Deliberations on Sasrea Appeal Board interviews; Committee 2014 Oversight visit report; Proposed international study tour

Sports, Arts and Culture

03 February 2015
Chairperson: Ms B Dlulane (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Committee was to deliberate on the Sasrea Appeal Board interviews. However, it transpired that the confidential questionnaire template that Members were to further populate with more questions had been electronically circulated to them and their complementary staff. The Committee agreed therefore that the population of the actual and final template should be strictly for Members’ eyes, and not include their support personnel.

The Committee made a few substantive amendments to the recommendations which would be included in its final draft oversight report on the implementation of the National Sport and Recreation Plan (NSRP) in Limpopo and Mpumalanga, 2014. The Chairperson felt very strongly about the need to transform the demographic trends in the Ben Vorster Sport Focus High School in Limpopo’s netball and hockey teams.

The Committee also resolved to address the issue of assisting with monitoring the National Lotteries Board’s grant allocation system, as the Chairperson had found out the Board had allocated about R96 000 to an unknown individual who had applied for funding, using a state school address in Cala, Eastern Cape.

After lengthy discussion over particular destinations for the Committee to visit in November 2015, the Committee resolved that the international study tour proposal needed more refining, taking into consideration comparisons with countries along the same longitude as South Africa, and different sports models from those used for the National Sports and Recreation Plan.

Meeting report

Deliberations on SASREA Appeal Board interviews
Mr Teboho Thebehae, Committee Content Advisor, took the Committee through a questionnaire that detailed what the applicants wanting to sit on the Appeal Board needed to be able to exhibit in terms of legal procedures contained within the Safety At Sports and Recreation Events Act (SASREA).

The Committee Researcher, Mr Phumzile Mdakane, reminded the Committee that the questionnaire was strictly confidential and was for Members’ eyes only and could be worked on only by Members of the Committee. 

The Chairperson proposed that the questionnaire needed reworking, as up until the last question there had been no question testing the knowledge of the applicants for the Appeal Board on procedures provided for by the Sasrea Act. She also proposed that the copies in Members’ possession be returned with each individual Member having labelled their copy with their names, as a measure of security against unfair competition in the interviewing process.   

Mr S Ralegoma (ANC) supported the Chairperson’s proposal on ensuring confidentiality of the questionnaire and proposed that what Members had in their possession be used as a template for new or alternate questions. That would also aid in improving security and ensuring that all applicants had an equal and fair opportunity for appointment to the Appeal Board. He also mentioned, however, that because the Committee Secretary had already e-mailed the questionnaire, he was not certain whether all the security measures being taken would make any difference.

The Committee Secretary interjected that the e-mail had been sent only to Members of the Committee and their support staff. Furthermore she mentioned that Members and their support staff were aware of what the protocol was for the handling of Parliamentary documents and what consequences there were for the leaking of such information.

The Chairperson asked for clarity as to whether the questionnaire had already been circulated.

There was confirmation from the Committee support staff.

The Chairperson said that in future she did not think it would be proper to first circulate confidential documents before they were brought before the Committee could decide on them, as that nullified the process of taking security measures, which the Committee was busy with at that time.

Mr S Malatsi (DA) said he thought there was an understanding that Members of Parliament knew how to conduct themselves in terms of the business of Parliament. Therefore in future, confidential information could be sent to Members separately from correspondence that reached Members’ support staff.

Ms D Manana (ANC) repeated the Chairperson’s question concerning the circulation of the document.

The Committee Secretary replied as above, adding that the Committee support staff were the only other people who knew about the document.

Mr M Filtane (UDM) proposed that it be recorded that in future, documents that could be regarded as confidential needed to be cleared with the Chairperson before circulation. He asked if there was a standard protocol on how to deal with confidential information.

The Chairperson replied by repeating that a confidential document had to be tabled before the Committee, because of the historical record where Parliamentary documentation had been leaked to the media. Her concern was that Appeal Board directors had to be properly qualified and the process of interviewing had to be fair.  She then asked if the security measures of labelling and returning the copies were still relevant.

Mr Thebehae replied that since the copies had already been circulated electronically, the Committee could revise and alter the questions while keeping the electronic copies as confidential as possible.

Ms Manana said that returning the copies, revised and altered, still risked the support officials being blamed for a leak should such an instance arise.

The Chairperson asked if Mr Thebehae’s suggestion would be welcomed.

Mr Ralegoma welcomed the suggestion and added that after the reworked questionnaire, it would only be on the day of the interviews that questions could be allocated to Members.

Draft oversight report on the implementation of the National Sport and Recreation Plan (NSRP) in Limpopo and Mpumalanga, 2014
The Chairperson asked the Committee to speak to the issue of volunteers, and whether they normally were remunerated.

Ms Manana said that Sport and Recreation South Africa (SRSA) volunteers indeed received a stipend of R3 500 for various tasks they helped SRSA with.

The Chairperson emphasised that stipend was a better term than ‘salary,’ which had been used in the draft report. Furthermore, she was unclear on the Limpopo provincial SRSA’s Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) with LoveLife, which had been unsigned at the time of the oversight visit, and whether that was separate from the MOU between SRSA and the Department of Basic Education (DBE) which had been signed in 2011.   

Mr Thebehae replied that LoveLife was an entity like the Sports Trust and other implementing agents. The MOU that was still to be signed, to which the report had alluded, was between a provincial LoveLife branch and a provincial SRSA.  

The Chairperson asked if the Committee agreed that LoveLife needed to be invited to come before the Committee in the current term as Members had complained about its relationship with the SRSA. 

Mr Ralegoma said that he understood school sport existed mainly at the district level in Limpopo. Therefore the Committee and the overseeing DBE needed to push both departments to ensure school sport occurred between and within schools. He had also attended the National Schools Championship and was satisfied with the attendance and its organisation. The Committee needed only to ensure that it was aligned to the vision of the NSRP.

SRSA had to be commended for intervening by supporting children that were willing to participate and were talented at such a high level. Therefore the Committee had to ensure that SRSA continued with that support, as it was bearing fruit. The framework of the intervention, however, was troubling in that the apartheid legacy intertwined therein remained intact. 

The commitment of the school principals when comparing advantaged and disadvantaged schools also needed work, since at disadvantaged schools this was non-existent.

The Chairperson said that if there were schools using Wednesday as a sports day in Limpopo, then the DBE, with SRSA, had to compel the rest of the remaining schools to do likewise.

Mr D Bergman (DA) said that the Committee needed to look at what functions schools could do and what SRSA could do in terms of school sport so that those functions did not overlap. In that regard, it was important to communicate to schools that they were responsible for ensuring participation in sporting activities. That would then mean that SRSA would be responsible for ensuring that there was quality and standardised coaching across the board. He could determine from looking at a school head whether sports would be catered for in a particular school or not.

Mr Filtane asked whether Limpopo had indicated what sort of problem it anticipated it would encounter in appointing coordinators from 2016 onwards

Mr Thebehae spoke about the inclusion of LoveLife in the Committee programme for the day the Sport Trust would be coming before the Committee, because the House Chairperson had not allowed the Committee to use the extra days on which the Committee was to conduct the Appeal Board interviews for the purpose of having LoveLife and the Sports Trust coming to account. The staff would then play around the programme with the Management Committee (MANCO).

The report had its own findings, where the Committee could extend those by adding Members’ personal observations. There were also recommendations that the Committee could action.

The Chairperson explained that the exercise the Committee was going through was to flesh out other recommendations apart from those already in the draft report. There were also questions that needed to have been asked during the oversight tour.

The Committee also had to force the DBE and SRSA to start implementing the MOU that had been signed in 2011.

Mr Bergman asked whether the sport academy in Limpopo had ever been established.

Mr Malatsi noted that missing from the findings was the failure by the provincial SRSA to appoint the entire contingent of coordinators, as the documentation had on record 26 appointed coordinators instead of the 32 targeted.

The content advisor responded that Limpopo had had an academy, but it had been dissolved due to the departure of staff. Therefore Limpopo was restarting the process of establishing a new academy.

The Chairperson noted that the Committee should recall the decision to ensure that the gymnasium equipment was to be removed from the Premier’s office and relocated at the academy, and the Committee would go back in March to check on that.

Mr Thebehae noted that the Chairpersons’ recommendation had already been captured.

Mr Filtane pointed out contradicting statements in the draft report, and asked that there be a reconstruction if they were not blanket statements.

The Chairperson reminded the Committee of the National Lotteries Board (NLB) response about the fact that it accounted to the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and that the Committee had no real role to play at the NLB. In that regard, she had discovered that a high school seemed to have applied for R96 000 from the NLB which had been granted to an unknown individual. The problem was that the principal knew nothing about the application, and upon investigation it had been discovered the application had been submitted with an address from East London, when the school was in the Cala region of the Eastern Cape.  The NLB regretted having refused the assistance of the Committee in NLB operations. The NLB therefore had to be held to account for the failure in their monitoring tools.

The Committee had also to check up on the R96 000 NLB allocation and its use at Thomo High School in Giyani, Limpopo.

Mr Filtane took issue over the grammar used in a statement within the draft report, and supplied an alternative term at the request of the Chairperson.

The Chairperson asked Mr Thebehae whether the report was talking to a multipurpose court needing to be built, or an unmaintained sporting ground. She also emphasised that she and Mr Malatsi would need to follow up on a request for assistance they had made to the Sports Trust.

Mr Thebehae replied that the request from the stakeholders at Hanyani Thomo High School was indeed to have a multipurpose court built by SRSA.

The Chairperson withdrew her statement, as their request had been separate from the stakeholders’ request.  She told the Committee that she had asked the Sports Trust to help with refurbishing vandalised statues of political icons as part of her individual assistance as an MP. She asked the Committee to do likewise across the length of the country, without prioritising their individual constituencies.

She then reiterated that the Committee had to go back and check on the delivery of services and goods as committed to during the oversight visit.

Mr Filtane proposed that the work that the Chairperson had done be accepted to have been done on behalf of the Committee, so that when other Committee Members did like the Chairperson, that would then not be seen in a different light.

The Chairperson replied that what she was requesting of the Committee was a long-standing call from Mr P Moteka (ANC) that as MPs they should assist in their communities, but she was widening the scope of assistance to the entire country, instead MPs’ constituencies.

Mr Thebehae pointed out the Chairperson’s point on the multipurpose court had been captured already in the draft, and that the Chairperson had also made commitments there.

The Chairperson contended that she had never committed to paying for registration of players in the leagues.

Mr Malatsi interjected that the Chairperson had raised the issue of the unsatisfactory condition of the multipurpose court, whereupon the convenor had lamented the needed for quality equipment. The Chairperson had then suggested means of getting that equipment to the convenor.

The only commitments made were at the Tzaneen Municipal offices, where the Chairperson had committed to getting rugby kits for two local rugby teams.

The Chairperson notified the Committee that the kits were already available and were in need of branding and to be handed over. She also spoke about the independence which clubs in the Club Development Project of SRSA needed to have. In that respect, SASCOC did not need to be transporting and supporting the clubs with everything.

Mr Ralegoma said that since the club development project was an SRSA pilot study, the Committee actually needed to push for it because if it failed, the gap it was trying to breach would become even bigger. In Tzaneen, it seemed it was not becoming fully established and the Committee needed to remind the SRSA about that commitment.

Mr Malatsi said that the Committee also needed to advocate for more training, for clubs to become more self-sustained where it was possible. The Committee needed to be careful of creating a dependence syndrome without being able to track what utility the assistance had been.

The Chairperson said that the Committee had to establish from SRSA whether it had taken care of its complaints concerning the Tzaneen club development pilot.

Mr Thebehae added that the club development was meant to assist clubs for three years.  Among its aims was that clubs could be audited and skills transfer would be done so that clubs could eventually sustain themselves. As the pilot was in two regions, in Mopani the project had been funded with R10 million alone. He did not believe that more funding was needed for the clubs in that region as most of the requests from these clubs had to do with assistance with support from municipalities, and not necessarily to do with the project. Certain clubs had also alluded to the project coming and going immediately, and therefore the Committee could explain during oversight that club development was not a tournament but ongoing support. That support was meant to help athletes until such time that associations and federations took over from SRSA as athletes progressed through the leagues.

The Chairperson alluded to Government circular 770, 2013, of the Municipal Financial Management Act (MFMA) which the provincial SRSA had asked the Committee to enquire about and what its implications were, during the oversight meetings.

Mr Thebehae replied that he had not had an opportunity to read the circular but proposed that possibly he be allowed to report on that issue by the following week and before the South African Local Government Association (SALGA) came before the Committee as scheduled.

Mr Malatsi said that the language in a particular statement concerning moneys promised that had not been paid by SRSA referred actually to delays in payments for learners on the sports bursary at Ben Vorster Sport Focus High School.

The Committee Secretary asked for assistance in wording that particular statement, as it had been established that there had been one learner that had been officially on the sports bursary during the oversight. She believed that the other four learners with delays in payments were not officially on the sports bursary and the draft report wording was trying to convey all of that in the statement.

Mr Malatsi interjected that there simply had been uncertainty on whether the other four learners were on the national SRSA bursary or the provincial SRSA bursary, and he felt that needed to be clearly worded.

Mr Ralegoma agreed with Mr Malatsi that the Committee needed to get clarity from the national SRSA so that such situations could be avoided.    

Mr Thebehae said that national SRSA entered directly into a Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) with a school for a particular learner, and the payment referred to in that statement was a portion that SRSA had not paid over during the Committee’s oversight. The other four learners had been placed at Ben Vorster by the Limpopo Rugby Federation, not the national nor provincial SRSA, and that would be clearly worded in the corrected statement.

The Chairperson asked the Committee’s feeling about perceived ‘blacks-only sporting codes and whites-only sporting codes’ in respect of black netball players and white volleyball players respectively.

Mr Bergman said that since Ben Vorster did not have a quota system, the school had told Members that the teams were constituted through natural progression and not through any equal representation type of system.

Mr Malatsi added that the principal had gone in to some depth on the historical racial demographics of the teams, and for netball there seemed to be a balance as far as he was concerned.

Mr Ralegoma agreed that the Committee had asked about the demographics in the teams and the school had replied that there were certain codes that it focused on more, though it did participate in other codes as well.  The focus was so that the school could be competitive in those particular codes.

The Chairperson argued that since SRSA had a policy that each school had to play at least five codes, why it was that Ben Vorster had such racially segregated teams and so few codes. She would be satisfied only when Members could respond to that.

The Committee Secretary asked if the reworded statement could then say that the netball coach at the school reported that that was the trend, since the draft report statement was a verbatim account as was reported by the coach.

Mr Bergman affirmed the Secretary's report and added that the netball coach was responsible for identifying and attracting netball talent to Ben Vorster, but the Committee had not asked the hockey coach why the demographics in that sport were so, and therefore the Committee could not speculate on that.

The Chairperson reiterated that even if it were natural progression, those demographics simply were not acceptable since they did not speak to social cohesion.

Mr Malatsi said that the background story behind Ben Vorster’s response which referenced netball, hockey and rugby as focus sports for the high school, was that the general representation of athletes in netball would be found to be black young girls. That phenomenon was not just an issue of demographics but talent scouting in the neighbouring primary schools and the netball players also were all bursary recipients. Possibly then, in that explanation, it may have been understood that only black African girls played netball instead of the fact that most of the netball players were talented black girls in the Limpopo provincial team. Certainly, the Committee ought to have a recommendation addressing the issue of the demographics in the teams in light of the country’s history.

Mr Bergman agreed with the Chairperson that indeed there probably would need to be an investigation into sports, as when one played sporting codes where one had to buy more than just kit, there would be a class issue. In other words, it was more expensive for the disadvantaged to play cricket and hockey than it was to play soccer or netball. On that basis segregation would not be based on colour, but on class. 

The Chairperson said that very issue needed addressing and it was the Committee’s mandate to ensure that that transformation would have occurred by the end of the Committee’s tenure.

Mr Thebehae explained that Ben Vorster was a sport focus school like the other 15 focus schools identified by SRSA, so that all 16 would provide support to learners from disadvantaged schools to further develop their talent. It could be found that a traditionally rugby playing school which, by virtue of observing the demographics, would have one or two black persons in a predominantly white learner population.  The nature of the schools visited by the Committee were therefore predominantly white sport focus schools, with one demographic team constitution, but it was not SRSA’s intention to keep the old model of segregating schools but to ensure there was an opportunity to be selected and to address equal access into quality sport development.

The Chairperson asked how the Committee could assist the sport focus schools in lowering the cost of testing for athletes. What recommendation could be made to the South African Institute for Drug Free-Sport (SAIDS) or SRSA?

Mr Thebehae said the noted amount in the draft report was part of the agreement that SRSA had with the school, that that amount would be for the testing of the athlete throughout the bursary period.

SAIDS had identified two coordinators in each Province that tested athletes randomly across the country. There had always been a challenge SAIDS had with the law, where it was unable to test learners at school except when there were sport competitions. Part of the Committee’s assistance could be to push for the finalisation of the law that would allow SAIDS to be able to test athletes any time at school.

Mr Malatsi agreed with Mr Thebehae, but noted that the school at that time was saying that the issue was with the cost of using the central testing laboratory which SRSA preferred, and to lower the cost the school had found its own service provider in Limpopo, which it used. The Committee could also advocate for that alternative in future, though SRSA’s counter argument would probably be that it had control and monitoring mechanisms that were better in Bloemfontein.

Mr Ralegoma noted that a glaring omission in Mpumalanga was an absence of a sports council delegation during the oversight.

The Chairperson asked for rural schools to be prioritised at the next oversight visit to Mpumalanga

Mr Thebehae replied that that was possible, as the programme allowed.

The Chairperson noted that Boxing South Africa (BSA) would have to come back before the Committee quite soon, as the findings and concerns of the draft report about Mpumalanga were worrying.

Mr Thebehae said that the complexities surrounding boxing in the country could be solved because BSA was charged with handling all matters to do with professional boxing and its development. The South African National Boxing Organisation (SANABO) was charged with developing amateur boxing. The two entities were affiliated to different international bodies and the development of boxing in Mpumalanga was a challenge. The anticipated change in legislation concerning combat sports could somehow resolve some of the challenges affecting boxing. He suggested that either body, or one after the other, be invited to brief the Committee.

Mr Bergman said SANABO had not been before the Committee before whereas BSA had. He agreed that they possibly would have to come before the Committee so that they could explain their mandates nationally.

Mr Filtane noted a few printing errors in the draft report.

The Chairperson thanked the Committee for its contributions and attention during the oversight and the draft report.

The Committee Secretary asked for clarity on to whom the recommendations were to be addressed and whether she could forward to Members the reworked document before the meeting where it would be adopted.

Mr Filtane noted another grammatical reconstruction, where he suggested the alternative word he preferred to be put in.

Mr Malatsi also added other corrections he had noticed.

The Chairperson asked if the draft report could not be adopted on the day so that the final draft would be given to Members on a different meeting day, having already been adopted, so as to avoid coming to meet for adoption of the report only.

Mr Malatsi said that he would support such a motion so that any minor amendments could be done at a different meeting.

Mr Ralegoma seconded the motion by Mr Malatsi for the draft report to be adopted with the amendments and recommendations.

The draft report was adopted with amendments.

The Committee Secretary seemed to have an issue with the adoption of the draft report since it had not been put on the agenda as a deliberation with consideration.

Mr Malatsi asked whether the issue was with the grammatical compilation of the agenda and if not, was there any deviation from established practice in doing what the Committee had just done by adopting a draft report where the Committee was satisfied?

The Chairperson said that the Secretary would be allowed on a different day to present the final report with all the amendments, so as to avoid any conflict with any particular practice.

Mr Malatsi asked if there was any set convention for adoption of a report.

The Chairperson said as far as she was concerned the process was not problematic, but since the Secretary had taken issue she would allow her an opportunity to express herself.

The Committee Secretary said that as she had earlier stated she wanted to get clarity on how to refine some of the recommendations.

The Chairperson replied that refining could be done electronically but the report had already been adopted.

She was worried that the Committee had a trend of not dealing with matters arising during minute deliberations, and that needed to be changed. Moreover, she was proposing that minutes with instructions had to have those instructions carried out. 

Committee minutes of 11 November 2014
Mr Ralegoma noted a misspelling of his surname in the minutes of 21 October.

The Chairperson noted a substantive amendment, where the Committee had to be delineated from certain Members of the Committee, when said Members had queries. She also recommended another substantive amendment concerning a briefing that SRSA had to do concerning SRSA meetings with provinces at the end of 2014.

Mr Filtane recalled that the Director-General (DG) had made a “shocking” statement which the Committee had deliberated at length. He noted that he did not see it reflected therein and felt it important to have been recorded.

The Chairperson asked for concurrence from the Committee as to whether anyone else remembered what Mr Filtane was saying, as the minutes were quite far back.

Mr Ralegoma asked for clarity as to what minutes were mainly supposed to be a record of – Members’ and the officials’ contributions?

The Committee Secreary read the paragraph Mr Filtane was referring to, which was not included in the minutes, but was in her notes.

The Chairperson recalled the DG’s statements and asked what exactly Mr Filtane wanted minuted.

Mr Filtane said that he would have liked that brief summary which the Secretary had given, as it had explained why SRSA was piloting club development.

He moved for the adoption of the minutes

Ms B Abrahams (ANC) seconded the motion.

The minutes were adopted. with substantive amendments.

Committee minutes of 21 October 2014
Mr Ralegoma moved the adoption of the minutes.
Mr Malatsi seconded the motion.

The minutes were adopted with technical amendments

Committee minutes of 23 October 2014
Ms Manana moved the adoption of the minutes.

Mr Malatsi seconded the motion.

The minutes were adopted without any amendments

Committee minutes of 28 October 2014
The Chairperson asked the staff to draft recommendations from those minutes.

Mr Ralegoma asked whether the Portfolio Committee on Basic Education would also deliberate on similar minutes and then moved the adoption of the minutes after he had received an affirmative response.

Ms B Dlomo (ANC) seconded the motion.

The minutes were adopted without any amendments.

Committee minutes of 4 November 2014
The Chairperson said that she would report at a later stage on a visit to a white elephant facility in the Western Province, but something had to be recommended to the South African Sports Confederation and Olympic Committee (SASCOC) about assisting communities to access facilities in their localities.

Mr Malatsi recalled that Mr Gideon Sam had committed the South African teams to winning a set number of medals at the Rio Olympics in 2016. He asked for that to be minuted.

The Committee agreed that he had asked not to be quoted on that.

Mr Malatsi asked that there needed to be a convention established as to what could be deemed to be quotable and what could be said by presenters to be “off the record.”

The Chairperson agreed that presenters indeed should not be allowed to speak “off the record.”

Mr Filtane suggested that the content advisor could be requested to flag issues that needed follow-up at succeeding meetings.

Mr Thebehae said that a form of alternate follow-up could be that in briefs sent to presenters for planned meetings, the follow-up recommendations and questions could be included therein.

Ms Manana moved the adoption of the minutes.

Mr Bergman seconded the motion

The minutes were adopted with amendments.

International Study Tour Proposal
Mr Thebehae said that the tour was planned for the week of 22-29 November 2015. He then took the Committee through the proposal by reading certain pages of the document.

Mr Bergman said that looking at the distance, time and cost benefit analysis and taking all that Mr Thebehae had said, business class travel was preferable to economy when visiting a country like Australia, so that one did not need to rest for two days to deal with jet leg. Where one of the interconnecting flights from Cape Town to Johannesburg was at least four hours, Members could travel in economy to cut costs. Those that had Parliamentary travel vouchers living near Johannesburg could also use those before using the Committee’s budget.  He suggested visiting London or Germany, or both, as tour destinations because they would cheaper to get to and had similar sporting codes to SA.

Mr Malatsi said that he recalled that the Committee had had a meeting where a destination had been discussed, and where Germany had come up and been agreed on.  Had that changed?

Mr Filtane asked if there was a structured plan of what it was that was to be learned on the tour, as that would assist Members in choosing a destination to visit.

Mr Ralegoma suggested that alternatively the Committee could be split into two to tour the different destinations.

The Chairperson responded that the convention in Parliament was never to split a Committee delegation when going on study tours. That did not happen even for oversight visits. She quoted a Parliamentary policy that when travelling among African states, MPs travelled economy but overseas travel was business class as per convention.  She also recalled Germany being a destination that had been flagged, but there were other options and the Committee had to agree on those.

Mr Thebehae said that the proposal had been guided by the sports models in both Cuba and Australia.

The Chairperson asked which country among the four he believed was a better destination. 

Mr Thebehae said whether going to Cuba or Australia, Germany was a stop over, as it was in the same time zone where connecting flights were. Moreover SA had not used any sports model or study from Germany in order to plan for the NSRP. The NSRP was based on models from London (United Kingdom), Cuba and Australia.

Mr Bergman advocated again for London or Germany and referenced Mr Thebehae’s response above -- Germany more so, because the aim was not to mimic a model but because of where SA wanted to be in future by using a better model. London was the better option, as the weather in November was better than that of Germany, but both could be seen in one go.

The Committee’s oversight activity was lacking as it had had only one visit compared to Committees that had already completed three oversight tours, and that needed to change.

The Chairperson said that having the smallest budget, it was not fair to compare the Committee with others. Moreover, seeing that the Committee’s budget was almost finished she had been lamenting the issue of applying to the MANCO for more funding, since the Parliamentary process was to do so. What were the other Members saying, apart from Mr Bergman?

Mr Ralegoma said that he had issue with always going to London and Germany and since Mr Thebehae had already done so much research on the other destinations, it was better to explore those destinations.

Ms Manana proposed that the Committee be given another opportunity to peruse the document before making a decision.

Mr Malatsi had no reservations about the two other destinations but seeing that Germany had been discussed, he thought the proposal would be speaking to costs and what alignments there were between the sports models in Germany and SA. Possibly that was why the Committee was also hesitant to make a choice. The Committee expected the staff to be bolder in recommending a particular destination

Mr Filtane said that Mr Malatsi was speaking in similar terms to what he had asked about a structured plan of what was to be learned on the tour. Mr Thebehae could refine the proposal content and be more pointed, so that the Committee could deliberate on that information at the next meeting.

Ms Abrahams supported the motion to have the staff research more.

The Chairperson spoke to the little budget that SRSA was getting, although it was being charged with achieving social cohesion.

Mr Bergman reiterated the Chairperson’s sentiments.

The Chairperson requested the Committee staff to refine the proposal by including a comparison with the UK and German sports models.

Mr Malatsi said that the current proposal was heading somewhere, but was not getting to a straight recommendation. He also requested that the NLB to be invited to speak to its under expenditure of around R100 million and explain its allocations for sport and recreation .He also wanted the Committee to call the South African Rugby Union (SARU) to come before the Committee, since there would be a Rugby World Cup in 2015.

The Chairperson replied that SARU would be coming on 17 February to speak to the Committee. Mr Malatsi’s NLB motion would be discussed by the MANCO.

The meeting was adjourned.



No related documents

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: