Department Progress Report; German Study Tour Committee Report
Sport, Arts and Culture
05 September 2006
Meeting Summary
A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.
Meeting report
SPORT AND RECREATION PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
5 September 2006
DEPARTMENT PROGRESS
REPORT; GERMAN STUDY TOUR COMMITTEE REPORT
Chairperson: Mr B Komphela
(ANC)
Documents handed out:
Amalgamation Report
Organigram SRSA
Explanatory Memorandum
on the Schools Mass Participation Programme
Prioritisation of
Sport
Cluster Information
Mass
Participation Siyadlala September 2006
Siyadlala Mass
Participation Programme
SUMMARY
The Chairperson informed the
Committee that the recent cluster committee meeting had decided to supplement
the Sports Portfolio Committee with two additional members. This would
alleviate the problems caused by joint meetings with other large Committees.
Sport
and Recreation South Africa briefed the Committee on developments and progress.
SRSA and the Sports Commission had merged following the repeal of the SA Sports
Commission Act on 1 August 2005. SRSA was busy with the process of filling
positions. Positions below Director level were being advertised internally and
existing staff would be placed horizontally. External advertisements would be
placed for higher positions. Negotiations were ongoing with the Unions. Only
one Chief Director had been appointed. A further briefing was given on the
amalgamation of SRSA
SRSA then briefed on the status of the Siyadlala Mass Participation Programme. The intention of the
programme was to address social ills, and encourage lifelong participation in
sport. The targeted groups would stretch from the very young to senior
citizens. The hub system was explained. Progress and monitoring were a problem
in some provinces, and there were cases of misleading information being
submitted. Other provinces were working hard and producing good results.
Progress and challenges included human resources, equipment and facilities. The
goal was to establish business units that would be taught how to generate
revenue, by making application to public sources of funding and sourcing
private funding. There was some foreign interest in adopting hubs.
SRSA reported on the prioritisation process in sport. Before 2003 there had
been 80 federations funded. The problem was that fewer sports were being
targeted for extensive aid and there was simply not enough funding for all.
SRSA had worked to develop a tool to set criteria for prioritization, which
would include the performance of national teams, transformation, medals
awarded, the profile of the sport and whether it satisfied the demographics of
the country, transformation, and government priorities. National federations
were asked to provide statistics and to evaluate themselves. 32 federations had
been funded in 2005/6. Funding could be accessed from the lottery.
Members asked questions about morale within the Department and about the staffing
process. There was concern that its core function was mass participation but a
small proportion of staff was appointed for this purpose, and the Department’s
role in this aspect was questioned as well as its role in co-ordinating
activities connected to the 2010 Football World Cup. Disappointment was
expressed at the role being played by the National Co Ordinating Committee. It
was felt that provinces must be more involved in budgeting processes, and the
role of lottery funding was also discussed. The involvement of farm schools and
rural areas was questioned.
The Committee attended to other business and adopted the Report on the study
tour to Germany.
MINUTES
The
Chairperson told the Committee that the recent cluster committee meeting had
decided to supplement the Sports Portfolio Committee as it would be the leading
Committee to deal with issues relating the 2010 World Cup. Two more members
would be added to represent Departments who were party to World Cup guarantees,
and would sit in when issues relating to their particular Portfolio Committees
were to be discussed. This would alleviate the problems caused by joint
meetings with other large Committees. By the end of 2006 the pace would have to
be increased, and regular meetings would be held with the host cities. He also
said that no more use would be made of alternate members, especially amongst
ANC members.
The Chairperson said that the current meeting was a follow-up to the decision
taken on 29 March 2006, together with the Minister and others, that quarterly
meetings should be held with Sport and Recreation South Africa (SRSA). The next
quarter would end in October, and this quarterly meeting would take place in
November. SRSA would be able to inform the Committee on progress towards
fulfilling its strategic plan, and quarterly goals would be evaluated. A
financial expert would be needed and the Committee had its own strategic plan
to consider.
A meeting had been held with the 2010 Local Organising Committee (LOC) and Dr
Phaahla of the Department. The Minister had requested the reason for the delay
in appointing a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) for Boxing South Africa (BSA).
Dr J Phaahla (Acting Director-General (DG) and DG 2010 Unit, SRSA) said that
the day’s business would include a discussion on the restructuring process
following the merger of SRSA and the Sports Commission. Discussion had been
held at the last meeting regarding the Mass Participation Programme (MPP), and the school sports
component of the programme would be discussed. There would be an explanation on
how sporting codes were being prioritised. There would be feedback on the
facilities audit and the BSA CEO appointment.
The Chairperson said that the meeting in November should be a standing
arrangement, and the Committee could catch up with SRSA’s activities. Mr Greg
Fredericks (Chief Director, SRSA) suggested that his Department should forward
a standing agenda. Mr Komphela agreed, but noted that the Committee would add
any matters resulting from its oversight role.
Amalgamation Report
Briefing
Mr
Makoto Matlala (Acting Chief Director, Corporate Services, SRSA) presented this
report. The background to the report was the repeal of the SA Sports Commission
Act on 1 August 2005, which necessitated an integration of two entities. A job
evaluation had been done on 187 positions within the two organisations. The SA
Management Development Institute had been involved in the process, which had
ended in November 2005, and the resulting recommendations had been forwarded to
the Minister. The new structure was approved on 2 December 2005, and included
195 posts.
A skills audit had been done with the assistance of 7i Management Consultants.
Job descriptions had been written for all 195 posts. A concurrent placement
process had been commenced. A forum had been established to consult with staff,
and regular meetings were held. Positions had been advertised internally on 25
January 2006. The Human Resources Directorate had consolidated the resulting
applications, and 7i had conducted a person-to-post analysis. This process had
been concluded by 28 February 2006, and a report was made on 2 March. The
Minister had appointed two panels to conduct interviews, one for the Chief
Director’s post and the other to appoint Directors and Deputy Directors. These
were held on 10 March.
Mr Matlala said that there had been some non-compliance with the Public Service
Act. On 6 April the Minister had instructed Human Resources to finalise the
placement process. A general staff meeting had been held on 12 April to explain
the process. There had been a horizontal internal process to appoint the Chief
Directors. Only one permanent placement was recorded on the organigram to date,
after an interview on 21 April. Interviews for horizontal placement of
Directors had been held from 29 to 30 June. However, on 28 June the trade
unions had requested a moratorium on staff placements. A meeting held been held after the
Minister’s return from the World Cup on 19 July.
Placements were to be done on work levels rather than salary levels. There had
been no success in organising the next forum meeting since the start of August.
On 15 August the Minster had requested the secondment of Ms L Sizani to
co-ordinate the finalisation of the process. Three phases had been defined.
Phase 1 was a horizontal placement procedure. Phase 2 was an internal
advertisement procedure, and Phase 3 was an external advertisement procedure.
Attempts were being made to finalise Phase 1 by 30 September.
Discussion
The Chairperson observed that the process was affecting the office personnel.
He had not met the Minister the previous week owing to illness, but would raise
this issue at their next meeting. He could not understand how SRSA could
continue to work under these conditions. The Committee was concerned that this
was a long and frustrating process, and would affect morale. He did not believe
that the delays were deliberate, but they were not good. He hoped to see the
process finalised by 30 September.
Dr Phaahla replied that it was only a matter for the unions and all parties to
sign an agreement and this would now only happen on 20 September. SRSA was
going ahead with the preparations for the meeting. The panel would meet in the
current week in order to make the preparations. By the end of the month it
would be possible to attach names to posts. There would be consultations
regarding horizontal placing.
The Chairperson commented that there were commendable efforts so far. Two years
ago SRSA had been in the same position, but due regard must be given tothe
unions. Negotiations should have happened first, and this issue had not been
handled properly. The Act had dissolved the Sports Commission, but nothing had
been done about the staff, although the Deputy Minister said all was fine. The
Committee was now becoming impatient with the lack of movement in SRSA. The
Chairperson enquired which phase included the horizontal placement, and what
the agreement was.
Dr Phaahla replied that horizontal placement applied to everybody. The panel
would investigate what work each person was doing, and make placements in the
new structure accordingly. Staff members could apply for posts. Eventually all
would be attached at the same level.
The Chairperson said that a tremendous effort was being made. There would be no
uncertainty, and the levels would be guaranteed. This would boost morale. He
still did not quite understand the processes involved in Phase 2.
Dr Phaahla said that horizontal placement applied to those below management
level. Directors were equivalent to level 13. Level 13 posts could be filled by
internal advertising, even if this meant that internal staff members would be
promoted to fill these positions at level 13 and above. Consideration would
first be given to internal staff, although the Minister would need to approve
an internal appointment. If there were still vacancies at level 13 positions,
then these would be advertised publicly.
The Chairperson said there would have to be an application for a deviation.
This would only apply after all horizontal placements had been completed. The
Minister would have to grant permission for the next higher-level appointments.
Posts might now be vacated at lower level. If internal applications were
successful, then those lower-level posts vacated by the successful applicants
would have to be filled from outside.
Dr Phaahla said it would take a long time to achieve stability if people moved
around. The first opportunities would be reserved for internal persons. Only
horizontal placements could be guaranteed. The fact that an internal staff
member applied did not necessarily mean that he or she would be placed in the
higher post. There would be instability during the process. Once the internal
process had been concluded the process would then be open to the outside.
Mr T Louw (ANC) asked if these people would not compete for jobs, and if
contracts had been signed.
The Chairperson replied that horizontal placements were guaranteed and there
would be no competition. Performance contracts were in place.
Dr Phaahla said that the organigram was approved. No names had been allocated,
other than the appointment, as a Chief Director, of Mr Greg Fredericks. All
other staff members were in acting posts.
Mr Louw said that on paper everyone had been appointed, but in fact only one
person had been appointed and contracted. The others had no contract, and their
position was uncertain.
Mr Komphela said that all staff members must be accommodated by horizontal
placement.
Mr Louw countered that these jobs were not guaranteed. He asked how long the
process would take.
Dr Phaahla said that only staff members’ employment was guaranteed, but not the
posts. Particular jobs would be identified, and the target date for this
process was the end of September.
Mr Matlala said that a top to bottom process was being followed. Mr Fredericks
was the only Chief Director in the previous structure and was thus the only
person interviewed.
Ms W Makgate (ANC) expressed her concern. The trade unions had imposed a
moratorium on horizontal placement. There was no indication that they had met
with the Minister. This would have a negative impact on the staff. She could
not be sure that the process would be concluded by the end of September, as all
parties were bound by the Labour Relations Act.
Dr Phaahla said that the meeting had taken place on 19 July. An agreement had
been reached but was not yet signed. This could happen during the current week,
but he expected it would only be done on 20 September. He noted Ms Makgate’s
concerns, but was optimistic. Profiles had been concluded, so the panel was not
working from scratch. There would be queries regarding specific placements, but
he estimated these would only relate to 10% or
20% of the placements.
The Chairperson said that logic dictated that the Minister would have met with
the unions. There was now an agreement that horizontal placements could go on.
The second level of placements could then be addressed. If the deviation was
requested it would make it easier to achieve harmony. There would be gaps for
persons outside the current structure in the higher level posts.
Dr Phaahla said that an expectation of entitlement had been created. This had
left management with a serious responsibility. The first opportunity would be
given to internal staff, but it must be made clear that there was no automatic
entitlement to higher posts. There would be some posts for which no insiders
would be considered.
Mr Fredericks assured the Committee that the process was not being managed by
SRSA. An external panel was handling the placements, and there was no influence
exerted by the Department. Only those persons with the necessary skills would
be appointed. He pointed out that there had been no promotions within SRSA for
the last four years, and members of the Department deserved the chance to
advance themselves.
The Chairperson queried the external advertising process in Phase 3.
Dr Phaahla said that appointments would be done internally, but there were only
120 staff members for the 195 posts. There were thus at least 75 openings.
Mr Komphela asked about the budget. As it stood it reflected an upward
mobility. He asked if there were sufficient resources to sustain it.
Mr Matlala said that the structure had been approved in 2005. The budget for
the current financial year reflected this structure.
Mr E Saloojee (ANC) asked if there was any information on the salary scales.
Dr Phaahla said that the standard salary scales in the public service were
being offered. The salary levels were included with the post level on the
organigram. The highest salary level was Level 16. He could send a full
breakdown to the Committee. The salary scales were comparable to the work level
of the post.
The Chairperson observed that there were Chief Directors for Corporate Service,
for Executive Support and in the office of the Chief Financial Officer. This
reflected a concern that he had raised with the Minister. The core function of
SRSA was the MPP, but fewer people were dedicated to this while the executive
and strategic functions were well supported. Only fourteen persons were
assigned to the MPP directorate. The Minister had agreed that this was not
right. Some jobs needed to go to the other side. He understood the logic, but
would be comforted if the MPP got more attention. The Minister had signed off
the 2010 Unit. There were few people in the Unit, which was understood to be a
technical committee, and therefore required people with technical knowledge. He
concluded that 75% of SRSA’s staff were administrative while only fourteen were
assigned to the Department’s core function.
Mr Fredericks was happy that Mr Komphela had raised the issue. The organigram
could not be changed at this stage as it was already mid-stream. SRSA was
currently busy with budgets, but would look at the numbers.
The Chairperson said that the Minister was not refusing to make changes.
Dr Phaahla said that SRSA’s line function was sport. The issue had been raised
as a matter of concern, but the majority of staff remained administrative.
There was little gain in terms of sports practitioners.
The Chairperson said he would raise this issue with the Minister, who was
shocked that only fourteen people were available to run the MPP throughout the
country. Other directorates were too large.. He warned that the Money Bill was
in the process. If the Committee raised this issue with SRSA, it could refuse
to pass the Bill. He would hold the issue for the moment, but would address it
in the future.
Dr Phaahla said that SRSA was dealing with the 2010 issue. The Department of
Public Service and Administration (DPSA) was involved, and he would be meeting
the Director General. In theory the Unit was only meant to play a co-ordinating
role. Capacity at the centre was severely limited, although there was a huge
amount to do. This left the Unit open to blackmail. A stronger centre was
needed.
The Chairperson said that progress needed to be reported at the November
meeting. He had raised this issue with the Minister at an ANC study group.
Minister Stofile had signed the 2010 organigram. He was uncomfortable with the
expertise level and the size of the work force. The 2010 Unit was an organ of
government, and would defend the government’s position. Resources had to be
utilised. In other countries, the equivalent units had acted with much more
authority.
Mr C Frolick (ANC) recalled the remarks made by the 2010 Unit delegate at the
meeting the previous week, which had not impressed him. The level and flow of
communications needed attention. A very bleak picture had been painted. He asked
what the current position was, and if meetings were being held. He asked what
the level of communications was with the host cities, and commented that the
centre must hold this all together. The cities’ actions were informed from the
top. Consistency was needed, especially regarding safety and security and
foreign affairs matters. He was worried that not enough was being done.
The Chairperson said this was part of the organigram.
Dr Phaahla agreed that some fine tuning was still needed with the co-ordination
mechanism. The Unit worked in
conjunction with the LOC, and there was not too much duplication. Proper
co-ordination was needed. The host cities forum was co-ordinating activities
with the LOC. He suggested that there should be a separate forum involving
national government and the host cities.
Dr Phaahla agreed that there should be monthly meetings. The programme needed
more structure, and the meeting should be seen as a work group. A two-day
meeting should be held monthly with national departments represented. Such
meetings would develop all issues, governmental issues could be addressed, and
there would be close co-ordination with the LOC. A full day could be dedicated
to government areas of involvement and interface. There was a short supply in
areas of government responsibility.
The Chairperson said that the 2010 Unit was being convened by the LOC, but this
could not be so. The LOC should concentrate on FIFA issues, and the 2010 Unit
should interact with the host cities. The Minister’s and other meetings should
be convened by the FIFA LOC, but not this Committee.
Ms Kelly Mkhonto (SRSA) said that she could explain how the MPP structure
related to school sport and the Siyadlala project. There were two people
working on the MPP at present.
Mr Komphela said this was a joke, and asked how many people were needed to
deliver the MPP.
Ms Mkhonto answered that four additional people would be used in the interim.
The number of hubs had increased to 256, and more monitoring was needed.
The Chairperson said that the picture was bleak.
Siyadlala Mass
Participation Programme: Briefing
Ms
Kelly Mkhonto reported that the Siyadlala programme consisted of two aspects.
One was community sport, and the other was special projects, such as indigenous
games. R20 million had been given by National Treasury and would be increased
to R39 million. This year R69 million had been approved, of which R2.6 million
would be given to each province. The full R69 million would all be distributed
to provinces in the 2006/07 financial year, using the equitable share formula.
Mr Fredericks said this would be covered in the next presentation.
Ms Mkhonto continued that the intention of the programme was to address social
ills, and would encourage lifelong participation. The health of the community
was at stake. The targeted groups would stretch from the very young to senior
citizens. There would be a focus on the youth to deliver the programme. 60 hubs
had been identified in 2004. This had increased to 131 in 2005, and 256 in 2006.
North West only had eight hubs. Some co-ordinators had been appointed, and it
was intended to increase their numbers to 32.
Ms Mkhonto said that monitoring was a problem, and the question was how the
participation of the communities could be ensured. SRSA was not following the
prescriptions of the Act. They should conduct eight visits to various
activities each month, but could not manage this. Templates had been given to
the provinces to assist in the process. Surprise visits were necessary. Some
information contained in monthly reports had been shown to be untrue, and
figures were often inflated to impress the Department. This was especially the
case in Gauteng, where not much seemed to be happening. Complaints had been
received from coaches, the public and the federations. Provincial Co-ordinator
reports were needed monthly, together with activity reports and attendance
registers. The Northern Cape faced huge challenges but had nevertheless managed
to send in detailed reports and it was clear that a lot of work was being done.
Challenges included human resources, equipment and facilities.
Ms Mkhonto explained how the hub system was being put into practice. Schools
and open spaces were being used for activities. The intention was that hubs
should service the communities within a five kilometre radius. Rural hubs were
encouraged to buy containers to be used as storage or to transport equipment
from event to event. Services could be outsourced. An access strategy was
needed, and conditional grants were possible. This form of development was one
of the key objectives of government and would be funded for some time but not
indefinitely. The goal was to establish business units that would be taught how
to generate revenue, by making application to public sources of funding and
sourcing private funding. There was some foreign interest in adopting hubs.
She said that good work was being done in the communities but it was not well
marketed. Highlights included the payment of modest stipends to activity
co-ordinators and the exposure of these persons. She noted that Gymnastics had
appointed one of these persons as a provincial co-ordinator, and KwaZulu-Natal
had appointed some activity co-ordinators as Sports Officers. Stakeholders
within the community wanted to offer their support. Fragmentation within the
communities was a problem, but the MPP was a healing factor. Vertical
development was happening. Activity co-ordinators were being appointed in all
areas, and were a stable work force.
Discussion
The Chairperson complimented Ms Mkhonto on a wonderful presentation.
Mr Frolick commented that the activities looked good on paper, but he wanted to
see one of the projects in operation. A meeting had been held at Helenvale but
nothing had happened thereafter. The presentation looked good but it seemed
there was no real action. He wondered what the position was in the rest of the
country, and queried if there was value for money. He warned that a qualified
report would be given.
Mr Frolick was concerned that SRSA
seemed to be reliant on reports from the provinces, some of which were
incorrect. He asked if money was being spent properly. He pointed out that
successful projects had been held in Cradock, Kroonstad and Port Elizabeth. In
Port Elizabeth 4 000 children had attended a mass participation event at which
all sporting codes had been represented. Everything was organised and paid for
by the local sports council and USSASA. If USSASA could organise such an event,
he asked why SRSA could not do likewise.
Mr Frolick commented that SRSA should liaise with its colleagues in the
provinces, and asked about the financial implications. There should be an
oversight programme, and interaction with the co-ordinators. The best marketing
tool would be the success of the programme. He referred to a meeting between
South African Sports Federation and Olympic Committee (SASCOC) and the
Portfolio Committee of the previous Parliament chaired by Ms Ruth Benghu. Mass
participation and schools had been discussed then. SASCOC wanted to claim
victory. Some things needed to be revisited, and there was a possibility that
public hearings would be called on the impact of the programmes. This was a
departure from what the Committee had proposed.
He added that he had never seen paid officials acting in a dedicated,
professional way. Government could never pay the volunteers who were doing the
job, but should rather create an enabling environment to provide access.
Mr Louw believed that it was impossible to do a nationwide programme with only
two persons in the department. Success in mass participation should be the
bedrock of government’s plans. If it was not serious about the MPP, then he
could not see a chance for success. He welcomed the reports from Northern Cape,
but noted a lack of capacity in monitoring. Good report writers were needed
together with event mobilisers. These could convince one of the success of the
project. He asked why baseball was not included in the MPP, especially not in
his constituency. He felt that the Minister should be invited to explain, as he
had previously said that SRSA would concentrate on the MPP.
Ms Mkhonto said the same issues had been highlighted. The problems in Gauteng
had been in the affluent areas, while the poorer areas had embraced the
project. The University of Johannesburg was assisting SRSA in an impact study,
and had visited most of the hubs. The position was not altogether gloomy. She
had visited Northern Cape whose projects were extremely good. Hockey had been
introduced in Galeshewe, and SRSA would visit this project. Some 1.4 million
people were to be involved. SRSA was rising above the challenges.
Western Cape was one of the challenges, and SRSA was not charged with the
implementation of the project; as it was a local responsibility. Baseball was
not included in the programme. A top down approach had been started, beginning
with five activities. A needs analysis was required to plan for the second
year, and the communities needed to indicate the popular activities in their
areas.
Mr Fredericks observed that it would be wrong to think that nothing was
happening. Ms Mkhonto had been realistic in her assessment and there had indeed
been many successes. He believed in the importance of the MPP, but SRSA was
being let down by the provinces. A meeting would be held shortly with the
various Heads of Department. More than half of SRSA’s budget was channelled
towards the MPP, but no manpower had been given. He mentioned the examples of
many children from the MPP taking part in the national gymnastrada, and also in
a national rope skipping competition. The challenges existed, but there were
also opportunities. Provinces should have an input to SRSA’s budget, and they
should also be held accountable to the Committee. He appreciated the value of
educators, and saw SRSA’s role as creating an enabling environment. He was not
naïve about the capacity of SRSA, but they were close to their full complement.
Mr Saloojee noted that Gauteng had excellent hockey facilities. Scores of
children from Soweto and Roodepoort, still highly disadvantaged areas, had been
involved in a recent event, which had been wonderfully organised. He wondered
why this had not been mentioned, and wondered how much else was going
unreported in the various codes.
Mr Frolick said that SRSA had to understand that the Committee and the majority
party fully supported SRSA and was responsible to government. If SRSA was only
a means of transferring funds, and if that was how its role had been envisaged,
then two staff members might be enough. The Committee would interact with the
provinces and the National Council of Provinces. A monitoring mechanism was
needed for the MPP and the schools. There was little purpose in Heads of
Department merely reaffirming reports. There was some feeling regarding the utilisation
of facilities.
Mr Fredericks said that Gary Dolley (South African Hockey Association) wanted
to bring Hockey into SRSA’s programs. He was doing excellent work. He believed
members’ comments were useful because they exposed weaknesses in SRSA. Criticism
was welcomed, but good work done should not be ignored.
The Chairperson said that good work was acknowledged, but the Committee could
not keep quiet when the unit did not meet expectations. Although there was no
stability, work must continue. People were only warming to their task now,
which was worrying in view of the laps of time.
He asked if SASSU was included in school sports.
Ms Mkhonto replied that this would be covered in Mr Fredericks’s presentation.
The Chairperson said he had received minutes from a NACOC (National
Coordinating Committee(school sports)) meeting. While the contents were
confidential, he felt that the minutes undermined the Committee. If structures
were not doing what they had agreed, then he would speak out. The agreement
with the Department of Education (DoE) needed to be renewed regarding the
Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). The situation was worse than envisaged, and
he had raised it with the Minister, with a view to reviewing the relationship.
Human Movement Studies and Physical Education would remain a competency of DoE,
but the rest of school sport should fall under SRSA.
He said that the Committee required a programme of Mass Participation events
from the provinces. Reports could then be tested. USASSA had provided a full
annual program. However, since the MoU had been signed, school sports had
collapsed, which also affected community sport. If schools sports were in a
healthy condition, there would be a positive effect at other levels. He
believed DoE was killing sports under NACOC. Co-ordination was needed, and
although things were happening, communication was poor.
The Chairperson said that study visits would be made to Korea, Japan and Cuba.
He suggested that Ms Mkhonto accompany the study visit to Cuba to observe their
mass participation methods. Perhaps the provinces should also send
representatives. In Korea and Japan, the Committee would try to learn the
reasons why five World Cup stadiums had been demolished soon after the event.
The earlier visit to Germany had been invaluable in drafting the Special
Measures Bill. Monitoring was a concern.
Mr Fredericks briefly explained the schools’ MPP. SRSA was working closer to
delivering the project. They were not there to run school sports, but to create
an environment. The model was on the table, and would be in the hands of
educators and volunteers. The Department would provide the environment and
funding. A discussion document would follow.
The Chairperson said that SRSA had the support of the Committee and the
Minister. They should never waver in their actions. There was a lot of pressure
on the Minister but the Committee supported him.
Prioritisation Of Sport:
Briefing By SRSA
Mr
Greg Fredericks tabled an explanatory memorandum on the Schools’ MPP. This was
a new structure, and could be a power base for some. SRSA was busy with the
definitions, but it would be for the benefit of all children. The Minister had
challenged SRSA to provide the resources for sport in the poorest of the poor
communities. SRSA had received R70 million. Of this, R50 million would be
distributed to the provinces as conditional grants and the balance would be
retained by SRSA for management.
Trained persons were not involved, as although coaches were qualified in some way
they did not necessarily hold qualifications under the National Qualification
Framework. Between six and eight codes were involved in each sector. Both
primary and secondary schools were involved, and there would be two or three
age groups. There were three defined phases. Phase 1 dealt with capacity
building, Phase 2 with the procurement and distribution of sport and players’
equipment, and Phase 3 would be the creation of sustainable of intra- and
interschool leagues. Delivery was a collaborative effort between SRSA, DoE and
provinces. The document was a blueprint for development.
Mr Fredericks said that SRSA’s target was 750 to 798 schools in 56 clusters.
The targets for teacher and learner involvement were being exceeded. There was
co-operation with United Kingdom sports bodies and the British Council. Links
had been established with 26 British sports colleges, which would link up with
26 lead schools in South Africa. A workshop had been held the previous weekend
with the identified schools. An exchange programme would also be followed.
He gave a breakdown of the clusters. In total, 478 primary and 320 secondary
schools were included in a total of 798 schools. There were six core sports
codes involved, while others would be introduced based on the local
requirements. Increasing amounts of finance would be distributed, and inputs
from the Committee would be welcomed. Using a golfing analogy, he said that it
was time to focus on the green rather than the hazards.
He added that the appointment of the Boxing South Africa (BSA) CEO was in the
hands of the Ministers of Sport and Recreation and Finance. This issue had now
reached critical proportions. BSA would be informed of developments in a matter
of days.
The Chairperson interjected that monitoring would occur on a quarterly basis. A
meeting would be held to address the Auditor General’s report on 13 September.
He observed that it had taken four years to appoint the CEO.
Mr Fredericks then turned to the report on the prioritisation of the various
codes. He said that before 2003, there had been 80 federations funded by SRSA.
A Ministerial task team had investigated the realignment of macro
organisations, the establishment of national academies and reprioritisation.
SRSA had wanted to be all things to all bodies. The problem in South Africa was
that the cake was being sliced too thinly, and limited funding was the result.
In competing countries, many codes were being well financed by government or
sponsors. Other countries had limited their targeted codes.
SRSA had worked to develop a tool to set criteria for prioritisation. A large
group, involving as many of the federations as possible, had been used to
promote objectivity. The two defined categories of High Performance component
and Base component needed to be balanced. Criteria included the performance of
national teams at various levels. The number of medals achieved at major events
and their impact on national pride were also considered. Transformation was a
factor. The MPP aspect was also considered, including accessibility, clubs,
members, transformation and government priorities. A weighting system was used
to balance all these factors. National federations were asked to provide
statistics and to evaluate themselves.
In the 2005/06 financial year 32 federations had been funded. Some had
submitted over inflated claims regarding their membership. A heavier weighting
was given to transformation. In some provinces different priorities were
evident. Future funding would be reviewed. Government would focus on the MPP
and school sports. Funding would also have to come from the lottery.
Mr Fredericks said that SASCOC’ criteria included achievements in the previous
five years, the rating of the code was, the height of the profile of the code
in the country, bearing in mind the historical legacy, and to what extent the
code satisfied the demographics of the country. These criteria had been taken
to Parliament before 2004, and the Committee at that stage had approved them.
Discussion
Mr
Louw said there was a similarity with a previous presentation. He thought it
should be discussed in a party study group, where in-depth analysis could be
done.
Ms Makgate observed that farm schools had been left out of the schools’ MPP.
They were in a different situation, as they were outside the five kilometre
radius. It seemed that the programme was only concerned with urban areas.
Mr Frolick said that time was needed to reflect on the presentations. A shotgun
approach to resources should be avoided. A spending focus was needed, so other
sports should not be neglected. Resources had to be matched to outcomes. The
Lottery Board should follow a similar approach in their allocations.
Mr Fredericks said SRSA had asked provinces to identify the areas and schools
in need of assistance. He would be disappointed if there were no farm schools
in the group, as these would be amongst the poorest of the poor. The lottery
did look at the prioritisation of the different codes. National federations had
no long term programmes. It took ten years to prepare an athlete to win an
Olympic medal. SRSA would engage with the federations, and he hoped there would
be joint movement. Sports which did not qualify for financial assistance would
still be assisted on an administrative level, and would be given information
how to earn a higher priority.
Mr Louw asked how long it would take to build a winning soccer team.
Mr Frolick said there should be discussions with the federations regarding long
term planning. The Lottery Board had a broad strategy regarding disbursements.
Allocations were for a specific financial year or project. A longer term
approach should be followed in allocating funds. Income and disbursement could
be estimated, having regard to past experience. He would call on SRSA to help. The lottery could assist
federations in the preparation of athletes and teams. Priorities had to guide
spending.
Mr R Reed (ANC) said the Lotteries Board should be asked to present to the
Committee. In the last allocation, substantial money had been given to Northern
Transvaal for rugby development. This money had been used to buy players from
other provinces rather than to develop black players.
Mr Saloojee said that in Spain and some other countries lottery funds were used
exclusively for sport. This ensured better funding for the sports bodies. In
South Africa, money was given out indiscriminately to various organisations and
welfare causes, without any apparent plan. The world trend was for government
to fund social services rather than use lottery money. The approach should be
reconsidered.
Mr Louw quipped that the lotto had created more millionaires than players.
Mr Fredericks said that federations should guard against being over dependent
on lottery and government funding. This had been the case in the United
Kingdom, and there had been negative consequences when funding was reduced. A
discussion document was needed on how to obtain funds from other sources. There
was a need for some alignment between strategic and sport objectives, and to
finalise a plan for sport.
Dr Phaahla said that the federations needed to plan to use whatever funding
possibilities were available. When he had served on the Lottery Committee
four-year plans had been followed, and he was looking for an improvement. A
review of the approach was agreed upon. Major sources of funding would lead to
major difference in performance. Some portion had to be allocated to grassroots
funding, but a significant portion was needed for planned programmes. Other
sources needed to be identified as well. The appointment of a new agency was
delayed.
The Chairperson said that both Ministers agreed, and this was agreement was now
unfolding. The question of the radius defining a community was a fact. His
constituency was 75 km long, and there were two schools at either end of the
area with a sparse population between them. This aspect needed to be thought
about.
A meeting with the provinces was being initiated, apart from a meeting with the
NCOP. A Department responsible to the National Assembly gave the grants, and a
tangible plan was needed. The provinces should discuss this, but the Committee
first needed to discuss the difficulties with SRSA first. There was a
concurrency problem with the MPP. Feedback was needed on national programmes,
and progress was needed.
He said the issue of transformation had been discussed with SASCOC, and was
high on the agenda. This was not a transformed entity. It was a challenge to
people if they could not change themselves.
The Chairperson said that the priority management cycle of three years would be
in line with the medium-term funding cycle. Meetings were needed on 9 and 13
September to go through the process.
He had had a meeting with the Speaker the previous day, and SRSA had been
commended for dealing with the Special Measures Bill. Public hearings would
still be held on 2010 issues, and there was still a long route to achieve
success. Advertisements had gone out, and the closing date for submissions was
Friday 8 September. These submissions would probably be dealt with during the
Committee Week starting on 9 October. He would be meeting with a number of
people to determine a programme. He would also brief leading journalists, and
hoped to receive their input. More support would be needed from the Department
regarding ambush marketing. The views of all sectors would be needed.
Committee business
The Chairperson tabled the Committee Report on the study tour to Germany. The
report was adopted with recommendations. It would go to ATC of Parliament,
which would determine a date for the debate.
He commented that the proposed visit to Cuba was urgent, as it would provide
valuable inputs to South Africa’s MPP. The proposed visits to Korea and Japan
would be discussed.
The meeting was adjourned.
Audio
No related
Documents
No related documents
Present
- 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.