Commonwealth 2022; SASREA Appeals Board, Legislation and Regulation, SRSA on its Quarter 3 performance

Sport and Recreation

29 March 2017
Chairperson: Ms B Dlulane (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Department of Sport and Recreation (DSR) briefed the Committee on recent developments around the 2022 Commonwealth Games that were to be held in Durban. The Department highlighted that the Commonwealth Games Federation (CGF) raised a number of concerns to the Department and these included the issue of finances, games venues, games village, dates and duration of the games and bid compliance. The Department had a budget of R4.32 billion for the tournament while CGF demanded at least R8.5 billion for Durban to successfully host the tournament. The Department and the country at large were resolute that it would be unprepared to host the tournament if it went beyond R8.5 billion. It was impossible for the country to agree to hosting the tournament at all cost and “break the bank” just to prove its capability in hosting tournaments on a big stage. SA had a proven track record of hosting big events and that was why the country was given the rights to host the games in the first place. 

Members indicated that the concerns flagged by the Department were already raised by Members in previous meetings. The Minister kept on saying to the Committee everything was on track and SA ready to host the Commonwealth Games. It was only in the end where faltering answers from the Minister proved there was indeed still uncertainty about the country’s preparedness to host games. The Committee wanted to be provided with the copy of the draft of the agreement that was not signed. It was rather confusing as to why the Minister went all the way to say the country will be hosting the Commonwealth Games for 2020 while the agreement had not been signed. Some Members stated that there was no mention of the annual payment of the £1.5 million as a hosting fee in all previous presentations that were made to the Committee.

Members asked if there was a particular budget set aside for bidding and hosting of international tournaments. The bidding for international tournaments should be premised on the available budget in order to avoid the situation where the country would bid for unaffordable tournaments. There should be an open bidding process in place to be followed in future including the budget to be involved in order to avoid the similar incident that happened in Durban. Some Members also commended the Department and the country for not moving beyond R4.32 billion for hosting the games as the country was currently facing a number of challenges like unemployment and inequality.

The Department also briefed the Committee on the Appeal Board of Safety at Sports and Recreational Events Act (SASREA). The Act provided, amongst others, for measures to safeguard the physical well-being and safety of persons and property at sport, recreational, religious, cultural, exhibitional, organisational or similar events held at stadiums, venues or along a route, the accountability of event role-players, certain prohibitions, risk categorisation of events, establishment of measures to deal with the safety and security at events and accreditation of role players at events.

The Department was currently in the process of drafting a submission to the Director-General (DG) whereby a duly completed Treasury questionnaire as signed off by the Chairperson of the SASREA Appeal Board and the DG which addresses, amongst others, - (a) remuneration scales of SASREA Appeal Board members and (b) needs to be forwarded to the Central Evaluation Committee of the National Treasury for consideration and recommendations. The outcome of the evaluation and the recommendation process will be based on the legislative mandate of the SASREA Appeal Board. The Minister of Sport and Recreation would have to be advised in order to make a determination.

Members requested to be provided with an opportunity to see the actual legislation so as to visual amendments introduced. It was also important to know if there was any public awareness campaign made to various communities in order for the Board to be known in the public domain. The Committee also asked about the process undertaken for the filling in of the Board members as this was not clear from the presentation. Who were the members to serve in the Board? What was the remuneration rate of each member to serve in the Board?

The Department also briefed the Committee on a number of proposed amendments to be a made in regard to various pieces of legislation. The amendment in the South African Institute for Drug-free Sport Act, 1997 (Act No. 14 of 1997 as amended) seek to, amongst others, provide for to the promotion and development of sport and recreation and to establish a Sport Arbitration Tribunal to resolve disputes in sport or recreation bodies. The South African Boxing Act, 2001 (Act No. 11 of 2001) will be repealed following the promulgation of the South African Combat Sport Bill as referred to hereunder). The priority here was to ensure that the safety of boxers and the relationships between boxers, managers, promoters, trainers and officials and BSA were effectively and efficiently administered and governed in the best interests of boxing and its stakeholders as a whole.

The Recognition of Sport and Recreation Bodies Regulations, 2010, covered the criteria for recognition of sport and recreation bodies, application for recognition, appeals process and duties of recognised sport and recreation bodies. The Amendment Regulations had already been drafted and are currently in the process of been submitted to Management Committee for its consideration and approval. The Fitness Industry Regulatory Bill, 2017, was currently under scrutiny by the SEIAS Unit of the Presidency where after it would be refined by SRSA. The Combat Sport Bill, 2017, had already been scrutinized by the SEIAS Unit of the Presidency and was currently in the process of being refined by SRSA.  SRSA was currently in the process of drafting a National Academies of Sport Bill which will be based on the draft Provincial Academies of Sport Bill in order to maintain unity and essential national standards and to spearhead the functionality of the Sport Academies’ System in SA.

The Committee also received a briefing by the Department on its Second and Third Quarterly performance.  In Quarter 2, there were 21 targets to be achieved by the Department. In total, 15 targets were achieved and 6 were not achieved. This amounted to 71% achievement. In Quarter 3 there were 24 targets to be achieved by the Department. In total, 18 targets were achieved and 6 were not achieved. This amounted to 75% achievement. There were 3 targets to be achieved during the quarter under review. Two targets were not achieved while one target was achieved. The Department achieved 71% against the target of 100% for the moderation for performance assessments concluded for previous cycle by the end of the following financial year.

The departmental financial performance, as at 31 December 2016, showed that the overall spending was sitting at R856.6 million which represented 83% of the total budget allocation out of a total budget of R1.026 million. There was an 8% overspending in terms of arithmetic forecast of 75% - equivalent to nine months. The Department applied to National Treasury to shift funds within Transfers from Federations to cover the overspending on Households (Ministerial Bursary programme). The programme was budgeted for accordingly for the coming Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) period going forward. The overspending on household (leave discounting) will be off set with a virement at year end. Under spending in compensation was due to vacant posts currently being filled, e.g. Director: School Sport (Director –started on 1 January 2017).

Members asked the Department to provide them with the breakdown of where the money was spent for each programme as it would be helpful to see which programmes were prioritised. Some Members expressed concern about the issue of expenditure per province as there seemed to be inconsistence in spending. The matter of following the prescripts of the PFMA was also of concern as some entities were not following the procurement process. The Committee also requested to be briefed on the challenges around the Sport Trust. What was the view of the Treasury on the challenges around Sport Trust? The Department would also need to address the problem of Information Technology (IT).

Meeting report

Briefing by the Department of Sports and Recreation (DSR) on Commonwealth 2020

Mr Alec Moemi, Director-General (DG): DSR, indicated that 31 March 2014 was the very last day for expression of interest to bid to host the 2020 Commonwealth Games and the City of Durban joined the race. The official occasion for candidate cities to declare intention to bid took place on 22 July 2014 in Glasgow. The city of Edmonton and Durban were the only two candidate cities bidding for the 2022 Games. The SA Minister of Sport and Recreation submitted a memorandum to Cabinet requesting Cabinet’s endorsement of SA’s intention to bid and host the Commonwealth Games in 2022 in Durban. Cabinet approved and endorsed the intention and directed SRSA to establish a Bid Committee to develop the bid proposals to host the Commonwealth Games. The Cabinet further directed SRSA and National Treasury to consider the business plans, proposed budget and funding model and revert to Cabinet before the announcement of the host cities.

Mr Moemi mentioned that the Department requested Cabinet to note the progress, financial implications and to approve the bid to host the 2022 Commonwealth Games. Cabinet approved the request based on a funding guarantee of R 4.32 billion. The final negotiating meeting with the Commonwealth Federation (CGF) on the Games Budget in London took place in November 2016. The 30 November 2016 timeline was for response on 10 issues to the CGF. All documents were uploaded onto the CGF EKS site. The CGF raised the following issues as key issues affecting the games:

  • Finance
  • Games governance
  • LOC
  • Games venues
  • Games Village
  • Dates and duration of the Games
  • Bid compliance

SA responded to the issues by the timeline of 30 November 2016 and all narratives and supporting documents were uploaded onto the CGF EKS website. A total of 83 documents were uploaded. CGF indicated acknowledgment of receipt of documents but no formal feedback or response had been received. It was also highlighted that the Department, and the country at large, was resolute that it would be unprepared to host the tournament if it went beyond R8.5 billion. It was impossible for the country to agree to hosting the tournament at all cost and “break the bank” just to prove the capability in hosting tournaments on a big stage. SA had a proven track record of hosting big events and this was why the country was given the right to host the games in the first place. 

Discussion

Mr D Bergman (DA) mentioned that the concerns flagged by the Department were already raised by Members in previous meetings. The Minister kept on saying to the Committee everything was on track and SA was ready to host the Commonwealth Games. It was only in the end when the faltering answers from the Minister proved there was indeed still uncertainty about the country’s preparedness to host games. The issue of budget and affordability were one of those issues that were raised as concerns by the Committee. The general understanding was that the country already signed the agreement to host the Commonwealth Games. Sport in the country should be seen as a positive aspect that could be used to unite everyone and also provide financial benefits. The issue of transformation should not only happen within sport but also within the Minister‘s office instead of the Minister tweeting about racism and dividing the country. The Department should be transformed to focus primarily on sport, building the nation, sportspeople, opportunities and competition.  

Mr T Mhlongo (DA) expressed concern that the presentation provided to the Committee was “sanitised” or “cleansed” as some parts looked different from the presentation that was on the website of the Department. 

The Chairperson interjected and suggested that the Member should rather wait for all Members to ask questions. The question on whether the presentation was “sanitised” was rather confusing and perhaps the Member should be given an opportunity to further clarify his point.

Mr Mhlongo explained that he found the presentation on the 2020 Commonwealth Games rather different to the one that was on the Department’s website and that this was perhaps a deliberate attempt to fit a particular agenda. It would be important to know to why the Department did not sign the agreement to host the Commonwealth Games. The Committee should be provided with the copy of the draft of the agreement that was not signed. It was rather confusing as to why the Minister went all the way to say the country will be hosting the Commonwealth Games for 2020 while the agreement had not been signed. The Committee should also be clarified on the amount of money regarded as not befitting. The Department also indicated that it would have supported hosting the tournament if there was an 18% cap on the operational budget. What was the 18% cap in real figures? What was the meaning of the open-ended agreement? Where was the location of the accommodation that was going to be used for accommodating guests?

Mr Mhlongo mentioned that it was concerning to see that the Minister did not respond to the written questions that were posed by Members, particularly around affordability and budget for the Commonwealth Games. When did the Minister become aware that the country would not be able to afford to host the 2022 Commonwealth Games? Did the Department consider all financial implications of hosting the 2022 Commonwealth Games? It would also be important to know about the R180 million that had been used for bidding for the games out of the budget of R200 million. It was sad to hear the Minister saying it was not a loss that the country had used about R180 million out of the budgeted R200 million just for bidding to host the tournament. What would be the financial implications of the R180 million to the Department?

Ms D Manana (ANC) commented that the amount asked for by the CGF for hosting the games looked like it was too much for the country and the Department. The withdrawal of Canada to host the 2022 Commonwealth Games must have been related to similar concerns raised by the Minister particularly the escalation of cost. It would be crucially important for entities, in future, to update Members directly on the accurate figures for bidding on international competitions than for Members to rely on media or newspapers for updates. Was it appropriate and suitable for the village that had been chosen to accommodate guests?

Mr S Mmusi (ANC) explained that the country agreed to host the 2022 Commonwealth Games precisely because the country had bid to host the games. The Department should be given credit for not allowing the bullying tactics of international bodies by escalating the cost of hosting the games. It was clear that the international bodies often controlled when arrived in a country hosting an international event. The Department made the right call by not allowing those strong and strict regulations of hosting the Commonwealth Games.  

Mr S Ralegom (ANC) indicated that countries bid for these international tournaments in order to increase tourism and generation of revenue in the country. It looked like some Members were suggesting that the federations should not be allowed to bid for international games. Some Members complained when the Minister banned five federations from bidding for international tournaments because they had failed to meet the transformational goals.

Mr Mhlongo interrupted and asked Mr Ralegom to identify those particular Members that complained when the Minister banned five federations from bidding for international tournaments because they had failed to meet the transformational goals.

Mr Ralegom responded that indeed the DA Members were included in the Members that complained when the Minister banned five federations from bidding for international tournaments because they had failed to meet the transformational goals. The DA Members also seemed totally opposed to the exercise of bidding for international tournaments. It must be highlighted that it was the Commonwealth Federation (CGF) that withdrew Durban as host of the 2022 Commonwealth Games. The government made the right call for not move beyond R4.32 billion for hosting the games as the country was currently battling with a number of challenges like unemployment and inequality.

The Chairperson asked if there was a particular budget set aside for bidding and hosting of international tournaments. The bidding for international tournaments should be premised on the available budget in order to avoid the situation where the country would bid for unaffordable tournaments.  It would perhaps also be important for the Department to respond to the question on whether the presentation was “sanitised” or “cleansed” as claimed by Mr Mhlongo. There should be an open bidding process in place including the budget to be involved in order to avoid a similar incident that happened in Durban. The general understanding was that it was impossible to bid for the international tournament without involving a budget. The budgeting for the international tournaments should always be linked to the current economic climate in the country like high inflation and slow growth. 

Mr Moemi responded that the claim by Mr Bergman that he lied and undermined the Committee was an attack on his integrity. The Committee should perhaps listen to the Hansard of the previous Committee meetings in order to verify the claim.

Mr Bergmen rose on a point of order and maintained that he never attacked the DG’s integrity and this accusation was now happening for the second time. It would be unacceptable for the DG to speak on behalf of the Minister, Mr Mark Alexander and other people that had presented to the Committee about the 2022 Commonwealth Games. There were three people that had already presented to the Committee and the DG should refrain from being personal.

The Chairperson asked the DG to elaborate as to why he felt Mr Bergman was attacking his integrity. 

Mr Moemi explained that he heard Mr Bergman saying “the DG withheld a kind of important information” - this was clearly an attack on his integrity. It would be helpful for the Committee to listen to Hansard to verify the exact words of Mr Bergmen.  

The Chairperson said that the Parliamentary Monitoring Committee (PMG) would need to assist the Committee with Hansard to verify the point that was made by the DG.

Mr Moemi would not respond to the comments that seemed to suggest that “the Minister wanted to be famous” as this could be responded to by the Minister himself.

The Chairperson interrupted and said that even the question of Mr Mhlongo about how the Minister was using Twitter would not be entertained.

Mr Mhlongo rose on a point of order and maintained that he did not say anything about Twitter but only made a reference to the Department’s website. The website and Twitter were totally different things and maybe the Committee should workshop on the difference between the two.

The Chairperson interjected and said the comment by Mr Mhlongo about the need to workshop on the difference between the website and Twitter was rather offensive and insulting.

Mr Bergmen clarified that he was the one that made the comment about Twitter and the Minister.

The Chairperson apologised to Mr Mhlongo for incorrectly claiming that he was the one that had made a comment. She maintained, however, that Mr Mhlongo seemed to note respect her ruling as  Chairperson of the Committee.  

Mr Moemi refuted the claim that the Department did not listen to the concerns that were raised by Members around budget and affordability of hosting the Commonwealth Games. The Department shared similar concerns that there was a possibility that the country could lose the rights to host the games. The Committee could be provided with a document on the country’s bidding and hosting strategy – it was already presented to the Committee in 2012. The bidding and hosting of the tournament was often used interchangeably and this was a biggest mistake as the processes were quite distinct. The country announced the bidding for the games and the Committee was also briefed when the country lost the rights to host the games. The bidding fee was non-refundable and was similar to when one was bidding for a tender. The bidding fee was a requirement for any country, not just SA, and was something that must be kept in mind. There were broad parameters that were required for each country bidding to host the Commonwealth Games.

Mr Moemi explained that the terms and conditions for bidding were pretty clear and the Department understood them but this did not mean there was already an agreement in place. The real agreement was when there was a stipulation as to how the revenue would be shared and the number of stadia that would be required. SA was awarded the rights to host the tournament because it was able to met all the bidding requirements including the evaluation. It was not the first time the country had failed the bidding rights. The City of Cape Town previously lost the rights to host the Olympics in 2004. The province had already spent R979 million in the bidding process and this was under the DA government. There was no outcry about the amount of money that the Department had already spent bidding to host such a prestigious tournament. SA also bided twice to host the FIFA World Cup and lost it to Germany in 2006 before hosting it in 2010. A total of R810 million was already spent when the country was bidding for the 2006 FIFA World Cup and the issue of cost was not even raised in that case. The Cabinet then spent R1.2 billion to bid for the 2010 FIFA World Cup and then won the bid and everyone celebrated without asking about bidding costs. 

Mr Moemi indicated that the separation between bidding and hosting the tournament should be clearly made - bidding was really similar to paying for the insurance of a car. Canada already spent more money than SA on bidding for the 2022 Commonwealth Games before deciding to withdraw. The majority of the countries in Africa supported SA’s bidding for the tournament as it would have been the first time that the tournament would be held in the African continent. There were many technical skills and expertise required for a country hosting the Commonwealth Games and this was where the Department had to hire the consultancy for detailing how these skills were harnessed. The projection for economic return for the project was around R11 billion but the Minister of Finance then, Mr Nhlanhla Nene, insisted that the Department should hire an independent body to do the projections. The Department hired Ernest & Young to do the projections and the economic return ended up being R20 billion. The Committee was provided with this study that was conducted by Ernest & Young around the benefits of hosting the games. The country bided to host the games precisely for the same reasons that had been indicated by Mr Bergmen, which including nation building and bring about unity.

Mr Moemi clarified that there was not even a single picture of the Minister in the documents bidding for the 2022 Commonwealth Games. The focus was mainly on Durban and what was on offer for the province and the economic benefits of hosting the games. The £1.5 million was the hosting fee that CGF required a country to pay annually and this was due immediately. The country was to pay the £1.5 million until hosting the tournament in 2022  - the Department preferred to pay the amount once-off when the Rand was stronger. The assertion that the presentation had been “sanitised” was rather perplexing as this presentation was meant for the Committee. In fact, there was nothing wrong with the idea of “sanitising” as it was the priority of the Department to give the Committee a clean report that was not full of errors and miscommunication. The Committee could be furnished with the letter of guarantee to host the 2022 Commonwealth Games. There was no letter of the agreement between CGF and SA and there was no agreement reached. The agreement became an agreement once it was ratified and signed. The draft agreement contained information on the R8.5 billion that was required by CGF for SA to host the tournament.

Mr Moemi replied that it was impossible for the Department to make an investment of R4 billion and then leave it to the SA Sports Confederation and Olympic Committee (SASCOC) and CGF to run the board as this was against the prescripts of the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA). The Department spoke about the open-ended shortfall guarantee and not the open-ended agreement. The open-ended shortfall guarantee simply meant the country was given a guarantee that could not be capped. The total budget for the tournament was R4.32 billion and this included the capital expenditure and the R1.3 billion was for the budget of accommodation to the village in Durban. A total of R2.8 billion was for the operational expenditure. There was no letter or communication or any formal correspondence from SASCOC that the Department would not be able to host the tournament. The Department was negotiating with CGF in November 2016 in London - this was the final and last meeting that was held. There were a total of four meetings that the Department held with CGF and this was to negotiate the hosting of the tournament.

Mr Moemi responded that the Committee could be provided with the ballpark breakdown of how the R180 budget for bidding was used although this would require communication with Durban in order to get the full breakdown of how the amount was spent. In terms of contributing to the R200 million budget for bidding, South African Airways (SAA) contributed R1.5 million, National Lottery R3 million and Sports and Recreation about R2 million. The Department considered all the implications before commencing with the bidding and also prepared a proper and this included presentation to the Fiscal Liability Committee of SA. The Department was firm that it was pointless to build accommodation for the tournament as it was preferred that the guests should utilise existing accommodation in the province. The power to do the bidding and hosting rested on the Minister for small tournaments. However, for mega events like Commonwealth Games, the Act was clear there should be Cabinet approval for bidding. There was Cabinet approval for bidding for the games and that was why the expenditure for bidding would not constitute unauthorised expenditure. The budget for bidding was reflected in the Annual Performance Plan (APP) and it was also processed by the Committee.

Mr Mhlongo stated there was no mention of £1.5 million for the hosting fee in all previous presentations that were made to the Committee. The City of Cape Town bided to host the Olympics in 2004 precisely because there was the issue of affordability. It was clear that the City of Durban, under the ANC government, was not ready to host the games. When did the signing of the real contract agreement usually taking place?

Mr Bergmen requested the Department respond to the questions as posed by Members as there was nothing political or targeting individuals in the questions asked. Members were asking these questions because of the constitutional duty to explain to their constituencies. The reality was that it was negligent to spend money on something one could not afford. The bidding should be done when there was a very good chance of winning the bid. Everyone knew the difference between bidding and hosting the tournament and that there were different costs involved in these two processes. The country needed to prioritise sport tourism in order to boost the economy and improve infrastructure. The Commonwealth Games did not bring the same legacies as World Cup games as World Cup games tended to be played nationally and not provincially.

Mr Moemi reiterated that the issue of affordability was taken into consideration when the Department bided to host the games and that was why the Department insisted on a budget of R4.32 billion.  Government worked on the basis of competing priorities. It would be inaccurate to say that Cape Town bided to host the Olympics because the City had the money as the Cape Town needed a national guarantee to pull it through. The bulk of the budget came from the Department through the City. The Department was on the verge of pulling out Cape Town from hosting the 2010 FIFA World Cup until Investec came in and provided funding. All the cities struggle for funding in hosting mega tournaments and this is included Cape Town. There were a number of international countries that had commended SA for standing firm in the initial budget of hosting the games. The protesting scenes witnessed in Brazil during the 2014 FIFA World Cup needed to be avoided.                                                                                     

Briefing by DSR on the Appeal Board of Safety at Sports and Recreational Events Act

Mr Moemi mentioned that the SASREA provided for:

  • measures to safeguard the physical well-being and safety of persons and property at sport, recreational, religious, cultural, exhibitional, organisational or similar events held at stadia, venues or along a route
  • accountability of event role-players, certain prohibitions, risk categorisation of events
  • establishment of measures to deal with the safety and security at events
  • accreditation of role players at events
  • event ticketing
  • control of access of spectators and vehicles at events
  • issuing of safety certificates for planned or existing stadiums or venues
  • establishment of an Appeal Board and for appeals
  • public liability insurance for events; provides for payment of fees; provides for offences and penalties and matters connected herewith.

Key responsibility placed on SRSA, as a result of this Act, included to ensure that the safety and security of all spectators and sports participants at events, stadia or other venues in SA, were adequately nurtured, protected, administered and governed.

SASREA provided, amongst others, that the Minister of Sport and Recreation must, in terms of section 26, appoint an independent board known as the Appeal Board consisting of at least seven members to hear and decide upon appeals against decisions made in terms of this Act.

Subsequently the Minister had, with the assistance of the Portfolio Committee (e.g. conducting of interviews and making recommendations, etc.) appointed eight members to constitute the SASREA Appeal Board.  On 16 September 2016, the SASREA Appeal Board had an induction meeting where various issues affecting the Board, from an operational perspective and otherwise, were deliberated. In addition, an official of National Treasury was also invited to the meeting to explain all processes relative to the National Treasury and regulations to be complied by SRSA insofar as the remuneration of Board members, its structure, etc.                              

Mr Moemi highlighted that SRSA was currently in the process of drafting a submission whereby a duly completed Treasury questionnaire, as signed off by the Chairperson of the SASREA Appeal Board and DG which, amongst others, would address remuneration scales of the SASREA Appeal Board members and would forwarded to the Central Evaluation Committee of the National Treasury for consideration and recommendations. The outcome of the evaluation and the recommendation process will be based on the legislative mandate of the SASREA Appeal Board. The Minister of Sports and Recreation would have to be advised in order for him to make a determination. To assist in this process, the Central Evaluation Committee (based in National Treasury and consisting of representatives from National Treasury, the Department of Public Service and Administration and SRSA) evaluated the contents of the completed questionnaire and made a recommendation to SRSA. Moreover, SRSA will then have to make a recommendation to the Minister (based on the Central Evaluation Committee’s recommendations) who will subsequently have to make a determination in consultation with the Minister of Finance before its implementation.

Discussion

Mr Bergmen appreciated that the Department amended the Act as it was important to manage big sporting events. The Committee should also be provided with the actual legislation so as to see the amendments introduced.

Mr Ralegom was satisfied that the Department saw the need to establish the Appeal Board as this was something to be considered long time ago. It was also important to know if there was any awareness campaign made to various communities in order for the Board to be known in the public domain.

Mr Mhlongo asked about the process undertaken for the filling in of Board members as this was not clear from the presentation. Who were the members to serve in the Board? It was also unclear whether there was public participation on the nomination process for the candidates to serve on the Board. What was the remuneration rate of each member to serve in the Board?

The Chairperson responded that the candidates to serve in the Board had been shortlisted and interviewed including the chairperson of the Board.

Mr Moemi replied that the Department was still to provide the Committee with an opportunity to comment and make additional amendments to the Bill. All sports stakeholders were involved in the nomination and selection of the candidates to serve on the Board including the categorisation of games and this was part of public participation. The categorisation of a particular event differed in terms of roles and responsibilities. The Committee could be furnished with the remuneration rates for the individuals to serve on the Board as they were gazetted by the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA).  

Briefing by DSR on the Legislative Framework for 2017

Mr Moemi stated that the South African Institute for Drug-free Sport Act, 1997 (Act No. 14 of 1997 as amended) promoted the participation in sport free from the use of prohibited substances or methods intended to artificially enhance performance, thereby rendering impermissible doping practices which were contrary to the principles of fair play and medical ethics, in the interests of the health and well-being of sports persons. This Act will be amended to provide for:

  • an inquiry with regard to the removal of a member of Institute from office and for the resignation of a member;
  • resolution of the National Assembly calling for the removal of a member of the Institute or for the dissolution of the Institute
  • appointment of interim members of the Institute
  • consent in random  testing of learners in schools that participate in sport in order to address the gaps in legislation

The National Sport and Recreation Act, 1998 (Act No. 110 of 1998 as amended) provided for:

  • promotion and development of sport and recreation
  • co-ordination of the relationships between SRSA and the Sports Confederation, National Federations (NFs) and other agencies

The Act will be amended to, amongst others, provide for to the promotion and development of sport and recreation, establish a Sport Arbitration Tribunal to resolve disputes in sport or recreation bodies, provide for the procedure  in bidding and hosting of the international sports and recreation events and to provide for offences and penalties.                 

The South African Boxing Act, 2001 (Act No. 11 of 2001) will be repealed following the promulgation of the South African Combat Sport Bill. The priority was to ensure the safety of boxers and the relationship between boxers, managers, promoters, trainers and officials and Boxing SA

(BSA) were effectively and efficiently administered and governed in the best interests of boxing and its stakeholders as a whole.

The Safety at Sports and Recreational Events Act, 2010 (Act No. 2 of 2010) provided for measures to safeguard the physical well-being and safety of persons and property at sport, recreational, religious, cultural, exhibitional, organisational or similar events held at stadiums, venues or along a route,accountability of event role-players, certain prohibitions, risk categorisation of events and the establishment of measures to deal with safety and security at events. The key responsibility placed on SRSA as a result of this Act was to ensure the safety and security of all spectators and sports participants at events and that stadia, or other venues in SA, wee adequately nurtured, protected, administered and governed.

Mr Moemi mentioned that the Recognition of Sport and Recreation Bodies Regulations, 2010, covered:

  • criteria for recognition of sport and recreation bodies
  • application for recognition
  • appeals process
  • duties of recognised sport and recreation bodies and other aspects related to the recognition of sports bodies

These Regulations will be amended to, amongst others, substitute the word “Chief Director” for the word “Director-General”; to insert a new definition of “Advisory Committee” and create separate criteria for recognition of sport bodies as opposed to recreation bodies. The Amendment Regulations were already drafted and were in the process of being submitted to MANCO for consideration and approval. Bidding and Hosting of International Sport and Recreational Events Regulations, 2010, will be amended by, amongst others, insertion of new definitions and the substitution of the definition of  “major and other international sport or recreational event” in order to address the gaps in the principle legislation.The Amendment Regulations were already drafted and were currently in the process of being submitted to MANCO for consideration and approval.

The Fitness Industry Regulatory Bill, 2017, was currently being scrutinised by the SEIAS Unit of the Presidency where after it will be refined by the SRSA. The Combat Sport Bill, 2017, had already been scrutinized by the SEIAS Unit of the Presidency and was currently in the process of being refined by SRSA.  SRSA was currently in the process of drafting a National Academies of Sport Bill which will be based on the draft Provincial Academies of Sport Bill in order to maintain unity and essential national standards and to spearhead the functionality of the Sport Academies’ System in the Republic.

Discussion

Mr Bergmen indicated he had been in the process of proposing a law that could look after the golf clubs and caddies in the country but the main challenge had always been penetrating the sporting code. 

Mr Moemi proposed that Mr Bergmen write to the Minister to raise his concerns around golf clubs as the Minister was the one who had the power to regulate any sporting code in the country. The Golf Association of South Africa (GAS) already had some regulations pertaining to golf clubs and this was critically important. It was also important to highlight that government must not seek to over-regulate everything - the main priority should be to firstly convince the GAS to refresh its own rules and regulations to comply with looking after the golf clubs and caddies. The problem could arise when the GAS did not agree with the proposal if it was the interest of golfers to exploit the caddies. The caddies must also show that it made some advances to the federation before appealing to the Minister for intervention.            

Briefing by the Department of Sport and Recreation on its Second and Third Quarter Performance

Mr Moemi indicated that in Quarter Two, there were 21 targets to be achieved by the Department. In total, 15 targets were achieved and 6 were not achieved. This amounted to 71% achievement.  In cases where performance was not supported by adequate evidence, the target had been recorded as not achieved. In Quarter Three there were 24 targets to be achieved by the Department. In total, 18 targets were achieved and 6 were not achieved. This amounted to 75% achievement. There were three targets to be achieved during the quarter under review. Two targets were not achieved and one target was achieved. The Department achieved 71% against the target of 100% for the moderation for performance assessments concluded for the previous cycle by the end of the following financial year. The reason for deviation was due to the moderating committee for levels 14 and upwards not convening as planned. The meeting of the Moderating Committee was planned to take place before 15 March 2017 and this was regarded as a corrective action.

There were nine targets to be achieved on programme two during the quarter under review. Seven targets were achieved and two targets were not achieved. There were two sport promotional campaigns and events implemented per year under programme two (active action). A total of three events, counted as one project, were implemented to achieve NMSCD objectives. NMSCD could not be afforded in 2016/17 and was thus cancelled. The management discussed the matter during the first and second quarter review meetings. The Andrew Mlangeni Golf Development Day, the Basketball National League and 67 Minutes were all projects contributing to nation building as per the aim of the NMSCD. The Department planned to utilise other affordable SRSA projects to contribute towards nation building until the NMSCD could be afforded. There were only 2 859 people out of the planned target of 11 700 people who participated in sport and recreation promotion campaigns and events per year. The Department was confident that once the participation numbers in the various events were verified this target will be achieved. 

Mr Moemi said that there were seven targets to be achieved by the programme. Five targets were achieved and two were not achieved. The Department achieved 46 out of the target of 60 athletes to be supported through the Ministerial Sport Bursary Programme. There were challenges with regard to verification of documents from athletes and schools. The Department will be doing a follow-up with athletes’ parents and schools. There were four targets to be achieved for programme four during the quarter under review.  All targets were achieved. The Department achieved 21 out of the target of 40 in supporting federations pledging support for the Code of Conduct. The issue was mainly on the non-compliance by sport bodies. The Department was planning to do follow-ups in the fourth quarter. All documents received from sport and recreation bodies were checked, verified, analysed and written feedback was sent to federations. Allocation Agreements were sent to compliant sport and recreation bodies resulting in 48 bodies supported financially.

There was one target to be achieved under programme five and it was achieved. The target was to produce four post supports report for the entire financial year and one for each quarter.  Out of 10 MOUs, eight had been received and signed by the DG and sent back to the benefiting municipalities. Awaiting MOUs were from the city managers of Ethekwini and Nelson Mandela Bay.Site handover meetings were arranged with Green Outdoor Gyms together with the benefiting municipalities. The purpose of these handover meetings were to fast track the installation of outdoor gyms, as well as to show them the exact location of the site. The sites visited were Maquassi Hills Local Municipality, Sol Plaatje Local Municipality, Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality, Thulamela, Beufort West, Nelson Mandela Bay and Bushbuckridge.

Mr Lesedi Mere, CFO, SRSA, stated that the departmental financial performance, as at 31 December 2016, showed the overall spending was sitting at R856.6 million which represented 83% of the total budget allocation out of a total budget of R1.026 million. There was an 8% overspending in terms of arithmetic forecast of 75% - equivalent to nine months. The Department had applied to National Treasury to shift funds within Transfers from Federations to cover the overspending on Households (Ministerial Bursary programme). The programme was budgeted for accordingly for the coming Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) period going forward. The overspending on household (leave discounting) will be off set with a virement at year end. The under spending in compensation was due to vacant posts currently being filled, e.g. Director: School Sport (Director –started on the 01stof January 2017). The over-expenditure on household (leave discounting) will be off set with a virement at year end. The total spending rate was at 53% and under spending by 22%. Under spending on compensation was mainly due to unfilled vacancies. The overspending on household (Ministerial Bursary) will be off set with a virement at year end.

Discussion

Mr Mhlongo asked the Department to provide the Committee with the breakdown of where the money was spent for each programme as this would be helpful to see which programmes were prioritised. It would also be important to know why there was no target set for Quarter Three in a number of provinces with a facility count completed under programme 5 (infrastructure).  

Mr Ralegom expressed concern about the issue of expenditure per province as there seemed to be inconsistence in spending. The matter of following the prescripts of PFMA was also of concern as some entities were not following the procurement process. The Committee should also be briefed on the challenges around the Sport Trust. What was the view of National Treasury on the Sport Trust? The Department would also need to address the problem of Information Technology (IT).

Mr Mere responded that the Sport Trust was audited annually by both the Department’s auditors and auditors of the Trust as well. The Department transfered a sizeable amount of money to the Sport Trust and there were programmes that the Department was implementing with the Sport Trust. There were programmes that the Department agreed to partner with the Sport Trust on because it was able to fundraise on the behalf of the Department. The Department had an engagement with the Treasury around the Sport Trust. Treasury moved the Sport Trust allocation to another and this was in relation to the compliance by the Department. The only measure that the Department could take to those provinces that were not spending the money was to withdraw funding as required by the Division of Revenue Act (DORA). North West was the only province that the Department had not been able to transfer funding because of not spending the funds. The Department made a progress in terms of procurement issues in the current financial year compared to the previous one. The only reason BSA failed to get a clean audit was because of the way it regulated transactions. The Department met with all bodies that received transfers, including BSA, in order to flag all issues highlighted by the Auditor-General of South Africa (AGSA).

Mr Mere added that the Department would address the problem of IT as soon as the decision was taken on whether the Department will be moving to a new building and to invest in IT infrastructure.  In essence, the prioritisation on IT infrastructure will have to happen after the decision had been taken on whether or not the Department will be a moving. There was also an engagement with the Department of Public Works (DPW) on whether the Department on the move. The indications were that it would be clear at the end of the financial year whether the Department will be staying or moving.

The Chairperson expressed concern around the fact that funding for sport in North West had not been transferred because of lack of expenditure. It was unclear whether the Department was still using consultants in infrastructure support to various provinces. 

Mr Mere replied that the Department was given a total of R10 million to capacitate itself in the infrastructure unit. The process of recruitment had already started and there was consultancy being utilised at a minimum rate. The use of consultancy was basically a transitional arrangement and not to be utilised for the entire programme. Treasury was very strict in terms of the use of consultancy as this was a cost-containment measure. The Head of Department (HOD) in North West was not even concerned that the funding for sport had been withdrawn in the province as the priority seemed to be on education rather than sport. The challenge seemed to be on balancing between sport and education and most provinces often prioritised education. The North West province told the Department straight away that it would not be able to comply with the requirement to prioritise sport in schools.  

Mr Moemi explained that the Constitution was clear that children in school should be allowed to play sport and recreation and this why it would be important for North West to comply with the Constitution. Sport and recreation usually went hand in hand. The programmes were both co-founded and therefore could not be divided. The Department was supposed to deliver school sport funding to the Department of Basic Education (DBE) but the issue of sport was a footnote to the DG of DBE as the preoccupation was on delivering textbooks and improving the Matric pass rate. The National Council of Provinces (NCOP) was body to summon the premiers from various provinces to prioritise sport in schools. The Department was clear that the entities will get more money as soon as they were able to get a clean audit. There was a deadline for an unqualified audit opinion for BSA and not a clean audit. The transfers for the 2017/18 financial year will go with a prescript of achieving a clean audit to all entities including BSA. The Department had a seen a major improvement since the new Board in the BSA had taken over.

The Chairperson indicated that the Committee will deal with the North West province oversight report and outstanding minutes in its next meeting.

The meeting was adjourned.         

Share this page: