A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.
SPORT & RECREATION PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
28 March 2001
SOUTH AFRICAN BOXING BILL: DELIBERATIONS
Public Comments from Hearings on prior draft South African Boxing Bill [B58-2000] (email firstname.lastname@example.org for document)
South African Boxing Bill [B13-2001]
Letter from Auditor General concerning South African Boxing Bill (See Appendix)
Amendments to the proposed South African Boxing Bill [B13-2001] referred to as the 'new bill' were discussed. The previous day the Chairperson noted that in order for the New Bill to conform to requirements for Constitution Section 75 legislation, Sections 10, 11, 20-29, and 40 of the prior draft South African Boxing Bill [B58-2000] ("the Old Bill") had been deleted, along with Section 1 definitions (ii-v).
In the 27 March meeting the Committee had considered the department's document collating all the recommendations from the public submissions on the Old Bill, and had deleted those suggestions pertaining to Constitution Section 76 matters (concerning provinces) and other issues such as broadcasting, which are no longer incorporated in the New Bill.
The controversy over the removal of the May 5 Bafana Bafana v. Zimbabwe soccer match from Cape Town was briefly discussed. The issue was the difficulty that the Cape Town municipality was causing around use of the Newlands Stadium facilities for PSL and other soccer matches The possibility of racism playing a part in facility availability, was identified as a serious matter for the committee to address and monitor.
Ms. Bhengu (ANC) noted that at the 27 March meeting the compiled comments solicited during public hearings on the Old Bill had been "culled", and those still relevant identified, which could now be considered with the input of the Ministry and the legal advisor. It was also noted that the committee had accepted the recommendations contained in the Auditor General's March 26, 2001 letter.
The following issues on the New Bill were among those discussed, with input from the Ministry and legal advisor:
1. Under Section 34, reference will be made to allow the Minister to promulgate regulations concerning the sanctioning of fights, and ratings of boxers.
2. Under Section 1, "Boxing", "Manager", "Trainer", "Agent", and "Boxer" will be specifically defined.
3. Concerning Section 7, Messrs. Chauke (ANC) and Louw (ANC) noted that agents should be subject to regulation. However the legal advisor raised an issue as to whether and how foreign-based agents can be dealt with. The conclusion was that the legislative drafter would consult with the Ministry, then make a recommendation on this point.
4. Concerning the Section 7(1)(j) and (w) time cutoffs concerning, respectively, licensing of tournaments and participation in foreign tournaments, 30 days was the preferred period in order to afford enough time, practically, to process required paperwork.
5. The Section 7(1)(w) requirement of notice to Boxing SA or involvement in foreign tournaments will be limited to boxers, and not expanded to promoters, agents, managers, and boxing officials.
6. A lengthy discussion was held concerning the provisions of Section 9(2), and the Minister's power to appoint the members of Boxing SA.. The question was raised as to whether the committee should have some role in the process, but the legal advisor and Ministry official noted the Minister's preference to have this exclusive power.
Mr. Ferreira (IFP) remarked that while that preference was understandable, and that he had doubts as to whether the committee should actively participate in such processes, there was some concern as to the concentration of power in the Minister, notwithstanding prior indications of his intention to "consult with stakeholders".
Mr. Lee (DP) then asked whether there were no associations of stakeholders whom the Minister could be directed to consult on appointments, and along these lines the Chair queried whether such associations, or stakeholders, could nominate some number of candidates for the Minister to consider.
Mr. Frolick (UDM) observed that a difficulty with stakeholder recommendations is that individuals whose participation could be problematic could be suggested, and consequently it is necessary to give the Minister wide discretion in making these appointments.
Mr. Chauke (ANC) suggested that given these issues, the committee could reserve the right to veto appointments, either for itself or via its chairperson. Mr. Moonsamy (ANC) observed that some committee participation would facilitate transparency and democratic practice.
In reply, the Ministry official noted that the New Bill provides for structures within Boxing SA which will provide the opportunity for stakeholders to have input and make recommendations concerning appointments. Moreover, the Minister is committed to considering committee input, but that it remains preferable not to memorialize that role in the legislative text.
As the discussion concluded, a consensus emerged that a consultative component must be included in the appointment process in order to facilitate democratic transparency, with further consideration to be given as to the particulars to be specified.
Letter from Auditor General: 26 March 2001
Proposed amendment suggestions:
1.Section 15(4)(a) and (b)
It is suggested that the reference in section 15(4)(a) and (b) to "Boxing SA be omitted and substituted with the word "CEO".
It is In line with the norms and standards of the PFMA that the CEO be held responsible for these functions. Please refer to section 49,50and also section 51 of the PFMA for the general responsibilities of accounting authorities.
It is suggested that the period of "six rnonths" be omitted and substituted by the period of "five months"
There exists a discrepancy with regard to the fact that section Section15(4)(b) requires that financial statements must be prepared not later than six months after the end of the financial year, whereas section 15(3) requires the CEO to submit audited financial statements not later than five months after the end of the financial years..
These periods should be in line with the PFMA which in fact stipulates five months, as per section 55 of the PFMA.
It is regarded as imperative that it be clarified whether the trust funds are to be audited or not and also who will audit these trust funds.
It. is Imperative that these trust funds are audited and reported on.
The bill does not specify who the auditors are.
It is suggested that in light of the fact that the Head of Sport and Recreation has requested the Office of the Auditor General to execute the present audit of the Boxing Commission, that future audits of Boxing SA be entrusted to the Auditor-General in the Bill
No related documents
- We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting
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.