Safety at Sports and Recreational Events Act (SASREA) Appeal Board: Interviewing of candidates (day 2)

Sports, Arts and Culture

27 August 2015
Chairperson: Ms B Dlulani (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Portfolio Committee on Sport and Recreation met to interviews candidates to fill a vacancy on the Independent Board to hear and decide on Appeals against decisions made in terms of the Safety at Sports and Recreational Events Act (SASREA), Act No. 2 of 2010 (SASREA Board).

  1. Mr R Vassen (01min – 1:04:03min)
  2. Prof. EP Jansen van Vuuren (1:08:00min – 2:09:01min)
  3. Mr M Pila (2:22:50min – 3:16:40min)
  4. Mr K Khoza (3:18:45 min – 4:07:30min)
  5. Ms T Semane (0:30min – 54:30min)
  6. Dr W Rowland (1:44:41min – 2:33:20min)

Meeting report

Interview Questions
The following questions were asked to candidates:

1. Tell the Committee about yourself in relation to your qualifications, work experience and a brief narration on the history of the requirements of this position in South Africa which is intrinsically linked to the country's transformation agenda?

1.2 What do you understand about the role of SASREA in the South African sport landscape and why was it established (its genesis and roots)?

1.3 Is South African Sport in Red, Amber or Green analogically speaking, when it comes to transformation?

1.4 What expectations do you have about the independence of the board?

1.5 Which State Organs will you be working with in discharging this responsibility?

2.  What do you understand about the three arms of State Governance strictly, and what is the role of board in that context, with specific reference to the accountability doctrine?

2.1 What constitutional functions does SASREA fulfil and what it is all about?

2.2 Portfolio Committees have been established as an extension of the National Assembly through which this board provides account. Briefly explain the purpose, effect and impact if any, do reports and recommendations by the board have on the oversight role of Parliament over the Executive?

3. Could you take the Committee through a decision or plan that you have made that has had a wider impact on other functions or departments within the organisation.

3.1 To what extent did the actual impact match what they expected when making their decision?

3.2 How did others receive your plan or decision?

4. Describe a situation where you had to anticipate disagreements?

4.1 How did you go about anticipating the different outcomes?

4.2 What was the outcome?

4.3 What would you do differently in the future?

5. Could you provide the Committee with an example of a situation in which you had to make an unpopular decision?

5.1 Why was this necessary?

5.2 How did you approach the situation?

5.3 How effective did you feel?

5.4 How did the entire scenario make you feel afterwards?

5.5 What would you do differently next time?

6. Candidates were asked to read the paragraph below and after that they were asked questions based on it.

You are assisting the Department in enacting Safety at Sports and Recreation Events Act and you want to effect some clause in this Act in synchrony with SRSA Amendment Act no 18 of 2007. You notice a clause in the Act that doesn't read well. The content is in order but the paragraphs do not follow on the words preceding them. For example: "(IA) of Safety at Sports Act talks of the exclusion from rates of a sport facility property referred to in subsection l(b) which lapses, so: (a) the property is alienated or (b) if the exclusion from rates of a property lapses in terms of paragraph (a), the municipality who normally owns sport facilities or lessee becomes liable to the municipality concerned for the rates that, had it not been for subsection (1) (b), would have' been payable on the property, notwithstanding section 78, with effect from the date of alienation or lease of a Sport Facility."

You informally discuss this with the Department and State Law Adviser as you have periodically and informally been in touch with them. Their opinion is that the Act is almost done, the next meeting is for voting and it is unnecessary to bring that up now. It would only delay the matter. In addition, the Chairperson of that meeting comes in late and starts the meeting immediately. The Chairperson also ignores you when you put your hand up to point that problem out. This stage is passed in the National Assembly and transferred to the National Council of Provinces. In the Select Committee, where the second part of the legislative process now must take place, the Department is in a hurry for this to be passed. They do not want the process to be referred back to the National Assembly with amendments. They are rather scathing when you bring up the amendment again and say it does not affect the content.

6.1. Candidates were asked why they would want to bring matter up now.

6.2. What would you do? (Possible follow up: is urgency of the enactment more important than drafting 1 word order I style and convention (especially as the content is in order)?

6.3. If you did present the incorrect draft to the Select Committee, what would you answer when they question you on why this wasn't brought up in your normal consultations with relevant authorities i.e. Minister of Sport?

7. A Portfolio Committee Member is concerned about the inclusion of a clause in the National Sport and Recreation Amendment Bill that will allow the Minister of Sport and Recreation to make unanimous regulations on "The sanctioning of tournaments". The member is concerned about the implications of this regulation for rural communities who are active in sports.

7.1Candidates were asked what they will advise the Member and to deconstruct the role of the board in this regard?

8. What did you like most about South African Sport?

8.1 Do you think Sport in South Africa is played in safe sport and recreation facilities?

8.2 What are your views about Sport being a Social Cohesion instrument?

8.3 Do you think Sport is adequately funded in this country?

8.4 What should be done to secure sport facilities in this country?

The Chairperson thanked all the candidates that availed themselves for the interviews.

Refer to the audio for all the responses (check the Summary above to see when each candidate was interviewed).

The meeting 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: