Department of Sport, Arts and Culture 2024/25 1st Quarter Performance

Meeting report

The Chairperson welcomed everyone to the meeting and said that the Committee would receive a briefing from the Department of Sport, Arts and Culture (DSAC) on their 2024/2025 1^st Quarter performance report.

The Chairperson called for the adoption of the agenda.

Mr G Kgabo (ANC) moved for the adoption of the agenda, and Ms E Nkosi(ANC) seconded the adoption of the agenda.

The Chairperson said that it was important for the Committee, in its oversight role, to check whether the spending trends were being properly implemented. The Committee should follow the money to keep the Department accountable while also engaging robustly with the developments taking place within the Department.

He asked the Department and the Committee to re-look at the Department’s events, and advocacy programmes in the future and stop funding entities that were using public funds to fight legal battles. There were a lot of complaints against the Department and entities, as well as concerns from the public. There was a need to create a proper register for such complaints and ensure that the complaints were being given attention. He invited the Department to make their presentation.

DSAC 2024/25 1st Quarter Performance

Dr Cynthia Khumalo, Acting Director-General, DSAC, indicated that after the Committee’s comments in the meeting of 17 September 2024, they had enhanced the presentation that they would be making. Therefore what the Committee had been provided before the meeting will be slightly different from what the Department would be presenting.

The Chairperson interjected, asking whether the changes made to the presentation pertained to how the numbers were presented and whether there was an addition of an abbreviations list as the Committee Members had prepared themselves based on the initial presentation sent to the Committee.

Dr Khumalo replied that, indeed no substantive changes had been made to the presentation. In the first quarter, she said that the Department had set a total of 22 output indicators, out of which they managed to achieve 19. One target that was overachieved was on programme 1 particularly 1.4 on celebrations hosted where they had set out to hold one event in quarter one but had managed to hold 17. The non-achieved targets were in Programme 1 on Administration and Programme 2 on recreation. In the programme, the non-achieved targets included the number of sports, arts and culture Izimbizo held. They had initially set out to hold one event in the first quarter but that was not possible due to inadequate evidence to support the reported achievement.

In programme two, the non-achieved target was the number of athlete development programmes supported where they had set out to support nine programmes but only supported six. The reason for deviation was that KwaZulu Natal was not supported in line with their business plant, while the Eastern Cape and Limpopo could not be confirmed as supported due to inadequate evidence.

Mr Israel Mokgwamme, CFO, DSAC, said that the Department had spent 24% of its annual adjusted budget by the end of quarter one which was below what they had projected. The underspending was due to a number of reasons including lack of expenditure of previously transferred funds by Nelson Mandela Museum and National Museum Bloemfontein.

Dr Khumalo said that the presentation of the geographic spread of the Department’s projects was also enhanced. Under Programme 1 on Administration, the target on democracy celebrations was held. They held 17 events in six provinces, except for the Eastern Cape, between April and June 2024, but they could not be counted due to lack of evidence.

See attached for full presentation

Discussion

The Chairperson asked the Committee Members to deal with only the issue of Programme 1.4. The copy of the Department’s presentation forwarded to the Committee did not tally with the presentation the Department had just made. He asked the Acting DG to explain the disparity. He said he would not recommend the adoption of the report and said that the Department had to go back and rectify the ‘rubbish’ that had been presented before the Committee.

Mr G Kobane (MK) interjected and said that giving the Department an opportunity to explain it when it seemed fraudulent was just going to waste the Committee’s time. He agreed that they could not adopt the report which was ‘fake’ and ‘totally useless’. He asked the Chairperson to reject that report. The Department should provide a truthful report that shows what was happening. He said he was in Limpopo and was aware what the Department was claiming happened did not occur. The Department was treating the Committee as fools.

Mr E Mthethwa (EFF) said that he had questions that he now had to not ask for the moment.

The Chairperson agreed and said he had followed the presentation page by page and noticed a huge discrepancy between what had been presented and what had been provided to the Committee. If the Committee were to interrogate the presentations, they would observe even much more issues. He said that he would not allow himself to be used to rubber stamp bad reports.

Mr Mthethwa emphasised that the Department had changed its report significantly after they sent the Committee the report. Based on that, it was difficult for the Members to seek clarity or information. The Committee needed to make a decision that the meeting with the Department be adjourned. The Committee had been subjected to sanitised reports but whilst listening to the presentation, it seemed people were just ticking boxes. Nothing in the presentation talks to the [inaudible]. Were they just gathering people to come and speak about anything so that they could tick a box? He was not happy with the report.

Mr L Jacobs (DA) said that the report was scary, wishy-washy and something that was not doing any justice to South Africans. He echoed the sentiments of his fellow Committee Members and drew attention to Programme 1.4 and asked why it was that initially four events was being budgeted for but a lot of those events took place on 07/05, 25/04,27/04, 24/05/,26/05,18/05,16/06,27/04, 03/05,04/05,05/05,23/05,11/05,12/05 and 19/05. He asked why most of the events occurred right before the general election when they were just supposed to be four. This was a deep cause for concern.

Ms M Mmolotsane (ANC) said the Committee’s function was not to tick boxes. She went through the report as the Department was making their presentation, and observed that the presentation differed from the report provided to the Committee. At some stage they needed to have physical meetings because the virtual meetings were not doing justice to the Committee. She concurred with the Chairperson that the report had to go back and be corrected thereafter, a report that contains a true reflection of what was happening on the ground should be presented. She said that regarding the issue of Sarah Baartman, she wanted to suggest that they go to Sarah Baartman as soon as the parliamentary recess is over because it looked like the Committee needed to do oversight visits. At the end of the day it was the Committee Members as Members of Parliament who would be blamed for the inaction of the Department in terms of implementation. She asked that when the Department next presents before the Committee it had to be a physical meeting so that they are able to raise all the issues.

Ms Nkosi concurred with the Chairperson that they should ask the professionals in the Portfolio committee to tell the Committee of their analysis of the report. This would then make it easier for the Committee in making a decision.

Adv S Salie (Al Jama-ah) said that the presentation was a tick box exercise gone wrong and that not even copying and pasting can be an excuse for what the Committee was currently witnessing. She asked the Committee to trust their gut, noting the presentations where one had deviations and one without was concerning. She agreed that the meeting needed to end and the professional staff should go back and recheck what they had provided to the Committee. There might be a need for images to prove all the information that they are providing on the events because all those events did not occur. She shared the concerns of her fellow Committee Members and agreed that the hybrid meetings are not working. In all honesty, she would not proceed with the meeting as they were doing a disservice to South Africa. She was appalled that the Department decided to waste the Committee’s time with the presentation they had just made.

The Chairperson gave notice that he was going to adjourn the meeting because of the fact that two reports had been submitted and the explanation provided by the Acting DG was insufficient. It created a state of distrust between the Portfolio Committee and the Department. He asked the Department to go back and work on programme 1, point 1.4. He tasked the CFO with the responsibility of providing a breakdown of those four events in terms of costs and attendance lists, among others. Despite the Acting DG’s claim that the two reports do not differ, they did differ to such an extent that there must be an explanation. Another reason was that the Department needed to go back and tell the Committee what was in their Annual Performance Plan as far as the projects were concerned. He was yet to see their APP but his gut feeling was that there was only one earmark or only one budget for one event.

He requested the PC secretary to write to the researchers to ask them to obtain the Department’s APP, go through them and note the contents as well as if there was a report of any kind on those four events. They should provide a detailed explanation of the second event that purportedly occurred. The Committee had halted a project in the Eastern Cape while there were rumours that there were builders on the site. The Committee was going to meet after the meeting. The Committee’s programme has been changed and they were given the opportunity to go on oversight on the first week of October and one of the visits will be to Sarah Baartman.

Mr Mthethwa disagreed that the Committee should not give the Department the opportunity to go and rectify the report as, in his opinion, there was nothing to rectify. The Committee giving them the opportunity to rectify would be tantamount to them granting an opportunity for them to redraft the report and allowing them to clear fraud already committed. He did not believe if one had done something correctly, there would be a need to go back to look at what they had done. When one goes on an assignment by government they have to bring back a report on what transpired and how much money was spent. The report being presented should have been a collation of those reports made on what the Department had been doing. He could not understand what would make the Department present a wrong report when they had minutes and a report of an attendance register of what they had been doing. The Department needed to provide the Committee with a portfolio of evidence of everything that they were saying they had done. The Minister needed to be the one leading the reports. The Department never seemed to be running short of salaries but projects that are important to change people’s lives were always lacking budget. The Department frequently reports on the underspending of the budget yet the very Department was bemoaning the reduction of the budget by Treasury. They report underspending but no one seemed to be talking about underspending or overspending on salaries. In his opinion, the Minister needed to take the Committee into his confidence because while the Minister may be new, the Department had been in existence for over 30 years. If the Committee was still going to be rectifying and dealing issues of administration at this time, then the Department was just wasting with the Committee’s time. The Committee needed to be tough and they were not going to be endorsing things because there are majorities in the committees. He reiterated his rejection of the report and the same should be reflected on record. The Committee was not giving the Department any other opportunity to rectify, they would be giving the Department the opportunity to go and prepare a response and explain why such things have happened in terms of the reporting. On issues of programmes, the Committee will do its own investigation on that.

Mr Kobane said that he supported the motion that the meeting must be adjourned.

The Chairperson thanked Department for their attendance and asked them to leave the meeting.

Committee Minutes

Minutes dated 20 August 2024

The Committee Secretariat took the Members through the minutes page by page, inviting comments from the Members.

The Chairperson, on point 3.1 of the minutes asked that it be reworded to read that ‘the process was transparent and fair’. On page 7, bullet 5, he said the same should read: ‘Members sought clarity on the mandate and scope of the Gary Kirsten Foundation in relation to Cricket South Africa and the fact that the Department only assist federations.’

Mr Mthethwa said his name was missing from the attendance list, but he was present at the meeting.

Minutes dated 23 August 2024

The Committee Secretariat took the Members through the minutes page by page, inviting comments from the Members.

Mr Mthethwa proposed the adoption of the minutes. Mr Jacobs seconded the motion.

Minutes dated 27 August 2024

The Committee Secretariat took the members through the minutes page by page, inviting comments from the Members.

Mr Mthethwa proposed the adoption of the minutes. Adv Salie seconded the motion.

Minutes dated 03 September 2024

The Committee Secretariat took the Members through the minutes page by page, inviting comments from the Members.

The Chairperson, on the National Council for Library and Information Sciences, asked that the word ‘respective’ be added right before the words political parties. The word consideration can be replaced with the word ‘names’. He asked that the minutes reflect the fact that the Committee did not approve the names and asked that the names be reconsidered.

Mr Mthethwa proposed adoption of the minutes. Ms Nkosi seconded the motion.

Minutes dated 06 September 2024

The Committee Secretariat took the Members through the minutes page by page, inviting comments from the Members.

The Chairperson directed the secretariat to add on bullet point three on page four of the minutes that “while support staff are being seen as part of the Committee, it plays an integral part with the Committee in terms of oversight.’

Mr Mthethwa asked that the minutes should always include matters arising which should state some of the issues the Members have highlighted in different aspects of the Committee discussions.

Ms Nkosi agreed and added that it should also contain reasons why action was not taken and the next steps.

Mr Mthethwa proposed the adoption of the minutes. Ms Nkosi seconded the motion.

Minutes dated 10 September 2024

The Committee Secretariat took the Members through the minutes page by page, inviting comments from the Members.

Mr Mthethwa proposed the adoption of the minutes. Ms Nkosi seconded the motion.

The Chairperson said that he was going to take the matter up with the Chair of Chairs pertaining to what happened in the meeting with the Department today.

On oversight, he had received information from the Committee secretary that the programme had been changed and the Committee would now be able to do oversight from 08-11 October but it will not be to the Northern Cape as initially intended. Sarah Baartman was a problem so he wanted to propose that they do oversight there alongside the Eastern Cape. This would be appropriate given the short notice.

Adv Salie agreed with the Chairperson that oversight needed to be done. It would be challenging for her to attend the oversight as she would be out of the country so she asked the Committee to agree as soon as possible, and note all the visits that they intend to do so that the necessary arrangements could also be made and the Members who will be available can be identified. She suggested that they could split themselves in a manner that the Committee would get more oversight done in the limited time they have. She had noted from other oversight visits a situation where the whole Committee goes. She said that she had been receiving emails from organisations who had been sending requests to different levels of government for years with no assistance. Her investigation into some of the federations and foundations that had sent emails to her was that those entities were ones that had given South Africa some of its most decorated sports people. Despite this, they were not being recognised or provided assistance. Her plan for the constituency period was to try and visit the offices of the entities. She had put invitations on the Committee’s portfolio chat so that anyone interested may join.

Mr Mthethwa said he agreed that the Committee split itself so that they are to do more oversight. He pleaded with the Members as they were going on recess that they try to go to the institutions that report to the Committee within their own constituencies, take note of what they see, and provide a report on those.

He said he suggested this because the Department seemed to be providing executive summaries, not details. The Department should be involved and financially support the ‘inviso’ because it was their duty to take the Committee into their confidence as the programmes they were running were not just events.

The Chairperson said that the Department had already reported on three events in their report for the 1^st quarter of 2024/25 which he was sure a large amount of money had been spent. He agreed that in future, the Committee might have to influence the type of events the Department implements.

On issues of splitting Members for purposes of oversight, he was not sure if it would be possible as the oversight is for the entire Committee. A report from that visit is made which has to be adopted and be tabled in Parliament. Members are however able to do oversight as individual MPs. The professional staff would provide clarity on whether they will be able to split.

He had noted that their support staff had been flooded by emails, Whatsapps and calls from ordinary clubs in villages. While the Committee had a responsibility to the broader community, he reminded the Members that the Committee’s objective was to oversee the 28 entities. He did not want the Committee to be party to issues when they eventually reached the Committee. He asked Members to follow the rules and direct their constituents to follow the right procedure in terms of reporting, as the Committee’s role was oversight.

He asked for a proposal to give the Committee secretariat the go-ahead with the arrangements for the Members to go on an oversight visit.

Mr Mthethwa said that he had confidence in the Chairperson’s judgement and that they could go on with the arrangements for the oversight visit.

The Chairperson thanked the Members for their participation in the meeting and wished them good luck.

Meeting Adjourned