Department of Sport & Recreation & South African Institute of Drug-Free Sport Annual Reports: briefings

Mr Oosthuizen apologized for the fact that his delegation had limited time, as they were part of the initiative to take Parliament to the people, and would to travel to Limpopo later that day. He said that the Minister had recently returned from a trip to Cameroon. He welcomed the chance of interaction with the Portfolio Committee. He said that the oversight role was sacred to democracy.

He tabled the report and made some additional comments. He emphasized the role of sport in development and creating peace. He said that greater number of staff in the department would not necessarily lead to better administration. The Auditor General (AG) had stated that SRSA had done well despite the shortage of personnel. Two bills would be introduced to cover the soccer World Cup in 2010.

SRSA had had hardly any contact with local government. NACOB was to replace USSASA, and the process of dismantling the latter was going well. He stressed the need to address the backlog of facilities and needs in an aggressive manner. This was the key to unlocking the shortfall in achievement, and the lack of facilities was hampering transformation. The need to upgrade facilities at schools and in communities was re-emphasized. Creating mass participation was the main challenge.

He then discussed the AG’s report. SRSA’s financial statements had been unqualified by the AG. An amount of R12 million had been under spent. He was unhappy with some of the programs. A conference was held at Fort Hare to discuss the role sport had played in the liberation struggle. He said that there would be better news regarding schools events next year. He revealed that 43% of tourism is in the sports tourism field. In fact, the gold mining sector had generated R35 billion in the last year, while tourism had generated revenue of R53 billion. He renewed his appeal for more facilities.

Discussion

The Chairperson said the Portfolio Committee shared in the celebration of SRSA for winning two financial awards. He said that SRSA was setting goals for other departments. He noted that this Portfolio Committee was the only one to visit all nine provinces, and had conducted extensive visits in each. The Portfolio Committee had had interaction with local government. Sport was at level three in the majority of municipalities regarding the IDP. He noted that no school had refused to make their facilities available to underprivileged schools. However, instances had occurred where vandalism had taken place after unfavourable results on the field. This was making schools reluctant to make their facilities available.

Mr TD Lee (DA) was glad that facilities were being addressed. He asked where the money for this was coming from. Basic facilities should be made available near schools. He asked what the Deputy Minister’s responsibilities were, and whether school sports were his total focus. He then remarked that boxing seemed unable to get its house in order. Their report was late again, as in previous years, and was not good. He noted that unfulfilled tenders were one factor in SRSA’s underexpenditure for the year, and asked which ones they were. He also asked about the distribution of the 103 sports councils, and noted that there were duplications.

Mr DM Dikgacwi (ANC) spoke about the relationship between school sports and USSASA. Division had been sown, hampering delivery. The Department of Education also had an interest in school sports. He asked who would be absorbed into NACOC. He noted that SASCOC had a role in assisting with in-fighting within some federations, and that some of these federations were in a chaotic state. He asked whether the municipalities were on board.

Mr CT Frolick (ANC) said that the Portfolio Committee had seen both sides. He mentioned two examples of successful projects, namely in Kwanobuhle, where a major turnaround had been achieved thanks to the municipality, and in Motherwell where SRSA was to be commended. He noted that complaints had been received from previously disadvantaged individuals regarding SASCOC. In particular, problems had been raised regarding cycling, and SASCOC had said that the federation must sort out their own problems. Therefore the question was what was SASCOC’s role in such disputes, and what guidance would be given by SRSA. He asked how far the integration process of the Sports Commission had progressed, and how SRSA would assist in ensuring that the principles of good corporate government would be achieved.

Mr Oosthuizen replied that he was responsible for ensuring that the entire sports industry was showcased and developed. School sport had been mentioned in the budget speech. SRSA was to get an agreement in place and to roll out and introduce Physical Education on an incremental basis and to get plans and a budget in place. Regarding facilities a comprehensive program was needed to wipe out the facilities backlog. Facilities were need for communities and on a communal basis for schools. Members of SRSA worked as a team.

The Chairperson said that an AG opinion on the situation with boxing would be made known on 15 November. In terms of the PFMA, the Portfolio Committee had a duty to interact on micromanagement in finances. The questions on boxing should stand over until this date.

The Deputy Minister said that SRSA would get ringfenced funds and would interact with local government for facilities. It was international best practice in the development of new housing estates that a certain percentage of land should be set aside for sport and recreational activities. There had been a fantastic response to this principle. New schools would also include sports fields. As regards urban renewal, an initiative would be launched for the next cycle of reporting.

Prof Hendricks said that the underspending had been largely due to tenders not being awarded. There were several posts still unfilled, and tenders for mass participation activities had not been awarded. SRSA’s costs for the previous year had included the procurement of equipment, but this responsibility had now been handed to provincial level. Many of the tenders had not been awarded due to insufficient detail in the specification, so that bids could not be compared. Specifications would have to be tightened.

Mr Fredericks said the SA Bureau of Standards would need to help. For example, a fifteen page document had been generated to describe a T-shirt. Opportunities had been given to small business to tender, but some did not deliver. The facilities plan had been delayed due to management changes.

Prof Hendricks said that another reason for the under-expenditure was the cancellation of the President’s Sports Awards. This was deemed no longer necessary as sportspeople now qualified for receiving National Orders. However, there was still a void as few sportspeople would qualify for these honours.

Mr Oosthuizen said the question regarding ringfenced funds had been answered. SASCOC is responsible for addressing issues of in-fighting, but is still in its infancy. Not all national federations are affiliated to SASCOC. For example, Rugby had attended the SASCOC President’s Council but is still not affiliated. In case of conflict, the President of SASCOC should approach the Ministry which would then appoint a task team to investigate, as had happened in the recent Rugby dispute. The Ministry had no enabling legislation to effect constitutional intervention. All complaints were in, and due process is being followed.

He said that the Netball dispute had arisen before SASCOC was formed. A successful Exco election had taken place thereafter. As regards the Cycling issue, the Deputy Minister made a personal undertaking to follow-up on this issue and to provide an answer by the end of the parliamentary session. Mr Frolick was to provide more details of the complaint.

The Deputy Minister said that USASSA is an NGO, and cannot be told to disband. USASSA was one of the co-signatories to the MTT process to normalise sport. There was a reasonable expectation to adhere to the agreement. Members of USASSA had preferential treatment in that they were appointed to SASCOC rather than being elected. The Department would take on their expertise. If USASSA were to remain in place, SRSA would not be able to prohibit it receiving private funds, but could stop governmental funding.

Prof Hendricks said that matters had gone beyond the adversarial stage. Mr Fredericks was leading the process.

Mr Fredericks said that a preliminary report had been compiled. A meeting with USASSA was scheduled for 7 November. An agreement on the way forward would be made. There would be a process of infusion whereby serving committee members would be infused into the NAFCOC structures. A meeting would be held on 2 November to discuss the modalities thereof. Success was imperative. On 5 November all codes would be advised of the position, and on 8 November SRSA would start with a provincial roadshow. Up to now mixed messages had been sent out. He added that differences with LoveLife had been sorted out. All other structures, such as SASSU, were handing over their functions to SASCOC and matters were on track.

The Chairperson said that the Portfolio Committee was handling a memorandum of understanding, and would give direction to the process. The closing down of USASSA had led to thorny issues in the Eastern Cape. Provinces need to be taken along, but often did not understand the political intentions. The deadline might have to be reviewed.

Mr Oosthuizen said that the issue in KwaZulu-Natal had been a misunderstanding which had since been resolved. The misunderstanding was between the Sport and Education Departments. The assistance of MEC Rajbansi was appreciated.

Prof Hendricks said that Heads of Department had met on Friday 28 October, and reported considerable progress.

Mr Oosthuizen said there was continuous interaction with SASCOC. The Sports Commission was busy with an integration process. A job evaluation and skills audit would be completed by 4 November. An internal advertisement for positions would be circulated, and the process would hopefully be finalized by the end of November. A second round of advertisements for posts would be held, of which 187 had to be filled. An interim committee of four would oversee the process; three from the Sports Commission and one from SRSA.

Prof Hendricks said that the oversight of corporate governance was SRSA’s business. The federations were accountable, and were obliged to report back on the expenditure of resources. Complete and audited financial statements were required. Various sanctions could be imposed, including the denial of funds in the future and the demand to pay back resources advanced by SRSA.

Mr Oosthuizen said he had a vision of some form of school to teach good corporate government to sports administrators and teachers. The responsibility to drive this process should fall within SRSA.

Mr Fredericks said that a document had gone through the TAC process, and would be published and distributed to all federations. Some federations did not respect their own constitutions. NACOC was an advisory board, and had a role of oversight of budgets. Regarding school sport, teachers should remain within the system.

The Chairperson said the Portfolio Committee viewed NACOC as a co-ordinating structure. Sport was being taken from the control of the Department of Education to SRSA. However, NACOC was eroding the control of sport from SRSA. It would be a mistake to allow Education to take back control of sport.

Mr SJ Masango (DA) said there was no contact at local level. He asked what the stumbling blocks were. He asked whether the facilities audit was being done. He also asked if membership of SASCOC was voluntary or automatic.

Mr TS Dodovu (ANC) asked how available funds were being utilized. He noted that 109 projects were registered, and questioned the apparent imbalance in the provincial distribution. He asked what SRSA’s program was regarding transformation.

Mr Dikgacwi observed that the transitional period could not last forever. He was concerned that WADA’s office in Cape Town would not be accessible to people living in the rural areas. He asked about transformation within SRSA. He asked where the sports councils were located, and whether they had sufficient facilities. He queried the trained administrators mentioned in the SRSA report, where they were located and if they were active. He also asked about the Siyadlala program, and which provinces and codes were involved, as well as the future of the program.

The Chairperson said that the SRSA Annual Report was accepted. Several issues still needed attention. He asked the Deputy Minister about an event in Beaufort West over the period 8 to 10 November. The organizers needed to know if the Minister or Deputy Minister would attend so that the plaque could be correctly inscribed. He also advised the Deputy Minister that the Portfolio Committee felt the need to have a workshop or Imbizo with SRSA at which issues could be addressed.

Mr Oosthuizen said that the invitation to attend the event at Beaufort West had not been received. He said that communications problems exist between SRSA and local government structures. In some cases local structures were sensitive to what could be seen as interference from SRSA, and their autonomy in some cases was protected by the Constitution. The facilities audit was a comprehensive process. The process should be complete within approximately ten months. SASCOC affiliates were all part of the process, but membership was not automatic. He said that R132 million in grants to local authorities had been allocated on a project basis. The 109 projects mentioned had been assigned to the various poverty nodes as identified by the presidential formula.

He said that there were two processes involved with the transformation charter, and these were on track. Netball had violated its own constitution. They had admitted this, and the President had resigned as a result. A task team had been appointed. In the case of Rugby, an alleged violation of the principles of good corporate government had taken place.

The Siyadlala games happened in all provinces. King Goodwill Zweletini had been present at the event in KZN. Old heroes were also present. They appreciated the chance to attend, and the community also appreciated their presence. Recognition was important. These events were a major focus of SRSA. SASCOC would fund the federations while SRSA would concentrate their funding on mass participation events.

He said that the SRSA’s transformation status was in the report. All posts had not yet been filled, and a better demographic representation would be visible in the future. A transparent and fair process was being followed regarding interim processes. He said that questions in this regard should be deferred until the staffing process was complete.

Sports Councils were established where facilities were built. The WADA office was as close as the website. This was the only accredited WADA office in Africa, and the laboratory at the University of the Free State was one of only two facilities in Africa. He noted that the Portfolio Committee should be invited to visit the office.

Mr Oosthuizen agreed that more time was needed for interaction between the Portfolio Committee and SRSA. Departmental management was under time pressure for delivery to the Executive. A date needed to be set for the Portfolio Committee to go through the report in detail. It would be preferred if questions could be prepared in advance so that the answers could be provided swiftly.

Mr A Mlangeni (ANC) thanked the Deputy Minister for the report. He said it was praiseworthy that the Minister was not only responsible for sports policy and the execution thereof, but was also a sportsman himself. He agreed that the provision of facilities was absolutely essential. He called on the Deputy Minister to hold local authorities to account. He noted that service delivery always seemed to improve as elections approached.

The Chairperson said there was a problem with legislation, and asked for its status. Regarding the SA Games and similar events, he said that the Portfolio Committee was not informed. He agreed that the Motherwell project was a great success, but foresaw a huge challenge in the maintenance of the facility. He alluded to the French model of sports management. Federations were run by volunteers, but with the assistance of a Sports Department member. He observed that the minority codes seemed to be the major force in SASCOC rather than the majority codes. He said that the Portfolio Committee had an insignificant input into the MTT report while SASCOC seemed to be little more than a talk show. He said that the Minister must have a way of forcing issues. The Portfolio Committee and SRSA should be moving in the same direction.

Mr Oosthuizen said that the Sports Commission had previously run the SA Games. The high-performance component of the Sports Commission had applied for this position. In this case, the SA Games had been presented jointly by SASCOC and the KZN provincial government.

SA Institute of Drug-free Sport briefing
The organisation was represented by their Chairman, Dr Shuaib Manjra and by their CEO, Ms Daphne Bradbury.

Dr Manjra said that SAIDS had a small staff consisting of the CEO and four staff members. He named the board of directors. More funding would permit them to conduct more tests and to test for more substances. During the year, 43 positive tests had been conducted. This was in line with world trends. He cited the example of a 16-year old who had tested positive for an EPO offence. This was made possible by the SRSA grant. He thanked Ms Cloete for her involvement as Chief Financial Officer aside from her SRSA duties. An Amendment Bill was on the table which would follow UNESCO guidelines and would give SAIDS greater powers.

Discussion
The Chairperson complimented SAIDS on their healthy financial statements, especially with their limited staff.

Mr E Saloojee (ANC) asked whether testing targeted only those athletes in Olympic codes, or other codes as well.

Mr Dodovu asked about SAIDS’s methodology, in particular if tests were done on a random or targeted basis.

Mr Dikgacwi said there was a problem with education and awareness. It was possible that an athlete could be guilty of the inadvertent use of a banned substance.

Mr Mlangeni queried the difference between in and out of season testing.

Dr Manjra replied that SAIDS had managed to deliver an unqualified report since its inception. Penalties imposed on transgressors were noted in the report. He said that 57 codes were covered by SAIDS. There was a move to have a uniform structure and penalty structure. All international codes adhered to WADA’s guidelines. He explained that the University of Cape Town had compiled a risk grid, which was used to compile a test plan for prominent athletes. In addition testing was carried out on record holders, winners of competitions and athletes showing a sudden increase in performance.

Dr Manjra agreed that educational awareness was a key component of SAIDS’s strategy. Much work had been done with soccer clubs in recent times. The list of banned substances had been relaxed to reduce the risks of inadvertent positive tests. Athletes using chronic medication could also apply for therapeutic use exemption. Information had been given out, but ultimately the athlete was liable.

He explained that the term AAF is an abbreviation for Adverse Analytical Finding. Athletes were tested during competitions, but more emphasis was being placed on testing out of competition time. This was because athletes tended to use substances in preparation for major events and stopped usage at the time of the event. An effort was being made to increase the ratio of out of competition to in competition testing to 60:40.

The Chairperson asked about the budget of SAIDS. He noted that R4.2 million was funded by SRSA, and another R0.8 million was provided from other sources. He noted that 43 AAFs was a very good number, with less than 1% of tests proving positive. Regarding education, he said there must be engagement with the public. He queried whether the level of communication was not too high to reach the ordinary athlete. He expressed a need to receive education on the activities of SAIDS, and proposed that a workshop be arranged for the Portfolio Committee. He also raised the possibility that steroids injected into chickens in particular could be inadvertently transferred to athletes.

Dr Manjra said he would liaise with the Portfolio Committee regarding a workshop. SRSA undertook to cover the costs. He said that the transferal of substances through food had been studied. He accepted the criticism regarding the level of communication. The media used did not necessarily reach all those concerned, and there were problems with literacy, language and accessibility.

Mr Saloojee asked how big the staff of SAIDS was. Dr Manjra replied that there was a permanent staff of four persons, including the CEO, 9 part-time directors, 56 volunteer officers and 76 volunteer chaperones. The scientists involved were of the best.

The Chairperson asked how effective the sole office in Cape Town was. Dr Manjra replied that there were part-time offices around the country. SAIDS was also involved with outreach programs into Africa. He noted that the drug cheats always seemed to be one or two steps ahead of WADA at the top level.

The meeting was adjourned.