Sport & Recreation Minister on Budget & Strategic Plan 2008/09

Sports, Arts and Culture

11 March 2008
Chairperson: Mr B Komphela (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Chairperson indicated that the World Cup 2010 Local Organising Committee had given its apologies as CEO Mr Danny Jordaan had other commitments. Members were disappointed, noting that the invitation had been extended to the entire LOC, and it was unfortunate that the perception was being created that Mr Jordaan was the only person who could provide information.

The Minister of Sport and Recreation, Hon Stofile, then addressed the Committee on a number of general issues. He commented that Parliament’s oversight role was important and set this country apart from many others. There was a dispute over the definitions set by FIFA, and a focal point in this was the stadium at Port Elizabeth. Government did have a role to play in sport, but it was not a party political issue. The Department’s strategic plan was much the same as before, but the emphasis was shifting slightly from the numbers of people involved to improvement in administration. He denounced the mercenary attitude of some professional sportsmen, and the racism that was still prevalent in sport and other areas.

The Department was taking steps to make South Africans stronger. The provision of mobile gymnasiums was one step in this process. South African sport was not receiving enough attention, especially compared to other national priorities. It was unfortunate that television broadcast rights were being sold to pay channels. Work was being done on making lottery funds more directly available to sport. The Safety at Sports and Recreation Stadiums Bill had been delayed but it was essential that this be processed.

Members raised the issue of infighting at the Local Organising Committee, but noted that this could be typical of any organisation. Members were concerned about public facilities being leased to private concerns. The question of school sport, the workings of NACOC, and the need for reform were raised. Members noted that funds intended for sports facilities were to be removed from the Municipal Infrastructure Grant and placed directly under the control of Sport and Recreation. The suggestion of nationalising the national football team was raised and debated.

The budget for the Medium Term Expenditure Framework was presented.  There was a decrease from R5.1 billion in the 2007/08 financial year to R1 billion in 2010/11.  The 2010 World Cup unit received 91% of the budget.  This would reduce over the course of the next few years.  Of the 207/08 budget, 93% had been spent by the end of February.  There was a lack of capacity in the provinces, but this matter was being addressed in some provinces.  Provinces were funded with a basic grant of R5 million, supplemented by an amount based on the equitable share formula.  The Department was progressing with the demarcation of hubs.

Members were concerned that provinces had not spent all the money allocated to them, noting that Boxing South Africa was in financial difficulties.  Transfers to and from the Tourism, Hospitality and Education Training Authority were questioned. There was some debate over the viability of LoveLife. There had been reports in the media that the allocation per child was only 41 cents.  Further concerns were raised on poor asset control, and on the tightening of controls and procedures.  Questions were raised about the supply of clothing for Mass Participation Programmes.  It was unsure if these deals supported local Black Economic Empowerment companies. The role of the South African Sports Confederation and Olympic Committee was questioned.  It was felt that the Department could absorb some of its functions, and the funding to this body was also questioned.

It was noted that the Department was conducting an audit on facilities.  Some municipalities did not have the capacity to manage the facilities that they had.  The return of sports funds from the Municipal Infrastructure Grant was still only a proposal, but the Department would have to adapt its operations if this was approved.

Meeting report

Chairperson’s opening remarks
The Chairperson noted that the meeting with Department of Sport and Recreation (SRSA) had been postponed from the previous week. The workshop held with SRSA the preceding weekend had been fruitful and had given the Committee the opportunity to learn more about how the Department operated. It was unfortunate that opposition members had not been present, and that one had tendered no apology. It was important that all Members attended such meetings.

The Chairperson noted that the Committee had requested to meet with the Local Organising Committee (LOC) for the 2010 World Cup, following the ANC conference in Polokwane, when the view was expressed that the ANC should lead the process. The question was how would 2010 contribute to the country, particularly around job creation, and it was important to interact. However, he noted that LOC had sent a letter indicating they could not attend. The Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Mr Danny Jordaan, had been called to a FIFA meeting in Zurich, and the Committee accepted his apology. However, the LOC should have responded immediately on receipt of the invitation, not on the day before the meeting. Another appointment would be made.

Mr C Frolick (ANC) said this seemed to indicate that Mr Jordaan was the only member of the LOC who could provide information. The Committee had stressed that the invitation was not for Mr Jordaan alone, but for the whole LOC.

The Chairperson confirmed that the invitation had been sent to the LOC, not to Mr Jordaan as an individual. He was only one member of the LOC. The Committee would give Mr Jordaan and the LOC the benefit of the doubt, and would expect them all the next time. The appropriation bills would soon have to be presented to Parliament. The Committee needed to interact with the LOC. The responsibility for the spending of taxpayers’ money rested with the Committee, and they could not abdicate this role just because the LOC was in place.

The Chairperson welcomed the Minister of Sport and Recreation, Hon Makhenkesi Stofile, together with his Deputy Minister, Gert Oosthuizen. He commented that Minister Stofile had been a chief whip earlier in his career, and understood the Parliamentary process. There were some political questions to be answered as to whether the Department was advancing the concept of a better life for all, national unity and social cohesion. This seemed to be crumbling in South African society at present. Racism issues were topical. He had been a victim of racism, and had no apologies for fighting racism.

The Chairperson said that transformation was non-negotiable to the ANC. They had assumed the responsibility of the majority in 1994. There were those people who were still in a comfort zone, but they would be rocked. Perhaps the funding was not achieving this objective yet. The Sport and Recreation Amendment Act had been passed. A new coach had arrived in South Africa that day. Any person wishing to work in sport in the country had to get permission from the Minister according to the Act, and the provisions of the Act would prevent lower standards being adopted. Foreign players and officials were welcomed, but their numbers must be controlled. South Africa must look inwards. In the population of 48 million surely there was one person with the same abilities as Mr Trevor Phillips. Sponsors rushed to support white controlled sports but did not give the same support to codes where blacks were in charge.

Briefing by the Minister of Sport and Recreation
Hon Makhenkesi Stofile, Minister of Sport and Recreation, said he had first come to Parliament in 1994. One of the first things which had changed was that the practice of referring to “honourable Members” had ended. Some of the Members then had been anything but honourable, but now the term was back in use. He assumed the calibre of the Members had changed.

He appreciated the postponement of the meeting from the previous week. There was no way that the Ministry would allow strategic and budget plans to be presented to the Committee without having had sight of these first. They were ready now. He agreed that the oversight role was an important function of the Committee. He had received a report from the Director General after SRSA had appeared before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA). It was correct that public representatives in SCOPA asked every question regarding the use of taxpayers’ money. He himself was a taxpayer. This accountability was what made the South African Parliament different from many others, especially on the African continent.

He said that he would not deal with the 2010 LOC at this meeting. He understood that the LOC as a whole had been invited, not just the CEO. He agreed that other members such as the Chief Operations Officer could provide all the information needed, as could other Board members. If it was only the CEO that could give the answers then it was a dangerous phenomenon.

The Minister said that the LOC would report on the progress with the stadium in Port Elizabeth. Briefly, he could say that the last Board meeting had been held on the previous Tuesday. They had discussed whether the Port Elizabeth venue would be ready for the Confederations Cup in 2009. FIFA did not think so. The LOC had not responded as it was awaiting a formal explanation. It had become clear that there was a total misunderstanding or even a deliberate shifting of the goalposts. He was not sure which was the case.

He said that the host cities had agreed to a timeframe in 2007. There was some disagreement over definitions. The venues had to be ready by October and completed by December 2008 for the Confederations Cup. FIFA had said that this meant the framework of the stadium should be completed by October. They would then know how many tickets could be sold. Trimmings like the fitting of seats and cushions and other peripheral work could be done later. However, the hard infrastructure had to be in place. Grassing of the field and painting would be completed as a matter of course.

Min Stofile said that the LOC had been told the previous week that this had changed. The new definition of being completed now meant that the stadium had to be ready to host games, including having cushions on the seats. This change of definition could not be fair. It had been agreed at the Tuesday meeting that there was no basis to say that the Nelson Mandela Stadium could not host Confederations Cup matches. The LOC had been told in November 2007 that the stadium would be ready by 15 March 2009. At the meeting on 5 March this had been repeated. It was planned to lay the grass and finish painting in February and March 2009, and in fact the stadium would be finished on 12 March.

He thought that FIFA was out of order. Certificates were given by structural engineers on a phased basis. He did not see why this stadium should be disqualified. Safety and security certificates would only be handed over when the contractor passed over the key. It was expected that this would happen in March 2009, whereas the matches would only be played in July. He quoted the example of the stadium in Leipzig in Germany. Brazil had been practising in the stadium even though it was still under construction. It had only been finished in the week of the tournament. A comprehensive report was needed.

The Minister said the LOC was a Section 21 company. It was proper to request a formal report. He could reply as he was a member of the LOC, but it should be done properly.

Min Stofile commended the Committee on its stance on the non-negotiability of transformation. People did not always understand this matter. When all was going well, federations and the general public were the most vocal to denounce what they saw as government interference. When all was not going well then they ran to the government. Change was not spontaneous. It was not just a racial issue, but one of class. Those who held the purse strings made the decisions. South Africa was a developmental state, and the government could not fold its arms and ignore the situation.

He said that he had been inundated by telephone calls in the last two days, including calls from Members of the Committee. People were seeking clarity on media reports that the President of the ANC had made a statement saying that the party would nominate the President of the South African Rugby Union (SARU) and determine his term of office. His reply to all these calls was that this was not possible. There were allegations of a secret strategy to take sport into the ANC’s control. There was no audit on the political allegiance of sports people. This had never been on the ANC’s agenda. These allegations were the work of mischief-makers.

The Minister said that there was no such thing as a neutral human being. People were all capable of manipulation. He had confronted the President of the ANC to find out the truth. There had never been a meeting with SARU. There had been some casual conversation during the visit by the French President and his entourage. The issue of the ANC’s role in governance of sport had never been discussed.

He said that there was a problem in the misconstruing of the meaning of transformation. He would never veer from his own understanding of the term, which he derived from the Constitution. It was the lodestar of SRSA. Wherever there were two lawyers, there would be two interpretations. He preferred to interpret the Constitution in a simple way. He had been involved in the drafting of the Constitution, and they had had to stop the lawyers from getting involved.

Min Stofile said that the strategic plan was not materially different from that of 2007. There were different nuances in response to a changing environment. The issue of racism was now needing to be addressed in a big way. Events so far during 2008 had been moving fast. There was a shift in focus, and SRSA was moving forward. The primary focus was the Mass Participation Programme (MPP). Resources were not in proportion to the response of the people. SRSA was not so naïve to expect that it would be given all the money it needed. There were other national priorities such as housing. However, sport was the stepchild of strategic thinking. Sports plans were often inserted on documents as an afterthought. This might be because of other pressures.

He thought that it was prudent to move the focus from mobilisation to organisation. When the Springbok team returned with the Rugby World Cup in their possession, there had been mass mobilisation to cheer them home. There was no matching mobilisation for the MPP. This was not being abandoned, but SRSA wanted to see an intensification in the organisation of sport. All sport had been organised at a local level in the past. This was the breeding ground for heroes. Now it was sponsors who determined who would get the exposure.

The Minister said that communities did not have the resources or expertise to organise sport. There would be a move from quantity to quality. Commercialisation was masquerading as professionalism. Professionalism was determined by the quality of the inputs. Many so-called professionals concentrated on perfecting their skills in order to guarantee their own success. They put themselves first when taking the field. Many of the national soccer players were more concerned with their careers at overseas clubs than with playing for their country. This was a mercenary approach. There was a lack of dedication.

He recalled his days as an amateur boxer. The prize for the bout was an orange. This was no longer the case. Recently a women’s boxing tournament had been held in Durban where South African boxers took on boxers from Argentina. The local boxers had won all the fights, but the tournament had nearly degenerated into a scandal. The Argentinian promoter had demanded all the money in cash immediately during the course of the Sunday evening, whereas it had been agreed that the payments would have been made on the Monday.

Min Stofile said that professionalism was a product of agents, managers and leaders. Players were playing for their pocket rather than national pride. The Brazilian World Cup team was not paid, whereas the South Africans went on strike before major tournaments. The quality of the players had to be examined. By promoting social cohesion and national pride, players would become better citizens.

Min Stofile also pointed out that there was a major change in eating habits throughout the world, and whereas in the past diabetes and similar diseases were not prevalent, now many people were living sedentary lifestyles and picking up viruses. Lifestyle changes were reducing the protection against disease which children had enjoyed beforehand.

The Minister said that sport was being played for money rather than for entertainment or the love of the game. In the past administrators had been like parents to young sportspeople, but were now more like entrepreneurs. Players were being developed for overseas clubs, with the agents pocketing big commissions. He said that SRSA had identified a need to improve the administration of sport. The values of some administrators were poor.

A developmental continuum had to be followed. Children had to progress from school to community sport. Structural arrangements were fine and all agreed on that. The scholars must not be lost to sport on leaving school. A problem was that they were no longer exposed to the same facilities and support systems.

He recounted his first meeting with Victor Matfield. He was impressed by Matfield’s physique, which was attributed to a diet of pap and meat. Athletes needed to develop their bodies by nutrition and exercise. An initiative had being started and was being intensified to provide mobile gymnasiums. This would help underprivileged children build their muscle structure. The mobile gymnasium being operated by the University of Cape Town was doing well. The one in Port Elizabeth was in the wrong place, as the area in which it was currently located was already well served by gymnasiums. This was also the case in other areas, and they should be a community asset.

Minister Stofile said that the President had asked, on the return of the Springboks, where the next generation of high quality players would come from, as they would be needed to replace the current stars. SARU had said that there were more than ninety players who could make the team. There was a need to see these players being given a chance on the field. Scientific assistance was needed to develop the players. He did not know when this would happen. The estimated cost of this programme was R240 million per annum. He said that player development was an absolute necessity. The budget of the Australia sports academy was greater than that of the Gauteng province. SRSA would have to see how it could introduce a similar unit to develop sportspeople. This was non-negotiable. Children had to have access to a support base.

The Minister noted that no medals had been won at the recent World Athletics Championships. Federations had asked to prepare their own teams, but this preparation had not happened. It was important that medals be won at the Olympic Games in Beijing.

He said that one of government’s responsibilities was to develop social cohesion. Sport should contribute to this nationally. Ways also needed to be found to advance this responsibility on the African continent. It was happening already on a minor scale. The Mozambique girls’ basketball team was training in South Africa, and was becoming a world-beating team.

A de-racialised society could not be built without recognising the racial disparities in the country. He was scared when he heard talk of reverse racism. He did not want to see the country go in that direction. There must be a move towards integration. He disagreed with those who said that nothing was being done to promote integration. This would take some time; in the United States of America there were still problems with racism many years after freedom for all its citizens had been proclaimed. True integration was needed. This was why the recent incident at the University of the Free State had to be taken seriously, as it represented a microcosm of South African society.

Another form of integration which he wanted to see was the integration of sports facilities into new housing developments. Some existing facilities had been sold to closed groups and individuals. Public facilities were thus falling under private control. Racist owners were denying black people access to these facilities. He was pleased that SRSA was moving towards expropriating some of these facilities. It was a challenge to deal with segregated facilities. He mentioned the example of Parys, where there was a separate facility in the historical area of each population group. These facilities were in poor repair, but the question was how to deal with the issue if there were only sufficient funds for refurbishing one of these facilities.

The Minister said that the Amendment Act provided the kind of framework that had been missing. Government could not tell SRSA that it must play a transformation role without having legislation in place to back it up. He had been told by the de Klerk Foundation that legislation was not needed. Government had been trying to achieve transformation since 1992 but the process was not working. An element of coercion was needed to get communities to change. There was resistance to change. Even with reasonable people, sport was a stepchild of reason.

He said that FIFA was breathing down the LOC’s neck. The Safety at Stadiums Bill had to be processed. It had been submitted in July 2007 but was still sitting with the State Law Advisors. Another area that needed to be addressed was a law to curtail certain violent imported sports. Bloody fights to the death were being held in Johannesburg. However, the proposed legislation had had to be withdrawn as Parliament was snowed under.

Min Stofile said that there was an accusation that government wished to interfere in sport. FIFA and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) were alert to this, and realised that in some parts of the world government intervention was needed. The role of government in sport, especially in Africa, had been explained to these bodies. In the European Union there were now meetings between sports federations and government. A charter had been determined to support the different codes. Talks had been held with FIFA and the IOC. There should be a charter of cooperation rather than a spirit of competition. Responsibilities at home were part of a bigger responsibility.

He said that South Africa was continuing to develop an anti-doping strategy. At a recent international conference in Spain, South Africa had saved the conference from collapse. He felt that South Africa had not been aggressive enough in the past, but a new strategy had started in 2005. Sport had to contribute towards the millennium development goals, but the question was how to achieve this. Manchester had developed from a village to a city through sport. Dubai was developing sport cities. He would love to see this happening in South Africa, but resources were lacking. Money and understanding were needed from other departments. SRSA would not give up on this. The media were not very helpful, especially the broadcast media. Many people wondered why the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) did not show any sport. In fact, there were good programmes but they were only aired between midnight and four in the morning.

The Chairperson said that the resolution at the Polokwane conference was that the SABC should derive 60% of its funding from the government and 40% from advertising. There should be less advertising.

The Minister agreed. Decisions had been taken at Polokwane, but the budget votes would still be taken in Parliament. There was a need to raise the issue with the Department. He had almost given up on lottery funding. Section 25 of the Act outlined the distribution of money. He would not go into the history, but said that in 1990 they knew that sport would become a stepchild or even an orphan given all the reconstruction that would be necessary. This had motivated the use of lottery funds to derive income. The lottery was administered by the Department of Trade and Industry (dti). There was no connection with SRSA’s goals. There was a sprinkling all over the country, but this would never become a river.

He said that the Minister of Trade and Industry was not averse to moving the disbursement function away from the dti. The thinking was that the funds distribution should be allocated to each receiving department. They would have to see who would benefit. It seemed that all the allocations were being spent in the cities but nothing in the rural areas. He did not know who benefited from the sports lottery and sports pools. He warned that there would not be an overnight avalanche of funding.

The Minister said that there was a growth in quality and quantity in sport. He mentioned recent successes such as the rowers who had won the recent trans-Atlantic race. A 24-year old long-jump athlete had won an international event. There had been some in-fighting in cricket, but they had nevertheless soundly beaten Bangladesh. Other players needed to be given exposure and a chance. However, there were worries about the status of amateur boxing and basketball. On the other hand, he was inspired by the achievements of hockey. Mr Gary Dolley had been influential in his development work, but there still needed to be a change of colour. He was also inspired by netball. There had been live broadcasts of matches in the recent World Cup in New Zealand, and this had led to a flood of participants, including men.

He said that courses were being run for managers and were attracting many participants. These were controlled by FIFA, but the techniques learned could be applied to other codes as well.

The Minister said that efforts to integrate the work of the former Sports Commission (SC) and SRSA were going reasonably well. He was not too happy about the demographic mix in the Department, which he thought was moving to the other extreme. This had not happened by accident. Some people thought their misdemeanours would go away if they resigned. There had to be a commitment to good governance. The Department had just lost one of its disabled staff members. Corporate services had been instructed to find another two persons with disability. For this purpose normal recruitment procedures could be flouted. He thanked the Chairperson for his patience.

The Chairperson said that the Members of the Committee appreciated the Minister’s presence. The Committee had received notice of the proposed legislation around stadium safety, and there seemed to be a problem with the process. Cabinet had recommended the approval of the Bill on 17 July 2007. A week later Cabinet approved the introduction of the Bill, but seven months later it was still with the State Law Advisors. The onus would be on the Committee to get it passed before the 2010 World Cup. This would be problematic. It had now been withdrawn from the programme for the year as it was too late to go through the legislative cycle, so effectively the window of opportunity had closed. There had been a meeting to discuss the importance of the Bill, but the DG had not been present.

Min Stofile agreed. This had gone out of SRSA’s hands some time ago. It was a very complicated piece of legislation, perhaps the most complicated the Committee would have dealt with. There were major implications on event organisers, especially in terms of liability. It had to be handled professionally. FIFA was worried about legislation regarding liquor, but he felt that the Special Measures Act would address some of these issues. Regulations could be used rather than having to amend the Act.

The Chairperson said the Committee would commit itself to that. A number of issues had been raised. One of the issues was the leasing of sports facilities throughout the country. In the town of Frankfort the stadium had been leased out. It was no longer available to children. There had been a gathering there which had a political nature. Members of Afriforum and the DA had been present. He asked why these organisations had been on hand to receive a memorandum if there was no political interest. The right wing could not be allowed to pillage and plunder.

Mr Frolick said that the Committee was constantly reminded of alleged political interference by the captains of industry. They would not let themselves be harassed. The President of the Pumas Rugby Union was a former FF+ Member of Parliament. There was also a prominent rugby administrator who was a member of the DA. This showed that all parties were intimately involved in sport. In terms of the development continuum, he asked what the status was of NACOC and the South African Sports Confederation and Olympic Committee (SASCOC), and also what the relationships with SRSA were like. In terms of facilities, one resolution of the ANC conference in Polokwane was that funds allocated for sports facilities in the Municipal Infrastructure Grant (MIG) were to be moved from the control of the Department of Provincial and Local Government (DPLG) to SRSA. He asked if this had been raised yet at Executive level. It should be a simple move. However, he asked if there were sufficient human resources (HR) at SRSA especially if the financial allocation was moved to them.

Mr D Dikgacwi (ANC) raised the issue of 2010. There was in-fighting between Mr Jordaan, Mr Tim Modise and Mr Irvin Khoza. This was putting South Africa in a bad light.. The LOC was handling all the demands of FIFA, and he asked what they were doing. The LOC should represent the views of the nation.

Mr B Dhlamini (IFP) was passionate over the MIG issue. This was one of the good ideas to emerge from Polokwane. He agreed there must be a move from a quantitative to a qualitative approach. Facilities were needed in previously disadvantaged areas. The Department had been doing well while it was still able to run the Building for Sport and Recreation Programme (BSRP). There was commitment from government and the President. On the issue of values, he felt that people were now driven by greed. This was particularly so with professional sportspeople. The second issue that he wished to raise was the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between SRSA and the Department of Education (DoE). This was a grey area. School sport was not taking root, but this was where talent should be identified.

The Chairperson pointed out that Ms Ntuli had raised the issue with the President.

Min Stofile said that there was an issue between SASCOC, NACOC and school sport. It was a critical issue. People were not always sure what they were talking about. The same terms were used, but there were different interpretations. SASCOC had been established as a non-governmental organisation (NGO) in 2005. It was a vehicle to deal with international federations rather than having them interface with the South African government.. Very few people understood sport, although many enjoyed it. Sport was a very complicated affair, almost as complicated as religion, and there was a lot of emotion involved. SASCOC’s mission as a coordinating structure must be understood. Its main purpose was preparing multi-disciplinary teams for events such as the All Africa Games, Commonwealth Games and the Olympic Games. However, each federation was primarily responsible for its own activities.

He said that people thought that SASCOC should act as a proxy for the federations. This was wrong. NACOC suffered from the same problem. This was a coordinating committee for school sport, but did not organise the individual events. It was an organisation of civil servants with a few teachers. The body thought it could intimidate teachers. Its functions were confused. It was an ideological problem. He had told NACOC they should disband and then reconstitute themselves.

The Minister said that the MoU was driven by NACOC. It tried to delineate the responsibilities of the two Departments. They thought that government would provide the money and NACOC would decide how it was spent. The government was not so foolish as to allow this. There must be a plan. Government was trying to convince education leaders on this issue. In Zimbabwe the Minister of Sport was also the Minister of Education. This was also the case in Angola and most other African countries. In 1994 there had been long discussions on the issue. The decision was that the two functions should be separate in the interests of transformation. However, children at school playing sport fell within the terrain of the Department of Education.

He said that if an organisation was never involved in school sport then it could not speak strongly on the issue. It could not tell the teachers how and when to do things. Government was wrestling with this issue. Teachers had to be motivated to do what the rest of the world was doing. There was an international body. There was not much chance of affiliating to the Southern Africa body as there was no structure to affiliate to.

Min Stofile said that he had instructed his deputy to stop the plan to establish an African organisation in July 2007. They were not ready for this yet. It would be wrong to create such a body without a proper organisation behind it. NACOC was a teachers’ organisation, but SRSA had to help it. If mass mobilisation was the way to go, then it must be understood that the MPP would have go to schools in order to get to its full reach.

He said that he had instructed the DG to begin implementing plans for the return of MIG funding. The process had already started. National Treasury (NT) agreed with this approach. The incorporation of the BSRP into the MIG was a Cabinet decision taken in 2003. The Cabinet would have to dismantle this mechanism, as sport was going backwards. There were questions about capacity and a three pronged approach. SRSA needed a capacity to audit and to define what was meant by a sports field. Local federations and municipalities, rather than hired consultants, should be asked to provide information.

The Chairperson said that his comrades on the Committee felt that SRSA would not be able to achieve this. The data was there, but it was not just a question of numbers. Attention also had to be paid to the condition of facilities.

The Minister replied that it was not just a case of counting facilities on paper. SRSA had to know the state of these places. There was a question of HR capacity if the MIG funds were restored. There was a directorate that dealt with the MIG. The directorate within SRSA would have to be reconfigured to handle the increased funding if agreement was reached. There were enough personnel in the Department, but at this stage the systems were not ready to cope with the funding. South Africa had the capacity, and resources would be deployed to meet the challenges.

He had no comment on the 2010 issue. In any institution there would always be conflict unless there were clearly defined areas of responsibility. He had demanded written schedules of delegations of duties. Things would not work smoothly otherwise. This was a global trend in any sport. The sport had its own politics and modus operandi. It was an interesting way to deal with conflict, but it made sense to the members of the LOC. It was a problem, but could be managed.

In terms of the demands of FIFA, the Minister said that the first meeting had been in June 2004. Areas of cooperation had been defined. It was supposed to be a partnership of equality and mutual trust. It did not always work out like that. The datelines should not be changed without agreement. It was not the same in the LOC. Some members had been involved with the organisation of the 2002 World Cup in Korea and Japan. Just as with the Committee, there was a special relationship amongst the members of the LOC, and a friendly atmosphere. The LOC was defending South African interests. It was not only the memories that would be the legacy of hosting the World Cup. He noted that although there could be gossip outside meetings, views were often not expressed in the meetings. Mr Sepp Blatter was satisfied with the good arrangements. Channels of communication were defined. There were in-house secrets, but there would always be conflicts of interest.

Min Stofile commented on the values of the people. He had sat with Mr Carlos Pereira and discussed the state of soccer in Brazil. A problem in South Africa was the lack of discipline amongst children, who tended to be spoilt. South Africa was now a very liberal community. The spread of pornography was one manifestation of this. Mothers had to teach their children to dress decently as a sign of respect. The values of being a good African citizen had to be inculcated. Children had to be disciplined. He was unashamedly conservative in this regard.

Ms M Ntuli (ANC) found the Minister’s briefing informative and touching, but what he said was not necessarily happening in SRSA. She needed clarity in some areas. She asked what the progress was with the recruitment of events coordinators, and what was happening with women. Hubs were being demarcated in urban areas, but she wanted to know what the situation was in rural areas. She asked about sport for the elderly. She saw at a bowls club how the white players took to the greens once or twice a week. There was a lack of cooperation in international competition and the blame came back to government. The Department had highlighted the need for assistance to the national team for the 2010 World Cup. Issues such as nutrition needed to be addressed. She did not want to see Bafana Bafana sitting back and watching other teams play during the tournament. They had to participate meaningfully. Players needed to be involved full time as they were there to play. There were good initiatives on the school sport front. There should be a meeting between the two Ministers, and Minister Stofile should take the initiative. Sport could not continue to be this lamentable stepchild. Development had to start from the roots. FIFA had many demands and regulations. The World Cup had to be owned by South Africa. The youth of the country must not be left behind.

Mr R Bhoola (MF) said that Ms Ntuli covered much of what he wanted to say. At an earlier meeting, the Committee had been briefed on the resolutions taken at Polokwane. School sport was one of the issues addressed. His concern was in the implementation. Skilled educators would have to make this a reality. Public representatives would have to play an important role in the rural areas. Facilities were undoubtedly a concern. When they were leased out the community lost access, which nullified the work of the MPP. He gave an example of a soccer club which leased out its venue for R1 a month. He asked how the appropriation process could be speeded up and returned to the people. Certain groups organised events such as the Cycle Tour. The federations were ignored or had a token presence. He asked how such events could be organised properly if the federations had no input.

Minister Stofile said that these were important contributions. On the issue of the decentralisation of hubs, he had been told that Ms Kelly Mkhonto (Director Community Sport, SRSA) had not originally liked the hub concept, but was now adapting her attitude. They had to be aligned to municipalities. There had to be clear demarcation and control. People should not be confused by different areas being demarcated for different purposes, such as different areas for hubs compared to municipal wards. There had to be a sense of predictability.

He said that elderly people must also benefit from sport. In particular, health clubs should be available for the elderly to exercise. This would be more in line with the recreation role of SRSA. A caring society had to be developed, and there had to be an outreach to children as well. Money was needed for opportunities. Recently, Mr Tony Leon (former leader of the DA) had approached him to assist ten children from Kearsney College who were unable to afford an overseas tour being arranged by the school.

The Minister said that the issue of nationalising the South African soccer team had been put to the Premier Soccer League (PSL). The reaction was not encouraging. The PSL did not agree with the concept of assembling the players as a group and only playing matches as a South African team. Some parties might be offended. Mr Blatter was concerned about the government running football. However, some intervention might be necessary to prevent the team from being an embarrassment in 2010. This concept would only be applied in the lead up to the World Cup. Players would be withdrawn from clubs for this period. It was a very complicated proposal. It had been done in France before the 1998 World Cup. The team had lost all their warm-up matches but had gone on to win the World Cup. This had been done on instructions from the French Minister of Sport. A similar approach had been followed by Korea. After 1998, the organisation of French football had been returned to the federation. France’s participation in the 2002 tournament had proved disastrous.

He agreed that FIFA made many demands. FIFA had been organising the World Cup for the last eight years. He had attended their AGM. For the first time it was reported that reserves had increased. Much money had been made during the 2002 and 2006 tournaments.

Min Stofile agreed on the importance of school sport. Getting a satisfactory programme underway was a matter of implementation. In 2006 he had lamented the attitude of the KwaZulu Natal (KZN) Member of the Executive Council (MEC) for Education, who had been obstructive. KZN had changed, and was now ahead of all other provinces. Liaison between the MEC and the Head of Department (HOD) had been a problem. His meeting with Naledi Pandor, Minister of Education,  had gone well, but he saw the need for a joint MinMEC. The problem lay in the Department, not the Ministry.

He said that SRSA had to work with the South African Local Government Association (SALGA) regarding the leasing of sports facilities. In some cases the cost was R1 per year. If the facilities were leased to the Department they would be properly utilised. The tendency could continue, but must be controlled. This was not a core function of the municipalities.

He said that sponsors were the real owners of sport. He did not really know how to deal with the issue. The truth of the matter was that government would not succeed in chasing sponsors away. He wanted to see SRSA develop its modus operandi. Sponsors were more than just stakeholders. A conference was to be held with the PSL during April, but there was no single solution. The sad truth was that no federation wanted to invest money in development.

The Chairperson thanked the Minister for his input. He was glad that the Minister was prepared to speak openly. It was not correct for sponsors to link race to management. They should sponsor teams and close their eyes to the colour of the management, but this was not happening. It was a serious concern.

On the issue of the pronouncement of policy matters regarding empowerment, interaction was needed with the DG. People had to benefit from 2010. It seemed that only the middle level of the economy was being targeted at present. He asked what would happen at the bottom level. Discussions had been held with the FIFA Secretariat regarding 2010. Various matters had been included in the Special Measures Bill such as fan parks and vendors at the stadiums. He had heard that FIFA had since changed its stance. If the fan parks were not in the identified host cities, then FIFA regulations would not apply. This needed to be cleared up with the LOC, and might result in an amendment to the Act.

The Chairperson said that rugby management would be called to the Committee the following week. The privatisation of sport was like a sore thumb. The PSL broadcasting rights deal with MNet had left viewing in a shambles. A big commission had been paid to PSL board members. This was also the case in rugby, where broadcasting rights had been sold to MNet. This deal would only come into effect in 2010. One had to have a decoder to follow sport. The Committee would not keep quiet on this issue, as it spoke for the downtrodden people. What the federations were doing in the name of freedom of action led to them lining their pockets. Televised sport could help to build a non-racial society, so the lack of exposure to the general public was a problem. The federations needed to explain their position.

The Minister commented on the issue of rugby broadcasting. He had sent letters to SARU requesting explanations, but had received no reply. In 1995 the government had tried to pass a law regarding sports publications. The Committee at that time had not been helpful. Mr Louis Luyt had been allowed to get away with his actions at the time. The current agreement was merely an extension of the contracts concluded at that time. It denied the average viewer access to televised sport. The deal with Mr Rupert Murdoch was also an issue. Nothing changed except change itself. There was a need to look at legislation.

Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Department of Sport and Recreation (SRSA): Briefing
Mr Makota Matlala, Chief Financial Officer, SRSA said that he would provide information on some of the projects being run by the Department. There were business plans for each project. Actual expenditure for the 2007/08 Financial Year (FY) was R4.9 billion, which was 97.25% of the budget. After revision, the budget had been R5.1 billion. He broke these figures down. Of the budgeted current payments, 72.1% had been paid to date. R4.8 billion had been moved as transfers and subsidies, which was 98.3% of the budget. The eThekwini Municipality had requested a further R65 million for the stadium before the end of the year. This matter had been discussed, and the claim was more than what was available. Of the R3.1 million for capital expenditure, 81.3% had been spent. This was a total spending of 97.25% of the budget. This would rise to approximately 99% after transfer was made to eThekwini.

He then looked at the Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) allocations. The budget for the current FY was R5.1 billion, reducing to  R1.0 billion for 2010/11. The reduction was due to the fact that 95% of SRSA’s budget had been going towards the construction of stadiums for the World Cup in 2010. In more detail, the budget for the 2008/09 FY for current payments was R80.9 million (R77.4 million in 2007/08). The detailed components of this were set out (see attached presentation for full details). He noted in particular that the MPP current payments were reduced slightly to R51.6 million (from R51.9 million in 2007/08) but transfer payments were increased to R290 million. This figure included an allocation for school sport. The allocation for current payments under the International Liaison and Events programme had increased to R42.5 million. One of the reasons was the Zone 6 tournament which would be staged in South Africa later in the year. It was also an Olympic year. Under the Facilities Co-Ordination programme, R5.1 million was allocated for the 2008/09 FY. The final programme was the 2010 World Cup Unit. This was allocated R2.9 billion (R4.6 billion in 2007/08) for transfers and subsidies, while R21.1 million was budgeted for current payments (R17 million in 2007/08).

Mr Matlala said that of the budget for 2007/08, 91% had been dedicated to the 2010 World Cup Unit. They had spent 93% of their allocation by the end of February. He presented a breakdown of expenses at each World Cup venue. A total of R4.6 billion had been allocated in the revised budget. Of this R4.5 billion had already been transferred, but only 57% had been spent.

In terms of transfer payments, R4.9 billion was the adjusted appropriation. R4.8 billion had already been transferred to provinces, municipalities and other organisations and 98.3% had been spent. An amount of R11 million would be transferred to the federations during the 2008/09 FY. SASCOC would receive R9.3 million and LoveLife R26.1 million. By the end of January, provinces had under spent to the amount of R59.0 million. He presented a breakdown of how money would be distributed to the provinces in terms of the Division of Revenue Act (DORA).

Ms Ntuli asked for clarity on the budget for school sport. She noted that considerable money was being allocated to the provinces. She asked if any money was being given for school sport, as it seemed to be bearing no fruit. Under spending by provinces was a problem. She asked what measures were in place to control this. Three quarters of the budget was going towards 2010. It was time for the Department and its provincial offices to improve..

Ms M Makgate (ANC) said that the figures were not good. On page 15 of the SRSA Annual Report an under spent amount of R15 million was noted. She asked if the Department was aware of this, and asked what steps were being taken to address the shortfall.

The Chairperson said there had been interaction with the Minister. The matter had already been dealt with.

Mr J Masango (DA) asked why money was moving to and from the Tourism, Hospitality and Education Training Authority (Theta). He was also concerned that Boxing South Africa (BSA) was struggling, yet it was only allocated R2 million compared to an allocation of R26 million for LoveLife. He asked if boxing could survive.

Mr Dikgacwi also questioned the transfers to and from Theta.

Ms Alison Burchell, Chief Director (CD), Client Services, Liaison, Events, Facilities, SRSA, said that the allocation of R2 million to BSA was done on the instruction of SCOPA. A presentation had been made to the management of SRSA. The indications were that BSA should become self-sustaining. They had recently concluded a sponsorship deal worth R10.5 million over a three year period. This was more that what government was giving. BSA could become self-regulating.

She said that R9 million was being transferred in this FY to Theta for the training of 2010 volunteers. She was not sure why money was being transferred to Theta. SRSA had sat down with the LOC to discuss this matter. A service level agreement was needed. Theta had written back with an eleven page letter which questioned the agreement. There was an issue of intellectual property rights. Some expenses had been incurred in training volunteers to assist at the World Cup draw held in Durban. The DG had written to Theta, but it seemed they were not prepared to negotiate. SRSA had asked National Treasury (NT) to deal with the remainder of the R9 million as a roll over. The rest would be left for the Department. They were also working with the Umsombomvu Youth Trust and also closely with the host cities. The LOC was claiming control over volunteer training. There were roles for volunteers to assist Very Important Persons (VIPs) at the grounds, but she asked what would be done with the rest of the visitors. The Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism was busy with a South African host programme. Some persons from the Department of Health were also involved. Language training would be needed for volunteers.

Ms Burchell said that the LoveLife issue had caused the Department to apply its mind how to manage the process. A meeting was still planned for the DG’s of the various Departments who dealt with the LoveLife organisation. SRSA had signed a service level agreement, and the other Departments were expected to do the same. SRSA would give direction. This was a “make or break” year. If LoveLife played by the rules, there was no reason why it should not continue. She hoped that they could make it work. If LoveLife was not funded by SRSA, then NT could well take back the money allocated for this purpose.

The Chairperson said that the government must show SRSA that it was serious about LoveLife. He had noted to the Minister of Finance that all the departments had problems with LoveLife. The organisation was supposed to manage relationships. The Department of Health should be the Department taking control, but did not seem to be interested. There was no impact being achieved by LoveLife. The modality should have been raised long ago.

Ms Kelly Mkhonto, Director Community Sport, SRSA, said that monthly reports were required by DORA. Financial and non-financial reports had to go to NT. In the previous year SRSA officials had worked in silos. This had been corrected in the current FY, and regular meetings were also held. Reports were compiled and forwarded to NT. The Act was the guiding policy, and presented a clear way to manage. There were conditions attached to grants. Before funds were transferred, the receiving province had to submit a business plan. SRSA would scrutinise this and correct it if necessary. The national business plan was synchronised with those of the nine provinces. There was a progressively implementable agreement.

She said that one key element was the reporting. If a single report was missing it would become an issue. There were not enough hands to deliver in the province. NT had been approached about this. Treasury had agreed that 5% of the top slice of the budget could be used to appoint people to manage the MPP at provincial level. These people were appointed on three-year contracts. Some provinces had taken advantage of this offer, namely KZN and the Western Cape, but others had not. Delivery was a problem. Monitoring and evaluation was needed.

Ms Mkhonto said that SRSA relied on reports from activity co-ordinators. Some were not authentic. Some provinces saw the grants as a national project and did not budget for the MPP. Possible remedies included the withholding of funds or only making transfers to those provinces which were performing. The Schedule 5 grants could not be used at national level. A revised formula could be used. She said that expenditure was down by 59%. By the end of February expenditure was standing at 86%, which was quite positive. It should have reached 96% by the end of the FY.

Mr Matlala said that of the allocations to the 2010 Unit, 93% was for the cost of stadiums.

The Chairperson asked about the contracts and sub-contracts awarded at the stadiums. There should be a quest for employment and skills development.

Ms Xoliswa Sibeko, Director General, SRSA, undertook to make this information available in writing.

The Chairperson said this must be discussed together with the LOC. There must be an integrated approach.

The DG said the money was actually transferred to municipalities.

The Chairperson said that they must then also be brought to discuss the contracts. The people would hold SRSA responsible. Only the LOC was interacting with the host cities. This could not happen.

Mr Matlala said that each of the major construction groups was only able to contract for one stadium. They needed to have sub-contractors in place.

The Chairperson said this would be discussed. It was the same people doing the business, and this was business as usual.

Mr Matlala said that some of the funds for the MPP might be used for mobilisation for 2010 related projects.

The Chairperson wanted more clarity on this. He had not seen any developments in this regard.

Ms Mkhonto said that South Africans were being galvanised regarding the events of 2010. Mass education was being undertaken to emphasise the importance of the event. Road shows and festivals were being held. The interests of social cohesion and xenophobia were being addressed. A heart to heart approach was being followed. There was a project where schools were being linked to specific countries. This had started in the current financial year.

The Chairperson noted that he had not seen anything yet in the Free State.

Ms Mkhonto said she would give him the schedule, as she did not have with her at that time. There was some activity at the Basotho cultural village.

The Chairperson felt that this was seen as an Arts and Culture issue, not sport.

Mr Masango asked if LoveLife was getting money from different Departments. The same oversight function should be carried out. It would be fine if all the oversight was from one Department. In the past SRSA had only had two officials running the MPP. He asked if this was the case. He noted that the current expenditure level was 86% but would be increased to 95%. This was not the pattern he wanted to see. It should not be the case that expenditure shot up as the end of the FY approached.

The Chairperson said that the Department of Health contributed R35 million to LoveLife, SRSA R26 million and the Department of Social Development R36 million. LoveLife was getting more than R100 million. He felt that LoveLife was not the responsibility of SRSA. He did not know how it had become a government responsibility.

Mr Dikgacwi referred to page 20 of SRSA’s Annual Report. The Department had set targets to train 900 persons, but had in fact trained 1152. This was very good, but he asked what effect this had on the budget. He asked if SRSA was achieving the accreditation of coaches.

Ms Makgate said that if provinces were not performing then funds budgeted for them could go to other provinces. This was a worrying factor. Communities would be punished because some officials were not doing their work. One of the Department’s achievements was that the number of workers in townships had increased. There was no HIV programme due to the transition from the Sports Commission to the Olympic Committee. She noted that 822 people had been trained in HIV programmes.

Mr Masango asked what LoveLife’s involvement was in this.

Mr Bhoola said that the Minister of Finance had emphasised the creation of young entrepreneurs. He had noticed conflicting and distorted reports on school sports. There was an allegation that only 41 cents were spent on each child. He asked if this figure was correct.

The DG said that the equitable share formula was used. She did not know if this translated to 41c. If so it needed to be revised. Children in the high population density areas benefited the most.

The Chairperson said that some homework had been done on the period between 1994 and 1999. It was clearly shown that the allocations were still based on apartheid figures. The government had spent 41c on a black child but R4 on a white child. This had changed. The former Director General, Prof Denver Hendricks, had moved towards correcting this.

Ms Mkhonto said that two formulae were used to allocate funds. The first was the baseline, whereby each province received R5 million. The remainder of the R290 million budgeted for 2008/09 would be allocated according to the equitable share formula.

Mr Bhoola found the figure of 41c disturbing.

Ms Sibeko said that R26 million was given to Lovelife. It must be held accountable for this. Work was being done. She said that more than two employees were being used on the MPP management but more were needed. She asked if it was the national Department’s work to implement projects on the ground, or if this was a provincial responsibility. If the province managed their affairs then SRSA did not need such a big team. It would then only need to act in a coordinating role. There were people in the provinces.

The Chairperson said that the Auditor General (AG) had made an unfair assumption. Money for LoveLife was being allocated with no control. Management should be done by satellite offices in the provinces.

Ms Mkhonto said that the correct identification of hubs would be done in the new FY. Provinces had identified hubs, and the process had started well. The project had started with four hubs. The approach in defining hubs was being left to the provinces. SRSA would interrogate the list and the Minister would have a look before signing it off.

Ms Sibeko said that SRSA was still grappling with the notion of what a hub should be. It should be an area with a five kilometre radius. The Department was still thinking of the best way to demarcate hubs. They were having talks with the Australian sports commission. The goal of the hub was to promote an active community life. Each community should have an activity point. The concept was working in some places but not in others. Hub and activity co-ordinators had been appointed. They had already established 451 hubs in 150 municipalities, but wanted to make them more visible. Eventually there would be some presence everywhere. It was a drop in the ocean at present. SRSA was looking at business plans, and would guide the process. She was puzzled by the estimated of 900 persons to be trained.

The Chairperson said that this question had arisen recently. He felt that an error might have occurred during a cut and paste operation from previous reports to compile the current Annual Report.

Ms Sibeko said that this was a problem coming back to visit her. It cost R4 500 per person for the training. SRSA was investigating why so many more were trained than planned. The company responsible for the training was claiming R62 million. A forensic audit would be conducted.

Ms Makgate asked if hubs would be aligned to municipality wards. Some wards covered eight villages in the rural areas. She asked if the facilities would be centralised on a single area in such widespread wards.

The Chairperson said that the Committee would not engage the Department on that. He acknowledged that there was a problem of vastness in some areas.

Ms Mkhonto said that there were two forms of training. The DG had referred to training at the National Qualification Framework level. There was a service provider for that. The training referred to on page 20 of the Annual Report had been conducted by the federations in the provinces. There was a generic approach to sport. Students underwent a basic sport and administration course.

Ms Sibeko said there were spikes in the expenditure pattern. There was a trend towards spending money towards the end of the FY, and expenditure picked up from October. In the past there had been two Acting DGs. The expenditure pattern had now improved. By August only 6% of the budget had been spent. Because of the leadership structure at the time, decisions were not been taken. It was a question of leadership. The Department had spent 57% of its budget by the end of January. Guidance was been given to the province on how to use their funding. She had sent people to the provinces to investigate and advise the provincial departments. All of the money destined for the provinces had been transferred. There was a need to make a follow up investigation to see if the money was being used properly.

Mr Masango asked about expenditure on stadiums. The expenditure figure in the presentation was only 57%, and yet it was estimated that 86% would be spent by the end of February.

Mr Matlala replied that reports were received on the 20th of each month. Municipalities had been busy spending money on the projects during February and March, but these figures had not yet been submitted to SRSA.

Mr Masango commented that these were the figures in front of the Committee.

Mr Matlala replied that huge amounts were involved. Transfers had been done in the middle of January. Money had been spent after the allocations had been made. Invoices issued in February and March were not indicated. The true February figures would only become available later.

The Chairperson observed that these figures would affect the planning process. The Department was saying that they would adjust their figures when more information was known. This could lead to a problem with reconciliation.

Ms Sibeko admitted that there was silence on 2010 despite the huge budget. A specialist Unit was in place, but had only started reporting recently.

The Chairperson said that there seemed to be lawlessness in the Department. One of the most glaring problems was the format of the Annual Report. The message of the Deputy Minister was published after that of the Acting DG. This was a serious protocol issue. He also asked how volunteers were chosen.

Ms Sibeko replied that two thirds of the volunteers were activity and hub co-ordinators. The term volunteer was incorrect, as these people were paid a stipend of between R1200 and R1600. They fell outside the definition of a volunteer.

The Chairperson noted that a sponsor had given R10 million to BSA. This was a statutory body. The R2 million from SRSA could not be linked to a sponsor. The Act would have to be amended. The CEO’s salary must be benchmarked. The AG had reported that there had been no compliance with the law. He asked who had not complied with the law. He said that SRSA had not complied with the law for two years and asked why this should be the case now. The provisions of DORA were haunting the Department. There was insufficient monitoring. This had been quoted in the AG’s report for 2005/06 and again in 2006/07. He asked what was being done. The table on page 51 of the Annual Report reflected material differences between objectives and outcomes. The Department could not be run at a loss.

The Chairperson noted in the 2006/07 report that there was an amount for assets not verified of R15 million. It was to be concluded that these assets did not exist. He asked if this was money well spent. The Department needed to secure its assets. R12 million had been given to service providers, but there were no supporting documents to show that this had been well spent. If the situation continued, the Committee would feel that it was unable to give funding to SRSA. They were still using consultants. He asked if there was any skills transfer to the Department.

Ms Mkhonto said that there was a lack of performance management systems.

Ms Sibeko apologised for the lack of protocol. She had arrived at SRSA in August 2007 and the annual report was being finalised in a rush at the time. The strategist had not been involved. She had not seen the report. She conceded that there were faults, but these would not happen again. She compared the protocol situation to a church with no priests, where the deacons might have to take over the running.

Mr Frolick took over as Acting Chairperson at this point. He asked what the status of the report was.

Ms Sibeko said that it had been presented. There was a disclaimer, and it had been qualified by the AG. It would be a waste of money to reprint the document.

The Acting Chairperson asked if any of the staff alluded to by the DG were present at this meeting.

Ms Sibeko said there were none present. The people at the meeting were those who were prepared to assist, and they were bearing the brunt of the problems. If officials were off sick there was nothing to be done about it. Systems were in place. A number of grievances would emerge in the next report. She was putting things together.

Mr Frolick said that the Committee wished to deal with the state of the report. It needed a sense that the ship was being turned. There was a need to convey to officials the seriousness with which the Committee regarded the role of the Department. A cleansing process might be necessary. It could not have people who were half-hearted in their approach.

Mr Komphela, resuming the Chair, reminded the DG that she was the accounting officer for SRSA. She must assume responsibility and be aware of what was happening in the Department. She had to account for everything in SRSA.

Ms Sibeko said that she held a meeting every Monday at 07h30. Decisions were taken and matters were investigated. She was sorting out pockets of resistance. The strategist was shocked that people were abdicating their roles in business plans. SRSA would not allow an eight year old to go to a national tournament unaccompanied. She wanted to see business plans and performance agreements in place by 1 April. This should allow for better staged spending. The Chief Directors had no monitoring systems. There was a lack of capacity. The excuse that the officials were new in government was not valid. They now had to march on their own. If a person accepted a Director’s post, then he or she needed to act as a manager.

Mr Solomon Motshweni, Director Supply Chain, SRSA, said that all assets had been registered, and a second round of verification was being conducted. Much of the asset problem dated back to the merger between the SC and the Department. An audit was required by the end of the FY.

The Chairperson said that the AG had reported on R15 million in assets not being verified. He asked if this was all linked to the merger. He asked if this was a factor of depreciation.

Mr Motshweni confirmed that the assets in question came from the SC. Some were very old, and their original value in 2004 could not be shown. The computer system used to control assets had an automatic depreciation function. It was hard to find the original documentation.

The Chairperson said that there would be a discrepancy. He asked what was being done about the state of assets.

Mr Motshweni said that there was a process to update the LOGIS register. All information would be uploaded, including the serial number of equipment, its location and its condition. There was a process to identify unserviceable equipment and recommend its disposal. There were different rates for different types of furniture. The LOGIS system had not been used by SRSA before although the AG did use it. This was the reason for the discrepancy. Both Departments were now using the same system.

The Chairperson asked about R12 million which had been noted as untraceable by the AG.

Mr Matlala said that many invoices and payment receipts were still in boxes at SRSA’s offices. The public service strike had led to a staff shortage, and some filing had been confusing. All payments, invoices and supporting documents were now being filed correctly.

The Chairperson said that this was the second FY in which there had been problems. He recalled how the Committee had worked until late into the evening on the Bill dissolving the to SC and  had thought that the dissolution would backfire. That was now proved to be true. It was not just a technical dissolution. The matter was still not finalised. He accepted what Mr Motshweni was saying in good faith. He was still surprised to hear that the Department was still sitting with paperwork in boxes and had had no asset manager for two years. There was some hope now, but the patterns and problems were still the same.

He said that the budget was decreasing and asked if SRSA had thought of innovative ways to curb the problem. By 2011 the budget reached rock bottom. He asked if they would take advantage of the better-funded years.

Mr Matlala said they should look at the 2010 legacy. The NT was still open to discussion and might increase funding. SRSA might request that time frames be adapted for new avenues. When the MTEF came under discussion there would be a need to build strong cases for extra funding.

The Chairperson felt this was encouraging.

Ms Sibeko said that the proposed movement of funds from the Municipal Infrastructure Grant (MIG) back to SRSA’s control would change the position. There were some new projects with which the Department was dealing, namely Sport for Peace, Sport for Development and Sport Tourism. There was some funding, but SRSA was asking for more. There were several no-go areas in the country still due to crime and gangsterism, such as Nyanga East. Sport could make huge changes in these areas. Under apartheid policies there had been a liquor outlet for every 800 people. She wished there could be a sports facility for every 800 citizens. On the issue of national colours, the matter was still sitting with SASCOC.

The Chairperson asked how SRSA was doing in terms of transformation, gender sensitivity and equity compliance. He asked what the staffing position was with blacks and women. He asked what impact the administration of sport was making on the national agenda.

Ms Sibeko said that the Department was dong well with disability staff. In fact they exceeded standards even though they had lost one person with disability two weeks previously due to cancer. They needed to replace this person. They had commenced with the appointment of a disabled Financial Director and a legal advisor. The Paralympics team was strong, and this should reflect in the SRSA staff. Sadly the building was not very compliant to disability standards and persons with disability were dependent on the lifts. An evacutrain device had been installed that wheelchair bound persons could use in the event of an emergency evacuation. The Department even boasted the services of a sign language interpreter.

Mr Frolick was puzzled that the building housing the SRSA offices was not compliant with government policy. It was a new building and provision for disabled people should have been taken into account.

Ms Sibeko said the building was privately owned. The Department had spent R20 million trying to renovate it. It was poorly located in terms of traffic. SRSA was negotiating with the Department of Public Works (DPW) with a view to constructing a new building. This would preferably be located near a sports field such as Loftus Versveld or SuperSport Park. The Department could then use it for its museum and hall of fame. She admitted that the Department was not doing well in terms of its racial demographics.

Mr Daniel Mabulane, Director HR, SRSA,  said that there were 24 white staff members out of a total of 191. There were six coloureds and the rest were black. There was a total staff establishment of 225. Of these posts, 84% were filled.

The Chairperson asked what the levels were of the vacancies.

Ms Sibeko said that interviews had been done and letters of appointment had been written. However, negotiations were still under way. She only regarded the post as being filled when that person was in his or her office.

The Chairperson asked if the salaries had been advertised.

Mr Mabulane said they were. It frequently happened that potential employees looking to take up a post at SRSA received counter offers from their own departments.

The Chairperson asked if special packages were only offered to those persons with scarce skills.

Mr Mabulane said that the minimum salary notch was quoted in the advertisement. All applicants were offered salaries within the applicable scales. They would initially be offered the lowest notch, but could negotiate within the bracket.

The Chairperson said this sounded like price fixing.

Mr Mabulane said that most of the vacancies were in the 2010 Unit. They were looking for technically qualified people. Posts had been advertised and applicants interviewed. The Unit had to compete with the private sector for suitably qualified people. The Unit’s Director of Support Infrastructure earned more than a DDG in the Department. There were common structures with DPW and the LOC. There was some duplication. A critical post was that of COO. This person’s job description was almost the same as that of the DG of the Unit.

The Chairperson said that it would be wrong if the DG of a unit within the Department was earning more than the DG of SRSA.

Mr Mabulane said that both were on salary level 16. He admitted this was confusing. The DG of the 2010 Unit, Dr Joe Phaahla, had a performance agreement with the Minister. The Deputy Minister had given leeway on how to fill these posts.

Ms Sibeko said that the Department had taken a short cut. Mr Fredericks had described the post as loaded. There was now an opportunity to move things around.

Mr Frolick said that there should be policy discussions with the Minister as soon as possible regarding the role of the COO and DG of the 2010 Unit. There was a distinct difference between the DG of the World Cup Unit and the Department’s DG. The 2010 Unit played an overarching role. All these posts would disappear after 2010 in any event.

The Chairperson said he knew exactly how it worked. He calculated figures of the staff demographics. There were 155 black employees, which was 81%. Whites represented 16% and coloureds 4%. He asked what the role of Client Support Services was.

Ms Burchell said that her unit was a support service to sport. They concentrated on issues of education and training, and funding. They monitored the transformation within federations and other NGO’s with links to SRSA. They were also responsible for club development. The international relations function was to support federations. There was an agenda to reach out into Africa, as had been touched on earlier by Min Stofile. There was more than one way to learn and contribute. For example, SRSA had contributed to the development of Argentinean rugby. The unit also assisted with the hosting of events. Apart from sports tournaments, this included other events, conferences and exhibitions, which contributed to sports tourism.

The Chairperson commented on the money being spent on transformation. He asked if there was transformation amongst both administrators and participants. He asked if the process was worthwhile.

Ms Burchell replied that R11 million had been budgeted for transfer to eighty federations. SRSA would not control how these funds were spent. The federations did have some ground to complain as they could not be expected to transfer without any support. She felt that the Amendment Act should have been introduced in 1994. The broadest sense of transformation included attitudes, representivity, coaching, medical support, gender equity and opportunities for the disabled. Transformation was one component of the entire environment.

The Chairperson asked if professional federations were included in the R11 million transfer, believing that they should not. Substantial amounts had been given to rugby by sponsors, and yet there was no transformation. The PSL had received money from ABSA and now Nedbank, but he questioned their commitment to transformation. Federations had obligations to the country. If funding was increased, then this should be linked to performance.

Mr Frolick said that this had been a contentious issue since the time Mr Fredericks had been at SRSA. He felt that it might be time to move towards having a workshop or a seminar on funding. Billions of rand were being pumped into sport, but this was happening in a lopsided manner. SARU had recently received a R40 million payment as a first instalment from the Rugby World Cup. They had also received a R35 million sponsorship from SuperSport. Cricket would benefit from the tax regime. R220 million would be refunded to Cricket South Africa which would be ploughed back into development. Professional federations had to subsidise their amateur divisions. The case of the learners at Kearsney College mentioned by the Minister earlier showed there were some disadvantaged learners at such schools who could not afford to go on international tours. The lottery was a potential source of funding. In France the lottery was controlled by the Sport Department. Tough decisions would have to be taken in South Africa. He reminded Mr Bhoola that it would still be an ANC government.

Mr Bhoola quipped that he predicted a multi-party government.

Ms Burchell said that some money had gone to the professional federations. Rugby had received a small amount of R124 thousand and cricket had also received a small transfer. With rugby the focus was on the national team. The women’s team did not enjoy the same degree of support. Each body had its own approach to transformation funding. Cricket was more creative, diverting a percentage of its earnings to transformation. Money was allocated to soccer but they normally did not take it. The treatment of the women’s team was disgraceful. There was another bid for R50 million, but it had fallen on deaf ears. In real terms, the funding to federations presently was only about 63% of what it had been three or four years previously. Such increases as were given were in line with the consumer price index.

Ms Burchell said there were some direct allocations to federations. Service level agreements were in place, and there had to be a focus on transformation. SRSA was coordinating its efforts with those of the lottery. There were federations benefiting, such as hockey and rowing. The latter, however, was starting to struggle again and was laying off staff.

The Chairperson said the Minister was correct about the lottery. The quicker a discussion could be arranged with the dti the better. He did not know how this had not been discussed at Polokwane. A goal of the MPP was mass mobilisation for 2010. He asked who was manufacturing the kit for the teams, and thought this might be happening in China.

Ms Mkhonto said the Department was not responsible for kit for the teams.

The Chairperson asked who was dealing with procurement.

Mr Motshweni said it fell under the supply chain management system. The Department did not purchase kit itself. The end user was responsible, and would trigger the supply chain process.

The Chairperson recounted an occasion when he had been at an MPP event in Upington. After the speeches had been made, truckloads of clothes had arrived. He asked who would have made this.

Ms Mkhonto said it was difficult to say. It would have come through the supply chain system.

Mr Motshweni said it was policy to buy from local companies.

The Chairperson said that on that occasion the delivery was made in Sedgars trucks. He compared this to the local beadwork that had been on sale at Spier. He asked who was being empowered.

Mr Motshweni did not remember the incident, stating that he had probably not been with the Department at the time.

The Chairperson said that Prof Hendricks and Mr Fredericks had been in charge of the Department at that time.

Mr Matlala said that the report was incomplete.

The Chairperson asked if Sedgars was BEE compliant. He noticed that the MPP did not include school sport.

Ms Mkhonto replied that school sport was included in the MPP. The full title indicated that it was for community sport and recreation and school sport.

The Chairperson asked why the Big Sky bus company, which was based in Johannesburg, was used to transport children to events all around the country. Buses would often travel empty from the depot in Pretoria to pick up children in Cape Town and then take them to an event in another part of the country. He asked what the transport budget was. There was another company called Rentbus, which was “Big Sky in disguise”.

Mr Motshweni said this fell within his unit’s budget.

Ms Mkhonto said it was difficult to say why Big Sky or any other contractor was chosen. The supply chain unit made these decisions.

The Chairperson said he was being consistent in raising this issue.

Ms Sibeko said that the situation was an inherited one. It was a mistake for the national department to take on national contracts. The company claimed they had provincial offices, but still sent empty buses around the country. SRSA was trying to revise this situation. A similar situation applied with accommodation bookings. In regard to the clothes, there was one company pretending to be four different companies. She said that the Department was trying to get out of long term contracts. They were still struggling with the official travel agents. Three agents were appointed, and SRSA had to rotate its business between the three. She felt that the money should be spent in the provinces that were hosting events.

She said that importing clothing was sometimes seen as a quick fix, but the quality was poor and the clothes were ill-fitting. Using local suppliers was one way to revive the textile industry in the Western Cape. Her signature was now needed on transaction documents. At a recent conference the delegates had all received expensive gifts. This practice was now being stopped.

The Chairperson said this was rampant corruption. He regretted asking the question, as he seemed to have opened a whole host of issues. As with any other department, he wanted information on what work was being done for SRSA.

Ms Sibeko said that she was trying to do that. One problem with the smaller BEE companies was that they were producing aspirant businessmen but did not have the capacity to give quotations. Advertisements had now been put out, and she would verify the capacity of the applicants. SRSA was understaffed. She wished to create a new directorate to look at assets. She hoped that the Minister would approve this.

The Chairperson said that SRSA was a national department, not a Johannesburg department. They must be able to reveal what was happening in all nine provinces. The business opportunities created by SRSA must go towards poverty relief. They were not responsible for any other department. He asked what the household item was under transfers.

Mr Matlala said this was a transfer to LoveLife.

The Chairperson noted the transfer of R9.3 million to SASCOC for the 2009/2010 FY. He asked what this was for.

Ms Burchell replied that this was traditionally a cumulative amount. In the past, there had been bodies such as the National Olympic Committee of South Africa (NOCSA), Disabled Sport, the Commonwealth Games association and so on. SASCOC had inherited these functions and the associated funding. Their mission was to prepare multidisciplinary teams for major events. In the coming FY there would be a far more stringent service agreement with SASCOC. A primary function was dispute resolution. SASCOC was also responsible for the High Performance component of sport, and this was in line with the Amendment Act.

The Chairperson was not happy with the baggage from NOCSA. He asked if the R9 million allocation was event orientated. He asked if the same amount would be given even if there were no major events planned in a year. He asked what SASCOC’s work was apart from the preparation of teams. This should actually be the responsibility of the respective federations. He did not think that SASCOC was deserving of this funding. The function should be located somewhere within the Department. A business plan had to be given to Mr Matlala. SASCOC was completely untransformed. SASCOC did not deserve this funding.

Mr Frolick asked how this figure had been reached.

The Chairperson said it was historical, and had grown over time. He asked if the government was getting value for money. SASCOC had not come to the Committee, but it had to account for the public money allocated to it.

Mr Frolick told of going to the rugby World Cup in France. He had been met at the airport by a man in a South African tracksuit, and assumed that he was a member of a national team. However, the truth was that he was an employee of SASCOC’s travel agent, who had been  invited to help himself from a roomful of tracksuits. He questioned what SASCOC was doing with its money, and what control measures were in place. He thought that there might be vested interests, and asked how their supply chain management worked.

Ms Burchell said this was a challenging process. She hoped that Mr Frolick did not examine the label to see where the track suit was made.

The Chairperson asked how a German came to be wearing South African colours.

Ms Burchell said that she had spoken with SASCOC the previous Friday. Fly Africa was the travel agent for SASCOC, and had been the agent for NOCSA previously. She required the DG to investigate.

The Chairperson said that oversight was the terrain of Parliament. The Minister was the authority.

Ms Burchell said that it was a bad year to pick on SASCOC. It had to arrange teams for the Olympics and Paralympics as well as run the Zone 6 tournament. The Commonwealth Youth Games were also happening, but she did not know if this was on SASCOC’s radar. It was possible that SRSA could keep the funding routed to SASCOC and assume the management role. SASCOC had anxieties, and some sensitivity was needed. SASCOC’s co-ordinating work could be done by SRSA. In terms of the other functions of SASCOC, the Minister could recognise some other confederation.

The Chairperson said that in terms of the Act, the Minister could appoint any confederation. It did not have to be SASCOC. Nothing bound a federation to be a member of SASCOC. A new confederation could be formed.

Ms Burchell said that the Chairperson was partly right. For example, this could be done with athletics. However, the athletes could not gain national colours if their federation was not a member of SASCOC.

The Chairperson said that SRSA should be the custodian of national colours and awards.

Ms Burchell said that the control of national colours still lay with SASCOC.

The DG knew that there must be a rethink on the national colours. It had been an error to entrust them to the SC originally.

Ms Burchell said that at present any federation had to be a member of SASCOC if it was to qualify to send its members to the Olympic or Commonwealth Games or similar events. SASCOC had the national prerogative to select teams. It was an ongoing debate. The sooner the issue was resolved the better. There were grey areas where SRSA and SASCOC held a joint responsibility. A partnership was needed.

The Chairperson said that for now SRSA was absolutely right. If another confederation was formed, then the Minister could recognise it. In difficult times SASCOC might undermine the Minister, and it would be right that there be a regrouping and reformation in South African sport.

Ms Burchell said that the Chairperson was absolutely right. The problem would lie in determining which confederation would be recognised by the appropriate international body.

The Chairperson was still very resolved to proceed with this matter. SASCOC was being funded. He had a strong view that SASCOC could not preach transformation given its structure.

Mr Frolick said that the Committee would cross that bridge when that point was reached.

The Chairperson was aware of the challenges. The spending pattern was disturbing. At this stage of the FY it could not only be 89%. He noticed that the provinces that were under spending were struggling, but were still not using their allocations. It was a sad state of affairs. North West was performing better than in the past, but the rest were in a disastrous state. The DG must speak to the provinces. A lot of challenges were faced. The Eastern Cape was poor, but had not spent 70% of its budget.

Mr Matlala pointed out that the correct interpretation of the figures was that the Eastern Cape had spent 70% of its allocation.

The Chairperson examined the provincial figures again and apologised for misreading the figures.

Ms Ntuli said it was good to see the figures. One was keen to know if the CFO had any proof that expenditure was talking to the grant. The Department was not delivering on the ground.

The Chairperson said that SRSA was now setting up satellite offices in the provinces. The programmes seemed to be going well. The AG had made certain comments. He did not understand the last graph covering the MPP conditional grant. He asked what the format of the grant was, given the vastness of certain areas and the levels of poverty.

Mr Matlala said there was a combined approach. Each province was given R5 million. After that the equitable share formula was used to give each province a further transfer.

Ms Mkhonto said this differed from year to year. Siyadlala was part of the MPP.

Director: Facilities, Sport and Recreation South Africa: Briefing
Mr Simphiwe Mncube, Director: Facilities, SRSA,  said he had gone through his presentation at the workshop with the Committee the previous weekend. He wanted to highlight some issues. The BSRP had been incorporated into the MIG in the 2004/05 FY. Before that direct allocations were made to SRSA from NT. These were donor grants. There were good and bad points to that situation. Some BSRP projects had been well done, for example a facility in the Pietermaritzburg area. However, many facilities were in a terrible state.

He said that some local municipalities did not have the capacity to build or maintain facilities. District municipalities had become implementing agents. There was a lack of proper co-ordination. In some cases districts had never handed facilities over. SRSA had no staff to monitor the situation.

Mr Mncube said that another challenge was the limitation of using emerging contractors. There was a compromise in quality. If the funding for sports facilities was returned to SRSA, the Department would have to prevent the old challenges from recurring. The norms and standards were now complete and were awaiting approval. These prescribed construction standards. The current approach had its shortcomings.

He said that the Department was engaging municipalities directly to determine what facilities did exist. It was a painful process. Mr Mncube said that the challenge was to ensure that the last level of delivery was properly capacitated. The Department had to know who it was dealing with. It needed a clear picture of the existing facilities and needs. It was also working with the federations to gather the data.

Mr Mncube said that the second phase of the audit was more advanced. SRSA wanted to map all existing facilities, and would need the geographic co-ordinates. They were linking up with other Departments, such as DPW, to do this. DPW had all the information on public property. SRSA needed all relevant information including the state of the facilities. The Surveyor General was in the process of completing Project Gijima, which was a state land audit. Some of the property owned by the state before 1994 had been leased and some were sold. There was a need to co-operate with other government institutes.

Mr Mncube said that another concern was the fact that provinces had identified priority areas for construction. His opinion was that this was not an appropriate approach. It was reactive. They should consolidate their knowledge of what existed and what the requirements were. Upgrades were needed in urban areas. This knowledge could then be used to draw up a three to five year plan.

He said that when the Department once again received money directly then it could look after projects under construction. There should be a plan to inform movement forward. Non-nodal areas would become prioritised. Orlando Stadium was an example where there had been co-operation between DPLG and the provincial MIG office. The Atteridgeville Super Stadium had also been upgraded with funds from the MIG.

Ms Makgate noted some issues regarding the relationship with municipalities, and said that these had been said the previous year. Mr Mncube had not said what had been done. Provinces had spent 86% of their allocation, and she asked if they had completed their projects. She had heard a disturbing report about a project in North West. Work was still in the pipeline, but the contractor had already been paid out. She asked what could be done to ensure that the facility was indeed built. The Department should not rely on reports from the provinces, as these did not present a true reflection of the situation.

Ms Ntuli had picked up that SRSA was working with district municipalities. She wondered what information the Department was receiving. Some of these district municipalities were in a shambles. She asked why facilities were given to poorer municipalities. She asked about the role of federations and councils in providing information to the Department. The sports councils were accountable to nobody. In some cases they did not even hold annual general meetings. Facilities were upgraded, but she asked what happened next. Many fell prey to vandalism.

Mr Bhoola looked forward to MIG funding going back to the old system. Entities like DPW, the federations and the Integrated Development Plan (IDP) each had a different function with their own information needs. He wanted to know how they could be made to gel together. The Department was working with specific municipalities, but sports facilities did not appear on their Integrated Development Plans.

Mr Mncube said in reply to the first question that things had not been done in the previous year’s report. Some projects had been finished. The norms and standards were almost complete and an actual audit was underway. Projects were in progress on the ground, but the quality of work was not always the same. The problem was not peculiar to SRSA. There were other factors. For example, a project at Khunwane looked incomplete. It should be grassed but there was no water available in the area. In some cases projects were tabled in the 2004/05 FY, but were subject to delays in implementation with a resulting escalation in costs. In some cases the original budget was now proving to be insufficient.

He said that there was a challenge in district municipalities being implementing agents. Old projects were applicable. Municipalities had limited capacity, and were undergoing changes. SRSA could work with some of them. Some of the municipalities were under Project Consolidate management, and a different approach was needed with them. There had been many changes since 2004. Capacity was now generally with the local municipalities.

Mr Mncube said that the Department would deal with the sports councils where they existed and were operational. Work was needed to establish structures. He would comment on the MIG funds once he had more information. This would not necessarily be implemented immediately. Needs and priorities must first be tested. It was a long process.

The Chairperson said this presentation opened up yet more problems.

Mr Frolick cautioned that the MIG funding had not yet been returned to SRSA. This was only a proposal emanating from the Polokwane conference at this stage. He asked if there were facilities being constructed. This was an issue for another day.

Ms Sibeko said that Mr Mncube was working hard. Primary processes had started.

The Chairperson appreciated the Department’s presentations, which would form a basis for talks. He agreed that more discussion was needed on the realities of the situation. They must know more about facilities. A document allegedly produced the previous year had never in fact been sent. Members could help if they were asked about facilities within their constituencies. He asked if it was correct to recall the BSRP. Without it there was not a very bright future, and more work was needed.

He asked if it would be correct to return funding to SRSA. A decision had been taken and the Department had to come up with innovative solutions. Municipalities should not be burdened with maintenance costs. It was all too often the death of a facility the moment it was handed over to a municipality.

The Chairperson said that the Department was doing well under trying circumstances. It must try to resolve the outstanding issues by the end of the year. SRSA must meet with the Committee on a quarterly basis, with these meetings happening after the Department’s quarterly report was compiled. Expenditure and progress must be on the agenda for these meetings.

The meeting was adjourned.



  • 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.

Share this page: