was calling for the Committee to support it in getting increased allocations from National Treasury (NT). The Committee needed to know what remained from the 2013/14 financial year and what SRSA planned to do with that balance. He asked how the Committee could ensure that there were visible improvements to sport development across the country.

Mr Ralegoma agreed that it was also unfortunate that the Committee was being bombarded with pleas to support SRSA’s amendments to legislation, without the Committee having had the opportunity to get a full accounting and briefing from the Federations or other SRSA entities. He noted that Federations had to account, because transformation was taking so long. He agreed that indeed SRSA would have to account for underspending.

The Chairperson asked who the heads of programmes were at SRSA, seeing that underspending seemed to be programme-specific. She pointed out that the hiring of consultants posed a hindrance to filling of vacancies, especially when there was capacity within departments.

Ms D Manana (ANC) asked Mr Mdekazi where SRSA funding possibly would have gone, given the substantial under-spending.

The Chairperson said that certain questions could only be answered by SRSA, but Mr Mdekazi could assist with those issues he was knowledgeable about.

Mr Mdekazi replied that loveLife was also being funded through sponsorships from the private sector, even though BSA was getting far less. The Lotteries Board (LB) had been to Parliament earlier in the year, where questions similar to those raised now by Mr Mabika were aired and the Committee had, in particular, asked why schools could not access funding. The answer was that before approving the funding, the Board would want audited financial statements, a constitution and other documents. The irony was that rural schools might have as little as R600 to their credit in the balance sheet, yet were expected to provide all that documentation at considerable cost. The LB had said that to bypass those regulations, schools could use other conduits, but then had later asserted that there were challenges even with that route.

He noted that the consultants were assisting SRSA with legal, auditing and audio visual purposes, even though SRSA had a legal unit.

Some of the trends in under-spending were confirmed by the Auditor-General (AG), and there were also instances of fruitless, irregular and unauthorised expenditure noted in the AG’s report. The Management Committee (MANCO) had, in the past, together with the AG, brainstormed how to resolve those challenges at SRSA, and possibly the current MANCO could do that as well.

Mr Mdekazi said, in relation to the amendments of the SRSA legislation, that in France, the Sports Minister was able to intervene in everything that had to do with sports, if it was not in line with what the State wanted to achieve. He cited the fact that in South Africa, there had recently been a trend around sport sponsorship commissions that were received by senior sports officials, from the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC), ABSA and Supersport sponsorships. Those kickbacks were contrary to corporate governance yet there was no provision in the SRSA Act currently to halt the practice and arrest those officials.

In relation to the staff he noted that the SRSA needed to furnish the Committee with its current organogram, so that the Committee would know who headed what programme at SRSA, particularly since some programmes were new.

Mr S Mmusi (ANC) said that the previous Committee had spent time on the issue of loveLife and that there were problems there. That Committee had invited loveLife to brief it, late in 2013, by which stage the organisation had new leadership, and it was clear from that interaction that loveLife was shaping up. The Committee had then decided to allow the leadership to continue to drive loveLife, hopefully to take it where it needed to go.

The Chairperson suggested that in that case, it was time for loveLife returned and accounted to the Committee.

Mr Moteka said that the Committee needed to ask SRSA to supply a detailed breakdown of sport expenditure for each province, to make sense of the under-spending and to explain whether there were personnel issues at SRSA as well.

The Chairperson agreed that the Committee needed to know the spending patterns of SRSA, but reiterated that these answers should rather be sought from SRSA itself. This Committee wanted to leave a legacy of improvement in sport development within SRSA.

Committee Planning & Budgeting Tool: Roles and Responsibilities of Selected Committee Support Personnel
The Committee’s Content Advisor took the Committee through the presentation (see attached document), which explained the current budgeting process. Formerly, budgets had been allocated in a rather haphazard manner to Committees, and if a Committee had not planned any oversight or study tours, the funding for such activities would then be taken back and reallocated to other Committees. Currently, however, Parliament intended to direct Committees to sit, plan and cost all their activities so that a budget could be allocated on specific plans. This Committee had been allocated R650 000.

Parliament and the National Budget Process: Content Advisor’s briefing
The Content Advisor then gave a presentation on the national budget process to the committee (see attached presentation). It was noted that the newly created Parliamentary Budget Office had been established to assist Committees with their budget oversight responsibilities.

Sport and Recreation Sector Analysis: Content Advisor’s briefing
The Content Advisor said that the sector analysis would give the Committee both a global and national perspective on SRSA, both the Department itself and its entities, and would speak to the realities on the ground. He would also deal with the previous Committee’s legacy in ensuring progress in the sector of SRSA.

The South African Sports Commission (SASC) had been formed to carry out the mandate of the 1996 White Paper on Sport, which was an official policy for Sport at that time. Following the Cabinet approval of the Ministerial Task Team (MTT) report in 2003, SASC had a new mandate from the revised White Paper on Sport published in 2001. This aimed to ensure that there was mass participation, and that elite sports were also covered. SASC was later disbanded to form the SA Sport and Olympic Committee (SASCOC) in 2004, to represent and regulate high performance sport in South Africa and abroad.

Boxing in South Africa required the creation of a separate entity rather than a Federation governed by SASCOC, because of its multiple and independent stakeholders. Of the R10.1 million invested in BSA, 60% of it was allocated to administration.

The Chairperson proposed that the Committee allow SRSA to deliver all its presentations, now that the delegation had arrived.

Department of Sports and Recreation: 2014 Annual Performance Plan and budget briefing
Mr Alec Moemi, Director General, SRSA, tendered the apologies of the Minister of Sport who had accompanied the President to the Soccer World Cup Finals in Brazil. He also noted the apologies of the Deputy Minister. He noted that SRSA had more women than men in its delegation.

Mr Moemi reminded the Committee that most of the programmes in SRSA’s Annual Performance Plan (APP) had been presented previously and so he was only going to cover programmes not covered in earlier meetings. Since SRSA had also spoken to its budget overview, similarly, only those issues not covered at that earlier meeting would be presented at the current meeting. He noted that SRSA would brief the Committee further on its final budget figures for the 2014/15 financial year after its meeting with National Treasury (NT).

Mr Moemi took the Committee through slides on the AO and explained that it had not been printed as SRSA was waiting for the new administration, so that if the Committee wanted to change anything, those adjustments could still be effected. Mr Moemi suggested that if the Committee wanted to effect any changes it would be well to do so before the meeting SRSA was to have with NT, so that the cost implications of the changes were captured.

The Chairperson reaffirmed that the Committee should revisit the questions which emanated from the presentations by the Committee Section earlier that morning, which had been reserved for SRSA. She thus asked Mr Moemi to clarify the underspending patterns identified in Mr Mdekazi's presentation, across all its programmes.

Mr Moemi responded that SRSA had prepared another presentation, giving budget breakdowns on how its programmes were funded, and these would also explain where and how under-spending occurred. That would be provided to the Committee. He noted that NT gave funding, after having already determined where money would go in the SRSA APP and Strategic Plan (SP). There was a rule that said that SRSA could not just shift money between programmes on its own. SRSA had always queried who was supposed to determine priorities between itself and NT. In resolving that matter, the two departments had started to engage with each other from October 2013.

Mr Moemi said that NT had always given SRSA money strictly for filling of vacancies in programme 1. In 2012 SRSA had started a process of reviewing its structure to realign it to the National Sport and Recreation Plan (NSRP). SRSA had agreed with local worker unions that there would be a moratorium on all new recruitments until the restructuring exercise was finished and thus had not been recruiting new staff since then. After completing that exercise, SRSA would do a skills audit, and then match and place any remaining individuals at SRSA. Both NT and the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) had made that process very challenging for SRSA, as they had delayed its completion, but SRSA had finally reached the end of the process and had recently started recruiting where necessary.

SRSA had asked NT to use the money set aside for recruitment on programmes. R15 million had been the limit that NT had given SRSA to use on those programmes.

The “Active Nation” programme was dependent on provinces, since one of its large drivers was school sport. Mr Moemi said he would rather be accused of under-spending rather than giving provinces funding which might be used for other purposes. The previous Committee, in the Fourth Parliament, had agreed with NT that SRSA should rather withhold money until there was proof that it would be used appropriately, and could be accounted for by provinces. SRSA had requested the Committee’s support to rather charge provincial Heads of Department (HODs) for authorising inappropriate expenditure of sport development funds rather than merely withholding the funds. In exceptional cases a Director General could start criminal proceedings, if there was proven maladministration, but the only regulatory tool so far appropriate was the withholding of sport development funding from provinces that had no real development programmes. SRSA had also just finished auditing six provinces and had found that sports were not well there. The Members of the Executive Council (MECs) of those provinces would be furnished with a report of the outcomes, at the next Ministers and Members of the Executive Council Meeting (MinMec) so that they were aware of what the problems were and what had to be done.

Mr Moemi confirmed that SRSA had prioritised the correction of the past trend of under-spending. Compared to the total budget vote, SRSA had underspent by R32 million in 2011, had over-spent by R11 million in 2012 and under-spent again in 2013 by R9.5 million. Over- expenditure was a bigger issue than under-expenditure across the programmes, and SRSA had budgeted a lot for school sport. That money had gone into the National School Sport Championship. However, SRSA had partners that regularly sponsored some of its programmes, which saved money for the Department. It also happened that SRSA would budget for large contingents of learners, but provinces would end up not bringing all those athletes to the meetings, so SRSA would achieve savings there as well.

The Chairperson reiterated that the Committee would always enquire about the reasons for under-expenditure each time large percentages were involved.

Ms Abrahams asked why loveLife was part of SRSA’s budget, and what it did for sport. She asked for a report on the issues of Caster Semenya. She asked if SRSA had reached its disability vacancy quota, and, if not, how many it still needed.

Mr Moteka said that under-spending could never be accepted whilst the nation was still crying for facilities, especially if there were attempts to explain such under-spending as “saving”. All challenges in the way of sport development progress needed to be addressed, even if they impacted multiple departments. He also reiterated the need for a breakdown of allocations to provinces, asked about the targets as given by the provinces, and what had been achieved. He urged that the Committee needed to do more oversight tours to ensure things were happening on the ground.

Mr D Bergman (DA) said that from the Legacy Report it seemed that the previous Committee had perhaps not exercised strong enough oversight over SRSA, which was not constructive for the Committee or SRSA. Each seemed to have differing visions on what was supposed to happen for sport to develop in South Africa. Seeing that the Director General had limited powers, he suggested that South African Local Government Association (SALGA) SALGA was a likely partner to assist SRSA in punishing non-performing provinces, but the Committee also needed to consider rewards for those provinces that performed well.

Mr Bergman asked if there was any specific reason for the increases in the budget allocation for particular programmes and certain officials in SRSA.

Mr Ralegoma suggested that the Committee needed to ask for provincial breakdowns from National Federations to explain the under-spending as well. He asked how SRSA could suggest that it was saving money when it was using consultants to deliver on some of its obligations, while having unfilled vacancies.

Mr Mmusi asked whether under-spending affected all the programmes at SRSA. He commented that SRSA seemed to be too keen about achieving “savings”.

Mr Seshoka said that it would be insightful for Members to get a detailed report on the usefulness and use of consultants. He suggested that, for greater clarity on whether amounts were actually classed as savings or were under-spending, the Committee should be told what attempts SRSA had made to engage with NT on using savings from one sector of SRSA to finance another programme, apart from under-spent monies. The Committee also needed more details about the Mass Participation Programme, seeing that there was an anomaly between the amount of monies spent there and the outcomes of that programme.

The Chairperson asked what happened to SRSA’s savings, if they came from under-spent monies. She also wanted SRSA to furnish the Committee with the outcomes of the provincial audits that were completed.

Mr Moemi said that the specifics on expenditure and allocations to provinces was included in the presentation, under the heading “Mass Participation Provincial Allocations”. It was not that easy to introduce a reward system for provinces that performed well when using state funds. NT used the equitable share formula and decided which province would get certain amounts, on the basis of population size, its level of sport development and other factors. The Northern Cape was a good example, in that it received the least amount under the equitable share even though its schools were so far apart, and even though that province really needed more than the other eight for sports development. The formula was problematic, and the process for justifying the need to move funds from one province to the other to NT was tedious. An even bigger challenge was political influence in provinces and how much they fought to keep their funds, even if those funds were not being spent on their intended purposes.

The grant framework had emphasised spending on disability and in rural areas as principle priorities for large allocations. SRSA had added another condition to the framework in 2012, which said that at least 30% of the schools that were supported by provinces through the grant needed to be rural. SRSA was checking whether that actually happened on the ground, through its audit. It had found that many schools did not participate as envisioned in the MPP. It acknowledged that the way sport was structured in South Africa was problematic, because the Minister of Sport could never directly intervene when a Federation had challenges. Moreover, there was a notion in the country that sport needed to be ran by sports persons, which needed to be acknowledged, and for Federations to be run by qualified administrators. SRSA had decided to work within that arrangement “just to keep the peace”.

Sport was driven by parents, teachers and coaches in any country, but the South African Democratic Teachers Union (SADTU) had told its members not to do extramural activities in 2013, when it was boycotting the Minister of Basic Education (DBE), and this had delayed the mass participation programme for sport development. SRSA could do nothing about that, but two years ago it had brought proposals for the amendment of the Schools Act to a joint sitting of the Portfolio Committees on Sport and on Basic Education. DBE needed to champion that amendment because as long as that Act was not changed, sport would continue to suffer.

SRSA had asked the Culture, Arts, Tourism, Hospitality, and Sport Sector Education and Training Authority (CATHSSETA) to train coaches in football, rugby, cricket, athletics and netball. It found that CATHSSETA only had rugby and cricket accredited modules which could be offered to coaches needing training. It had to start from scratch with all other three sporting codes. The country needed to train at least 17 000 coaches per year, to have an effect in developing school sport, but in fact had only enough money to train 380 per year. Despite such constraints, SRSA had interventions in place, but it must be recognised that there were limitations in those, which the Committee was aware of. Companies that used to invest in sport had stopped sponsorships because Federations were not accounting for how those monies were used. SRSA had intervened in Athletic South Africa (ASA) twice, and in Cricket South Africa (CSA). In the soccer arena, SRSA had realised it needed more powers to intervene, which was why SRSA wanted to amend the National Sport and Recreation Act. SRSA did not have the capacity to place everything in sport under administration, which was why it was targeting particular codes needing intervention.

The NSRP was the reason behind an increase in allocation for the “Active Nation”, at the expense of the Winning Nation Programme. SRSA had been putting money into the Winning Nation programme for 17 years and the output was unsatisfactory when viewed against the investment. He added that “The Winning Nation” was the old scientific support programme, and the “Active Nation” was a combination of the mass participation programme and the new recreation programme.

The biggest issue in South African sport currently was that there was no development. The country needed to attend to development, which was now the responsibility of SRSA, so that SASCOC could deal with elite sport.

The financial year 2014/15 was the first time the SRSA’s budget structure had changed since 1994. SRSA was only implementing certain sections of the NSRP, as there was no money to implement everything.

Mr Moemi noted that the NT had revised the model of how the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) should look, across all departments. That model was monitored for compliance across all the departments. The list and findings of SRSA’s internal audit into provinces not complying with grant conditions and sport development would be provided to the Committee.

Mr Moemi then moved to staffing issues. There were certain high level skills that SRSA could not build within itself. There were high performance centres in universities where SRSA supported key athletes on its residential programme. Those athletes had to be listed as consultants on the APP budget. SRSA had also expanded its audit function, so that it was now necessary to audit itself and the provincial SRSAs, the two entities and the five priority Federations. Four individuals had completed 980 hours of auditing, whereas SRSA needed 4 630 hours in a year, which was impossible to do by itself. It had therefore had to source external audit capacity to help complete the internal audit. Many other smaller contractors and events managers had to be listed as consultants as well.

Mr Moemi said that the references to meetings with NT were not supposed to be anything by way of threats. In 2014, the Presidency had said SRSA should finish the Strategic Plan (SP), and as that was prepared, the Governance and Administration Cluster said that the plans could be passed, but space should be provided for possible changes after the election. It was then suggested that SRSA could suspend that whole process until after the elections, but NT said that this would not be legally correct. The final communiqué said that even though plans could be submitted and approved, they would still be reviewed by the incoming administration, after the elections. The Committee currently could thus review and adjust the Strategic Plan. He added that, every quarter, NT reviewed the SRSA budget and issued revised estimates, which were intended to initiate debate between the two departments. Thus far, NT had not taken SRSA’s money through the revised estimates reports. The meeting with NT on 21 of July would allow those issues to be sorted out, but the Committee could still change the plans as its authority on this superceded NT.

Mr Moemi conceded that loveLife had always been problematic, because historically the Kaiser Foundation in the United States of America (USA) had pledged that it would match whatever money the South African government put into that programme. The Royal Netherlands Embassy and the Kellogg Foundation followed suit, and loveLife received a lot of money to fight HIV/AIDS and to raise awareness among the youth. Two years into the programme, there was an agreement that sport could be used as a tool for social change and to spread messages against HIV/AIDS. Sport heroes like Shaun Pollock and others became ambassadors of loveLife. loveLife then specifically targeted HIV/AIDS prevention, although other initiatives targeted social development and sport development. The previous Committee had instructed the DG to “sort out” loveLife, so that it became properly accountable to Parliament. SRSA had been a conduit to receive money and pass it on to that programme. At one point, consideration had been given to moving that programme to either the Department of Social Development (DSD) or of Health (DOH), because of the issues SRSA had with loveLife. In fact, loveLife had been running programmes competing with the SRSA, but regrettably had shown very little impact even amongst the urban youth whom it had targeted. After lengthy engagements, NT agreed to let SRSA oversee loveLife, and SRSA had now redirected the programme to focus on the youth camps and school sport championships as well.

Mr Moemi answered questions on Caster Semenya by saying that she had been on the SRSA Residential and the Operation Excellence (OPEX) programmes. She had not been training since her marriage rumours, despite SRSA’s interventions. SASCOC had also tried to intervene and had given her a few chances to qualify for meetings, but had been unsuccessful. She would not be going to the Commonwealth Games as a result.

Mr Moemi reiterated that SRSA was putting money into an imperfect system and that there were pockets of excellence where mass participation was concerned. SRSA had only started focusing on school sport in 2009, when it had decided to cancel the SA Games and the Siyadlala programme. The outcomes now indicated that SRSA had started from the ground up again, because when that change was affected there were 5 000 schools in school sport championships, and currently there were 15 000 schools registered for the schools league championship. SRSA was currently supporting the Independent Schools Association of Southern Africa (ISASA) league, whilst running its competing Schools League, since it was showing better outcomes. The runner-up schools in that private league became the dominant schools in the SRSA Schools League. In trying to correct historical imbalances, SRSA had to allow everyone access, so that it produced good athletes for the country.

Mr Moemi noted that under-expenditure and savings had to be understood in the specific context where they occurred. He reiterated that SRSA could not move money around between programmes without the consent of the NT. It was also not automatic that where SRSA had saved money, it was able to assist athletes with any funding shortages. Unspent funds from departments were always taken back by NT. The NT could only approve adjustment of monies between programmes, and there was a limit on this of up to 8%.  Over-expenditure was deemed financial misconduct, according to the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA).

The Chairperson noted that it would not be problematic for the Committee to invite the NT to come and explain the challenges in moving monies around in departments.

Committee’s draft Report on Sport and Recreation SA Budget Vote
After a short break, the Chairperson asked Members to consider the draft Committee Report on the Sport and Recreation budget vote.

The Content Advisor presented the report. He noted that the South African Institute for Drug Free Sport (SAIDS) and Boxing SA (BSA) had tabled their Strategic Plans for 2014/15 to 2018/19 and BSA had tabled its own APP for the 2014/15 financial year. References to these were included in the Committee’s draft Report (the Report). He then took the Committee through the Report.

The Chairperson noted that everything that was in this Report reflected ongoing work by the Committee.

The Content Advisor noted that the SRSA’s budget was for advocacy and planning within the Department, and was not directed to the actual building of facilities.

Mr Ralegoma said that the Committee possibly would have no time for public participation in the current year.  He believed that the strategic goals and the programmes would have to be streamlined, because they seemed remarkably similar. Furthermore, SRSA had challenges with those goals because they each seemed to be dependent a lot on other factors. He suggested that the Committee possibly would have to amend the SRSA Act, to assist the Minister with intervening in Federations. The Report also needed to reflect that SRSA would be finally removing its moratorium on recruitment and would start hiring. The challenges facing SASCOC in intervening in Federations also needed to be mentioned.

Mr Mmusi asked whether the Content Advisor and Researcher had met to discuss the content of their reports because part of the content of their presentations had overlapped. He asked if either of them had found instances where the Municipal Infrastructure Grant (MIG) portion of 15% that was supposed to be directed to sport had been spent inappropriately on other things.

Mr Bergman said that he felt that the labelling of the five key areas of SRSA was problematic to begin with. He asked the question how SRSA could ensure how an urban and affluent child received the same sporting opportunities as a rural child from a farm or village school, when the budget did not appear to speak to these disparities. SRSA seemed to have neglected some of the inter-Ministerial portfolios as partners in the Active Nation Programme, to ensure that SRSA reached its targets.

Mr Mabika noted that the Director General had mentioned that soccer was the most funded code in the world. However, he wanted to know who was funding it in South Africa, apart from sponsorships. He wondered how the Committee could ensure that the R600 million allocated to provinces for mass participation actually achieved that, as there were issues with Federations or associations that compelled schools to pay a participatory fee to play in a league. He further said that it was “shocking” that BSA, as a state entity, should have 60% of its budget allocation put to administration. He was concerned that sportspeople were developed from amateur level but when they became professionals then SRSA stopped supporting them.

Mr Seshoka said that even though SRSA had constraints in funding its entities, there was no valid reason why those entities were not improving their governance so that sponsorships could be obtained, in addition to State support. He suggested that possibly SRSA would need to consider imposing further conditions on its grants, by way of governance improvement agreements. He pointed out that SRSA’s spending on projects like sports awards gave the impression of no real need for more funding. The Committee probably would have to be more proactive in making contributions when suggesting amendments to existing sports development legislation.

The Chairperson said that even though it sounded as if the Committee was lamenting the challenges at SRSA, there would have to be real outcomes from the inputs that the Committee was making towards its Report. She agreed that the Schools legislation that left sport as optional was really frustrating the efforts of SRSA in developing sport and using it to effect social cohesion. She said another issue was that SRSA tended to “discard” certain programmes, without fully briefing the Committee on the reasons behind those decisions. The Committee also needed to be fully informed about those sections of SRSA’s plans and targets that were dependent on other departments.

Mr Moteka agreed, and said he too had been wondering when the Committee’s Report inputs would effect changes in the lives of South Africans.

The Content Advisor said that the Committee had the power to ensure that the MIG did what it was intended to do. Municipalities had to comply, had to submit plans and specifics on what the grants would be applied to in their specific locality. The Committee could recommend that coordinated planning must happen across the board, and this could be followed up during oversight visits.

The Content Advisor noted that the Committee would need to decide exactly what approach it wanted to take on the proposed amendments to the Sporting legislation. The Committee could certainly recommend a speedy promulgation of amending legislation, to see how sports would be affected by that law. He suggested that the time might also be right to re-look at the mandates of SRSA and SASCOC, in terms of amateur and elite sport, as raised by the Director General. The Committee could also make input on the timing of when changes should be effected, through recommendations to NT.

He confirmed that indeed he had consulted with the Committee Researcher on certain aspects of the respective presentations to the Committee.

The Content Advisor continued that the renaming of programmes of course could be expected to come, with extended responsibilities and larger allocations. It seemed, however, that the changes in the current SP were those that had been agreed to in the NSRP of 2012.

He noted that revenue generated in soccer did not only come from investment, but from ticketing, merchandise and other football paraphernalia.

The Content Advisor reiterated that municipalities were responsible for building sport facilities and SRSA could only oversee that the programmes and facilities were in line.

Mr Mdekazi made reference to a professional boxer in South Africa, who had lost his belt outside the ring. The challenges were that promoters and managers intimidated boxers through ironclad management contracts. Moreover, international boxing bodies contributed to the abuse of boxers by mandating defence bouts, whilst also being aware that boxers were being mismanaged.

He noted that there was discord between SRSA and Netball South Africa (NSA), and somebody was  misleading the Committee because both were claiming to have initiated the Netball league.

The Eminent Persons Group (EPG) report had spoken about the multi-dimensional assessment, which had spoken to issues of procurement, gender equality and so forth, in transforming sport. For SRSA, “infrastructure development” meant facilities for the formerly disadvantaged. Transformation was a process and would take time.

He noted that in 2013 the Committee had been on oversight visits and had been impressed by what was happening in Westonaria and Mangaung, where the MECs took a hands-on approach. He suggested that the Committee and SRSA needed to consider getting provincial legislatures to monitor the mass participation School Sport Championship, try to cut costs and get everyone to play their role in sport development.

The Chairperson noted that netball had not been mentioned at all in all the presentations on that day, even though the President of SA had mentioned it in his State of the Nation Address (SONA). She recommended that the Report needed to include a statement that the Netball League should be popularised, to emulate any other sporting code popularity.

The Content Advisor said that Mr Moemi had told the Committee that SRSA would, each year, choose a federation to be a recipient of a once-off R10 million allocation. In 2012 NSA had been the first recipient of that allocation. In 2013 the mandate was that NSA had to be assisted to establish a league, which it had done, but the EPG report had found that NSA had not transformed in provinces, even though that had occurred at national level.

The Content Advisor further made the point that if money that was formerly went to Siyadlala could be redirected to School Sport, then the figure of 15 000 participating schools needed to increase. School  Sport had 16 priority codes, which were all funded by SRSA through its School Sport Coordinating Body. The Committee would then have to recommend that after schools had benefited from mass participation, it was then up to SALGA and other SRSA partners to ensure the provision of facilities in those regions.

The Chairperson noted that the Committee still had five years to push for transformation, and so it would not have to over-emphasise that point at this stage. She wondered if SALGA was targeting provision of facilities during its current work in the Municipal Integrated Development Plans (IDPs).

Mr Moteka asked if the Committee Staff had noted everything, and reiterated the points that he had made at the meeting.

Mr Ralegoma commented on Mr Moteka’s approach in delivering his recommendations. He recommended rewording some of the recommendations.

The Chairperson agreed that there was no need for specific resolutions in all the recommendations of the Committee.

The Committee Secretary suggested the rewording of some recommendations in the presence of the Members.

Mr Seshoka asked for clarity on how questions would be captured, and how comments would be presented.

The Content Advisor replied that “recommendations” would be exactly as the word suggested, and other sentiments would be captured as views, comments and issues for consideration.

Mr Seshoka asked what discretion the Committee Section used if there was no consensus from the Committee Members.

Mr Bergman agreed with Mr Seshoka’s sentiments and also requested comment.

The Content Advisor replied that the general consensus reached during a meeting would be recorded, and strong sentiments would be captured as recommendations. There was no discretion applied.

The Chairperson reminded the Committee that Members were open to making changes on the draft Report, and the process that Members had now been through was the lead-up to the adoption of the Report.

The Content Advisor suggested that the staff could write a draft containing all the Committee’s recommendations and circulate it via e-mail, but the Committee needed now to adopt the Report in principle, as it needed to be published in the ATC on 11 July. The Committee had requested permission for another meeting from the House Chairperson, should there be a problem.

The Chairperson asked Members if they were prepared to adopt the draft Report, and three Members indicated their acceptance for adoption of the Report in principle.

Mr Seshoka reiterated his concerns over the procedure that was being followed in adopting the Report., but the Chairperson reiterated that the Report was being adopted in principle.

Other business
At the start of the meeting, the Committee had deliberated on how to handle Sport and Recreation South Africa (SRSA) stakeholder invitations.

Adoption of Committee Minutes
Minutes of 24 June 2014

Mr Ralegoma said that he had no problem in principle with the Minutes of 24 June.

The Chairperson asked that her name be captured properly.

The minutes were adopted with technical amendments.

Minutes of 01 July 2014
Mr Ralegoma argued that the minutes would suggest, to anyone not present, that Mr Moteka was the only member who had contributed comment.

Mr P Moteka (EFF) agreed and felt that the minutes did not accurately capture the meeting. He asked that there should be specific recordal of the Committee’s resolution to ask that the budget be biased towards rural sport development.

The Chairperson also noted that the South African Local Government Association (SALGA) delegation had apologised, before it was asked to do so, for misrepresenting facts about its relationship with SRSA and SASCOC, and that must be captured.

The Committee Secretary said that it could become problematic if staff mentioned individual Members by name when writing up minutes. The style used formerly was that only resolutions taken by the Committee would be captured. She would, in future, try to capture as much of the content as possible, but it would be a challenge to decide which contributions to capture and which to leave out.

The Chairperson accepted that response but maintained that as the issues raised related to names and the fact that some contributions were not recorded, the minutes would need to be amended. She suggested that the adoption of this set of minutes stand over to another day.

Committee Programme amendments
The Content Advisor noted that since SASCOC would be at the Commonwealth Games on the date it was scheduled to meet with the Committee, that date would need to be changed. There was a recommendation that the meeting with SASCOC be moved to 26 August and that Boxing South Africa (BSA) and the South African Institute on Drug free Sport (SAIDS) attend on 29 July 2014. Additionally, the meeting scheduled for 12 August could not take place as Women’s Parliament would be sitting during that period.

The Chairperson recalled that Members had previously resolved that they would amend the programme when necessary.

She noted that Mr Mdekazi also requested the Committee to consider inviting the Lotteries Board (LB) on 29 July, because there appeared to be underspending of R152 million by the Board. Because this affected delivery of sports development, it might be problematic to only meet with the Board in September.

Mr Ralegoma supported the shift of date for SASCOC. He also supported inviting the Lotteries Board on 29 July but stressed that the invitation should set out clearly what it must brief the Committee on, o that the pertinent issues were discussed. He also noted that the Committee needed to meet with some federations, as urgent matters affecting them were being aired in the media.

Mr Seshoka agreed that there needed to be clarity on the LB brief to the Committee, that it related to the funding of sport and recreation projects and initiatives.

The Chairperson agreed on the need to issue clear briefs to bodies invited to appear before the Committee.

The Chairperson noted that part of the budget in 2010/11 had been targeted for the Africa Cup of Nations (AFCON) but remained unaccounted for, and the Committee would have to look into that.

The Committee Secretary informed the Committee that the Committee Section was allowed to make applications for dates for Committee programmes for one quarter only at this stage, because the Parliamentary programme could be changed as from 29 July.  

Mr D Bergman (DA) asked whether the Committee meetings would always be on a Tuesday morning, and mentioned that for some Members there were challenges in reaching Parliament by the set time.

The Chairperson replied that the standard time for meetings in Parliament was either 9:00 or 9:30, and she did not think that was too early; this Committee had always started at 09:30. Fridays were reserved for joint Committee sittings, at the discretion of the House Chairperson.

Mr Ralegoma said that it would be problematic if the Committee tailored its starting time for individuals members, and suggested that a starting time of 09:30 was reasonable.

The Chairperson ruled that Committee meetings would start at 09:30 on Tuesdays, and asked that Members take the last flight on Monday night to ensure that they could attend on the following morning. She confirmed, after checking with Member, that the amendments to the programme were approved.

The meeting was adjourned.

Share this page: