A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.
SPORT AND RECREATION PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
5 September 2006
DEPARTMENT PROGRESS REPORT; GERMAN STUDY TOUR COMMITTEE REPORT
Chairperson: Mr B Komphela (ANC)
Documents handed out:
Explanatory Memorandum on the Schools Mass Participation Programme
Prioritisation of Sport
Mass Participation Siyadlala September 2006
Siyadlala Mass Participation Programme
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.