A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.
SPORT AND RECREATION PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
14 November 2006
SOUTH AFRICAN INSTITUTE FOR DRUG-FREE SPORT; SPORT AND RECREATION SOUTH AFRICA: ANNUAL REPORTS; DEPARTMENT'S 2010 UNIT PROGRESS REPORT
Chairperson: Mr B Komphela (ANC)
Documents handed out:
Department of Sport and Recreation 2005/06 Annual Report presentation
Sport and Recreation South Africa (SRSA) Annual Report 2005/06 [available later at http://www.srsa.gov.za/]
Analysis of SRSA Annual Reports: 2004/5 & 2005/6 by Parliament Research Unit
Hall of Fame presentation
SA Institute for Drug-Free Sport Annual Report 2005/06 [available later at www.drugfreesport.org.za/]
SA Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) presentation
SA Sports Commission update
Draft Committee Programme 2007
The Department of Sport and Recreation presented its Annual Report for 2005/06. The merger of the Department and the Sports Commission was still incomplete. The placing of existing staff should be complete by the end of 2006 and vacancies should be filled by the end of March 2007. The termination of the Building for Sport and Recreation Programme had had negative consequences as municipalities were not prioritising sports facilities. Various items of legislation were being processed. The Department had spent 95.2 % of its budget, with the highest saving on administration due to the vacancies. Reasons for under-spending were offered. The Auditor-General had given an unqualified opinion, but there were several emphases of matter. Particular items discussed were the deficiencies in internal controls, which were attributed mainly to staff shortages. The Financial Officer disputed that some of the matters raised were in fact problematic. Members queried the internal functioning of the Department, and felt that the state of affairs was deteriorating. Several questions were directed to particular aspects of the Annual Report, and to the functioning on financing. The question of the Minister having access to three state vehicles, in violation of government policy, was discussed at length. The Committee ruled that the acceptance of the Report would be held over until 2007 as there was not sufficient time to debate all the issues.
The SA Institute for Drug-Free Sport tabled its report. Statistics were presented on tests carried out during the year. Members asked for clarity on some of the details, and emphasised that education was crucial. The report was accepted.
A presentation was given on the Hall of Fame. The ideas behind the project, the preparations, the concepts and the inclusion of sportspeople were presented. The display would be presented in at least one town in each province. Full support had been offered by the SA Broadcasting Corporation.
The 2010 Unit of the Department gave a brief presentation on what had been achieved so far, noting that an administrative office had been set up, guarantees had been transferred into projects and monthly meetings were held with other Departments. The Department of Foreign Affairs was lagging behind. The structure of the Board was explained and the meetings were detailed. R241.5 million had been granted for the preliminary planning and design of stadiums. An allocation of R600 million had been directed as a conditional grant directly to municipalities. A framework had been agreed. The cities were responsible to account for the distribution of this funding. Construction would begin as soon as the documentation had been finalised. Members raised concerns that too much time and effort were spent writing reports, and there was too much red tape.
The Committee then approved Minutes of meetings held in September and October. Since there were so many issues outstanding in the Annual Report of the Department, these would need to be dealt with in 2007, and the Annual Report of the Committee would similarly have to be held over. The SAIDS Amendment Bill would be discussed at a meeting later in the week. The 2010 Special Measures Bill would be debated the next day. A draft programme was agreed for 2007.
The Chairperson said that it was a standing rule that the responsible Minister should present his department’s Annual Report. However, Minister Stofile was on official business in Algeria. He had sent a three-page submission on the politics of sport, which would be distributed to the members of the Committee. The Minister was responsible for political input and direction, after which he could hand over the presentation of the report to the department. The report was not particularly pleasing.
Department of Sport and Recreation (SRSA): Briefing on Annual Report
Dr Joe Phaahla, Acting Director-General (DG), SRSA said that the political input of the Minister was taken as read.
Dr Phaahla said that the adoption of the South African Olympic Committee (SASCOC) articles of association had occurred in November 2004. The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of SASCOC had been appointed on 1 April 2005. The financial year (FY) under review had been dominated by the amalgamation of the Sports Commission (SC) and the Department of Sport (SRSA). The SC had been started on 1 April 2000 from the ranks of SRSA and the National Sports Council. Government should focus on participation and development at a grassroots level. The Siyadlala programme was achieving this. SASCOC had been established by the Ministerial Task Team (MTT) as the main body, and was a non-governmental organisation concentrating on high performance. In 2005 the basic infrastructure towards the World Cup in 2010 had been started. The Building for Sport and Recreation Programme (BSRP) had been terminated, and its funding had migrated to the Municipal Infrastructure Grant (MIG). Municipalities had other priorities, and the positive trend towards building sports facilities had suffered in the process.
Mr Makota Matlala, Acting Chief Director, Corporate Services, SRSA pointed out some highlights from SRSA’s legal services. The South African Sports Commission Repeal Act had been approved on 1 August 2005. The National Sports and Recreation Amendment Bill had been carried over to 2007. The South African Institute for Drug Free Sport (SAIDS) Amendment Bill would be promulgated soon. The 2010 FIFA World Cup Special Measures Bill had been promulgated. The South African Combat Sports Bill had been carried over to 2007.
In terms of human resources management, the new SRSA structure had been approved on 2 December 2005. 7i Management Consultants had conducted a skills audit on all staff. Job descriptions had been developed. Posts had been advertised on 25 January 2006. There had been an overwhelming response. Person-to-post recommendations had been done. A detailed report on the process had been sent to the DG during March 2006. Two independent panels had been convened. The first was to appoint Chief Directors, and the other was to address the Director and Deputy Director levels. Appointments would become effective in the new financial year. Mr Matlala said that the promotion process had been found not to be in accordance with public service regulations, and had thus been abandoned. The horizontal placement process was still underway.
Mr Matlala’s directorate was also responsible for marketing and communications. It had taken part in several exhibitions. The Support Service Directorate was responsible to various different units. It had been involved with various festivals, farewell functions and the opening of a World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) office in Cape Town. A conference had been held for various stakeholders on business opportunities presented by 2010. The audit on the SC had been held in July 2005, and an unqualified report had been received from the Auditor General (AG). The payroll transfer of SC members to SRSA had been done in 2005.
Ms Elsie Cloete, Chief Financial Officer, SRSA said that SRSA’s expenditure in the year under review was R 435 million. This included amounts paid out for the initial stages of stadium construction. Some invoices had been received late and were not included. This figure represented 95.2 % of the budget. The biggest savings had come in the administration sector. Most money had been utilised for projects.
She said that one of the main reasons for the under-spending was the number of vacancies in SRSA. There had also been a delay in the relocation to the Department’s new offices. Meetings scheduled in the provinces had not been held. The facilities plan was not finalised.
Ms Cloete said that the AG had given an unqualified opinion, but there were some emphases of matter. Several posts had not yet been filled, and there was consequently a lack of monitoring. Monthly reports were not being submitted by the provinces, which made it hard for SRSA to compile their overall reports. SRSA was working on improving the process. The audit committee was not functional at this time. The internal audit process had not been finalised due to the number of vacancies. There were also problems with the internal controls. Confirmations on state guarantees were not performed. The assets and liabilities of the SC were still to be finalised. National Treasury approvals had been late.
Ms Cloete disagreed on the emphases of matter. There was support from the audit committee. Certified copies were needed of invoices. There were discrepancies over lack of control over cellular phone contracts and usage. In the process of supply chain management, there was an insufficient register for the listing of tenders opened. There had also been a problem with the wording of the declarations required regarding conflicts of interest. This had been resolved. There had also been a problem with telephone accounts, with the AG requiring that costs for rental and usage be split. Better control was needed over losses. The disclosure of commitments had been captured on a different system.
She said that there had been difficulties with the takeover of the assets of the SC and relocation. No assets had needed to be disposed of. She thought it was unfair of the AG to raise this emphasis as it was not necessary to dispose of assets every year. The DG had wanted separate plans to provide for fraud and unrecoverable debt. There had also been a question raised over the Minister having three state vehicles instead of two. There had been no fourth quarter report. There was a discrepancy between the measurable objectives and the strategic plan.
Mr Reed wanted to know more about the issues raised by the AG. He asked if any steps had been taken to correct the problems. There was insufficient monitoring of projects. He quoted the example of a project in Vanwyksdorp, where R 750 thousand had been allocated but only R 250 thousand spent.
Mr J Masango (DA) said that sports facilities were not being built properly. He asked how many facilities were being built, and where these were. On the filling of vacancies, he observed that the vertical placement had been stopped, but horizontal placements were continuing. He asked if the people in SRSA were not qualified to work at higher levels. Sports facilities were now being provided by the MIG, but he noticed some confusion, and said that there was no facilities plan. This was not the first time SRSA had been audited, and he asked why the problems had occurred all of a sudden. He asked why things seemed to be getting out of hand.
Mr C Frolick (ANC) said that one expected improved performance, and the Department could not slide backwards. Crucial matters had been included in the emphasis of matter, such as supply chain management, the mass participation programme, tenders and conflict of interest. This was concerning. He was concerned that SRSA was moving towards qualified reports. Monthly reports were needed from the provinces.
Dr Phaahla said that steps had been taken to correct some issues.
Ms Cloete said there was a difficult situation in the Department. Integration was taking much too long. People did not know the systems, causing bigger problems. All SC members had first to be placed on the Persol system and then had to be taken off. Certain things had been addressed. The provincial reports had been taken up with the provincial heads of department. They were working closely with the MIG people on the facilities plan, and a unit had been established. There was a need to influence municipalities. A policy change was needed to ensure better control of cellular phones.
Mr Frolick said this was correct. He observed on page 9 of the Annual Report that there was a process of collapsing the SC and integrating its staff and functions with SRSA. Serious matters had been raised, such as the fact the members of the SC had higher salaries than their counterparts at SRSA. It was more troubling to hear that SC members were not familiar with the systems of government. Junior staff had to train their ex-SC superiors. They had been cautioned over the integration process, and this was now leading to a form of paralysis. He needed to know the current state of affairs. He added that it not only a question at looking at the amounts of under-expenditure. Some quality was needed. Efficiency was a serious issue. He felt that SRSA would struggle to meet staff objectives. He asked if SRSA was getting value for money from its well-paid officers.
Dr Phaahla said that a broader perspective was needed. He addressed the question of the protracted nature of the restructuring and integration in the Department. During the 2005/06 year there had been an impact in terms of quality of administration and line functions. This led to an unhealthy situation. There was progress at senior management level. A panel appointed by the Minister had worked with the horizontal placement. The initial approach had been that persons could select both horizontal and higher levels. The panel had said that this was inappropriate. Staff would first be placed at the same level, and the second leg would look at promotion. Staffing had been done to Assistant Director level. Staff would now have to indicate whether they accepted or rejected the offers made to them. Letters were being sent out during the week. The mandate of the panel had been extended.
The Chairperson said that this must be investigated. When the amalgamation had started, the Committee had been the first to raise concerns over the manner and pace of the integration process. Their concerns had now been vindicated. The process was still not complete. The DG had said that the most serious challenge faced by SRSA was the closure of the SC. The question was how to close the gaps. Labour relations were clear. Salary had nothing to do with rank. The amalgamation process would now continue into the middle of 2007, and this would have an impact on morale.
Mr Komphela said there was a need to hear from the Department on how they were handing operational issues. The President had been shocked to hear of the issues surrounding MIG. The pace of providing sports facilities had been slowed. In the previous two years 244 basic facilities had been provided. The required facilities would never be successfully provided through the MIG.
Dr Bernadus van der Spuy, Director, SRSA said the issue was addressed elsewhere in the report. Since 2001, the BSRP had spent some R 391 million. However, from 1 April 2005 there had been no further funding. 109 of these projects had been finalized during 2005-6. 5 700 jobs had been created, and 873 facilities managers had been trained.
The Chairperson asked if SRSA knew how many facilities had been built by the MIG since 1 April 2005.
Dr van der Spuy said that the role of SRSA had changed to one of advocacy and development. He knew of 49 projects.
Mr Masango asked how many of the 109 projects had been completed. He asked if the figure of 49 referred to municipalities or facilities.
Dr van der Spuy said that SRSA was not directly involved. Seven or eight of the 109 projects were still not complete, mainly due to a lack of water in the areas concerned. 49 facilities had resulted where the municipalities had indicated sport and recreation facilities on their Integrated Development Plan (IDP), and were receiving funds through MIG.
The Chairperson asked how SRSA could ascertain this. It was perhaps not their responsibility, but he asked how the Department was monitoring developments at local government level.
Dr van der Spuy said that the Department’s concern was expressed in the Annual Report. It had enjoyed control over the funds allocated to the BSRP, but now it had to rely on municipalities and the Department of Provincial and Local Government (DPLG) to administer the funds.
The Chairperson asked about SRSA’s discussions with MIG. He asked if they could make any input, or were merely observers at the MIG meetings.
Dr van der Spuy replied that the infrastructure established by the BSRP was now being utilised. Provincial and local co-ordinators were in place for sports facilities. SRSA was working with the municipalities.
The Chairperson asked what kind of feedback was being given.
Dr van der Spuy replied that he was not aware of any specific feedback.
Mr Greg Fredericks, Chief Director, SRSA said that decisions regarding facilities were being made at local level. SRSA tried to influence municipalities. Facilities had to be included in the IDP, but many municipalities were not interested. Many of these municipalities did not even know what facilities they currently had. This was a huge challenge. He felt that sportspeople should motivate the creation of facilities. Much depended on the provincial office. Only two people were running this programme at SRSA.
Dr Phaahla said that SRSA played an advocacy role. It was not just an historical matter. A study had been commissioned for a more recent overview. Only 49 municipalities had identified facility projects.
Mr Matlala said that labour relations would have to guide a joint bargaining forum to address conditions of service in SRSA.
The Chairperson said that there was interaction with the SC people. The dire predictions made by the Committee were now coming true. The merger would be done, but salaries would not be affected. However, only 120 people were involved and he could not understand why the process would take three years.
Mr E Saloojee (ANC) said there were many criticisms. The AG’s comments contained hardly anything positive. Problems lay in the auditing systems and the internal controls of the Department.
Mr B Solo (ANC) said there was a responsibility to the people. He had grown up in small towns in the Eastern Cape Province that had enjoyed very good facilities. However, the current Department officials had not learned from the past. He asked how the previous government could supply good facilities in the townships but this was no longer the case. Sport was important to the future of society. MIG was not serving the interests of the country.
Mr T Louw (ANC) said that he was seeing a recycling of information by SRSA. The information on the BSRP was being recycled. He asked what was being done during the year. He asked what the work of the provincial co-ordinators entailed. It seemed to him that the Department was no longer working at all, let alone hindered in its operations. Sport was being pushed aside. He felt that the Annual Report did not make sense and that a meeting was needed with the Minister.
Mr D Dikgacwi (ANC) referred to money being transferred to Love Life, and asked if SRSA got value for money from this project. Elsewhere in the Annual Report there was a note that R43 thousand was lost due to theft. He asked what mechanisms were in place to safeguard the Department’s assets, and how far the investigation was into the theft.
Mr Frolick said that the decision to pass the BSRP funding over to the MIG had been taken at another level, and the Committee should point out the inconsistency to Cabinet, as this decision was proving not to be good for sport. There was a need to pursue this at the political level as there was an impact on the community. He pointed out that money had been rolled over, and referred in particular to R251 000 that had been budgeted for research into the history of sport during the struggle. He asked what progress was been made with this project. This was an issue close to the hearts of members of the Committee.
Dr Phaahla repeated that it was now SRSA’s role to advocate for sports facilities. They could only make recommendations to Parliamentarians regarding the MIG. A more recent analysis on the need for facilities was needed to bolster the argument.
Mr Fredericks said that the Love Life campaign was conducted on a broad front. Three Departments were involved in an oversight capacity, namely Health, Social Services and SRSA. The games were financed by funds channeled through the Department of Health. After two years each Department was providing separate funding. The national Love Life Games were held in Durban. Money was now, however, being better spent by events at lower levels on training facilities, festivals and provincial games. It was crucial to reduce the level of HIV infection, especially amongst youth aged twelve to fourteen. Sport was a vehicle to reach these young people. District and provincial Love Life Games were felt to be more effective. Research was being conducted into the effects of different programmes and various other interventions. Youngsters were becoming more focused and there was now a positive spin-off, but he could not supply statistics. There were problems with the research. It had been tendered out to the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) but SRSA had raised its unhappiness on certain points with the Council.
Ms Cloete said that the theft of equipment had been of a notebook computer and a camera. There were still no results from the investigation. Security systems had been put in place to prevent further thefts.
The Chairperson referred to the Annual Report. The salary structure of the SC had been incompatible with that of the state. However, the former SC members could not be disadvantaged financially in the transition period. Integration should have been completed by April 2006, after the SC had been disbanded. He asked when the amalgamation would be completed. The original date had never been honoured. The DG had to take responsibility for this.
Dr Phaahla said that the target date for the final amalgamation was 31 March 2007. The bulk of the work had been done. The horizontal placement and some senior management would be in place before the end of 2006. There was still some work to be done with the vacancies, and advertisements would be placed externally to fill these. He estimated that 99% of the posts would be filled by March 2007.
Ms M Nthuli (ANC) said that there were challenges linked to conditional grants. Facilities were poor and there was indifferent marketing.
The Chairperson said that there was an issue of under-spending.
Mr Fredericks replied that the main problems lay in the provinces. Most were not spending their budgets. A monthly approach would be taken. If a province had not spent its monthly allocation, then future funding would be withheld. These measures were working well, and most provinces were close to 100% of their budgets. Only Gauteng was spending at about 50%. Monitoring was done through the year. In some cases money was spent, but the reporting was inadequate.
The Chairperson commented on page 42 of the Annual Report. He said that half-day workshops had been held about the grant, and good work was being done in this area. Substantial money was allocated to mass participation, and he asked what was entailed. On the same page, he noticed that when the reporting was done Gauteng and Western Cape had lagged behind. Two months ago the highest spending by any province was only at about 20%. He asked if this situation had changed and if measures would lead to an abrupt increase in spending. He stated that it would be hard to go to a budget meeting when the money given was not being spent, and money should rather go to someone who would use it.
Mr Frolick recounted that the DG had said that there were certain problems resulting from the long process of amalgamation. He asked on how this impacted on the added responsibility of SRSA to co-ordinate activities leading up to the World Cup. It seemed that there was some dead wood in the Department. The World Cup should be an unparalleled spectacle.
Mr Fredericks gave some background on the mass participation programme. At one of President Mbeki’s imbizos it had been shown that there was nothing for the youth of Upington to do. It was shocking that many provinces had no money for programmes. These were negotiated as conditional grants. Provinces had to supply a projected cash flow. Some interrogation of project management was needed. A clear explanation was needed and interventions could be made where necessary. Only one province had been at fault at the end of the financial year. The Department would ensure that money would be spent.
Mr Fredericks continued that money was being spent on training, and quality programmes were needed. Some of people trained by SRSA were taken into the private sector. The Deputy President had realised that programmes must continue and be expanded to national youth programmes. Some project budgets had been doubled. Sometimes junior officials were in charge of programmes and needed training in project management. On the operational side, 47% of the posts were still vacant. This was the highest figure amongst all departments. They were trying their best to resolve the problem, but there were some challenges. There were many committed people in SRSA. The fruits of previous efforts were now being seen.
He said that R45 000 had been spent in Jozini, in northern KwaZulu-Natal, a community that was previously “forgotten”. He assured Members that SRSA was making a difference, but there was still a long way to go.
Dr Phaahla said that the situation might look bad when seen in isolation. Amalgamation also included taking over the functions of the SC. Only a small percentage of the functions had gone to SASCOC. The structure would have less than 180 posts. His organisation was no different to any other. Its members had a range of good and bad qualities. The bulk of people were producing good service. Despite being in a transitional environment, the work had to go on.
Mr Masango said that he could not contest the observation that the process of integration was not being handled properly. The Department was trying to co-operate with the placement panel, but the process was slow. Most members came from the SC, but this was not to say that they were the ‘dead wood’. The training programme should include facility management. Dedicated programmes and personnel had to be spearheaded by the Ministry. This should not be compromised by the slow pace of integration. SRSA should act as co-ordinators for the various Departments providing guarantees for the event.
Mr Fredericks replied that eight years previously the Department had been more like a post office. Its main role was to transfer money from the fiscus to national federations. After the interventions of the Committee, SRSA had become totally different. Programmes were being delivered and now SRSA was managing huge projects.
Mr Louw turned to page 62 of the Annual Report. It said that measures were in place, and yet serious shortcomings had been raised by the AG. He asked why the Minister had three vehicles and not only two.
Mr Masango said that most of the SC functions had been transferred to SRSA, not just its staff. Most SC employees had come over with their functions, but now needed help in the new environment. He asked if there was any change to the organagram. He asked what the role of the Development Bank of South Africa (DBSA) would be with 2010 funding. If there was a lack of interaction with local authorities, he asked what was being done.
Mr Frolick was glad to hear there was no dead wood at SRSA. He asked about the tendering process. Dedicated civil servants should not benefit unfairly from their work.
The Chairperson said that interest had been raised by the mass participation programme. There was some good drive, but he asked what happened afterwards. Huge interest had been created in Upington, but if DPLG did not provide the facilities there was nowhere for the children to play. Millions of rand were being rolled over, and an outsider could not help but think that SRSA was being inefficient. Some clarity was needed from the Department so that rollovers were not misinterpreted. Many people were jobless, and still the vacancies were not filled. He emphasised Mr Masango’s point that SC personnel were unfamiliar with government systems. It was his impression that SRSA was better equipped to drive programmes, and he wondered why the drivers from SC were now less qualified.
Dr Phaahla responded that this situation was being taken completely out of context. When the two structures had got together there was a need to adapt to public service prescripts. The SC had used its own human resources policies, which were different to other public entities. Some of these issues had not applied in the civil service. People had taken time to familiarise themselves with the new concepts. It was important to deliver sport to the people. This was a much more familiar process, and was the Department’s line function. It was unfortunate how the process had happened. Professional people should be able to adapt to new circumstances. If the process was not properly managed, turf wars could result. There should be gatekeepers to prevent this. SRSA was still dealing with these issues. Leadership and management were needed. He agreed with the Minister that they needed to deal with the issue decisively and quickly. Service delivery could not be jeopardised.
Mr Dan Moyo, Acting Chief Operating Officer, 2010 Unit, SRSA said that the DBSA had been appointed to manage the preliminary funding for World Cup projects. Some R 241.5 million had already been allocated towards stadiums. They had been given the contract to act as conduit. The second phase would happen at a different level. The first phase and the DBSA contract were now finished.
The Chairperson said that conflicts of interest could not allowed be happen. In sport and business this became an untouchable issue. People tended to overlook corruption in these areas. He queried whether the private sector should have an obligation, and wondered if there were any tax implications of the payouts. He said that nepotism abounded in sport, but was condemned in government.
The Chairperson pointed out that on page 61 of the Annual Report there was a reference to conflict of interest situations and the monitoring of irregularities in the tender process. The essence of the question was that quarterly meetings would help to resolve the issues.
Ms Cloete said that the specific wording of the declaration was the problem. The declaration signed by the committee had changed.
Mr Fredericks said that the declaration signed by the tender committee was not related to the bidders. It was specifically worded.
The Chairperson asked when the declaration was signed. He expected that it would be once the tender was opened.
Mr Fredericks said that the members of the panel were given a list of the names of the tenderers. They were then expected to sign the declaration that there was no conflict of interest.
Ms Cloete said that the question of insufficient listing had been addressed. A separate register was being kept.
Dr Phaahla explained why the Minister had three cars. Only two were normally allowed for the Minister. He often worked in the Eastern Cape, and would hire a car for his duties there. A redundant car had been transferred to that province. This had led to savings on car hire, but the AG had termed this an irregular saving.
The Chairperson commented that this seemed nonsensical.
Dr Phaahla said that they had been told this practice was contrary to the Ministerial Handbook. Ministers were only allocated state vehicles for their use in Cape Town and Pretoria.
Mr Komphela asked how long this car had been standing in the Eastern Cape. The Minister had been in office for two years, and this situation had never been queried before.
Mr Frolick asked when it had been acquired.
Ms Cloete said that the Department had had possession of the car, but it had never been allocated to the Minister. SRSA had tried to convince the AG of the cost saving, but he had ruled it an irregular expense in terms of the policy.
The Chairperson asked who was responsible for assigning the car. If it was done by the Ministry, it should have been raised before. He asked why the issue was only coming to light now.
Ms Nolitha Nkomana, Chief of Staff, SRSA said that the Minister preferred to be driven to his official engagements. Some of these were in the Eastern Cape. The car had previously been used by the previous Minister, Mr Ngcondo Balfour, and then by the current Deputy Minister, Mr Gert Oosthuizen. It had been standing unused in the Deputy Minister’s garage, and had then been redeployed to the Eastern Cape. The Minister already had vehicles at his disposal in Pretoria and Cape Town, and used this spare car in the Eastern Cape.
Dr Phaahla said that the two-car rule also applied to his Department. SRSA had been told this was a violation of the prescript of two cars each. The policy did not make provision for the interchanging of vehicles. He thought that the spare car should then be disposed of.
The Chairperson said that the Minister should have a garage card for fuel and maintenance expenses. If using the third car, it should have been noted that an unauthorised registration number was being used. He asked why this had not been queried. The AG only audited certain Departments. In 2004 there had only been two Ministerial cars.
Ms Nkomana said that Minister Balfour in Pretoria had still used the car. When the new Minister and Deputy Minister had been appointed in 2004, the Deputy Minister had used one. He thus had two cars in Pretoria and one in Cape Town. The spare car in Pretoria had been moved to the Eastern Cape in 2006. The report on this had neither been accepted nor rejected.
The Chairperson said that the Ministerial Handbook could not be flouted. He asked if the AG had responded to the letter of explanation.
Ms Cloete said that a final management letter had been issued. SRSA had replied to this. By the time the final letter had been received there had been no comment on it. The issue had been discussed with the AG and the audit committee.
The Chairperson told Dr Phaahla that something was not right. There had been no query when the Deputy Minister had three cars in his possession, but only when the Minister had three. Either the AG was being malicious, or there was something wrong at SRSA. Follow-up was needed from the AG for the Committee’s next session with SRSA.
Mr Dikgacwi agreed that this matter needed to go on record.
Mr Masango said that the prescriptions said that the Minister was entitled to two cars. The car had belonged to the Deputy Minister. It did not say whether the Deputy Minister was entitled to two or three. The Deputy had been given the third car, but did not use it. The AG must stick to the rules.
The Chairperson agreed but asked why there had been no queries when the Deputy had had the third car.
Ms Ntuli said the matter was really confusing. It seemed to her that the audit had only picked up the mistake when the car was moved from Pretoria to the Eastern Cape.
Mr Masango asked if the Deputy Minister did have three official cars.
Ms Nkomana replied that the car was at the Deputy Minister’s house. She did not know if it was in use at the time. It had been allocated to him when he was appointed.
The Chairperson told Dr Phaahla that the matter should be discussed with the AG. He should be told that the Committee had a view that the action being taken was malicious. It was not the AG’s job to attack state agencies, but he must point out irregular usage.
Dr Phaahla said that SRSA’s current programme was being undertaken in conjunction with the Minister of Public Service. This should be wrapped up by the end of March 2007. It was finalising the placement of the 120 current employees, which should be done by 20 December 2006. The current establishment had 195 positions, which meant there were 75 vacancies. These would be filled by employing new staff. Some senior positions had been filled, and others had been advertised in the Sunday newspapers. Vacant junior positions should be filled by the end of the current financial year.
Mr Masango noted that Dr Phaahla was the Acting DG. He asked if he was still the DG of the 2010 Unit.
Dr Phaahla replied that it was correct that he had been appointed DG of the 2010 Unit. However, he had also served as Acting DG of SRSA since July.
Mr Masango was worried. The 2010 World Cup should be prioritised. He asked if it was not a compromise for Dr Phaahla to be expected to do both jobs, and felt that this could jeopardise the efficient functioning of the Department.
The Chairperson said that this was for Minster to comment on.
Mr Dikgacwi returned to the insufficient control of assets. There was an unresolved difference regarding assets in the country, for example the three-car issue. On page 133 of the report there was no mention of a service delivery improvement plan. He asked when the staffing would be completed, and what the situation would be in the interim.
Mr Masango said that the last programme in the report was not understood. He asked what the Special Programmes were.
Ms Ntuli also referred to the special projects issue, such as the 16 days of activism.
Ms Cloete said that assets had to be taken over from the SC. Not all of these had been entered on the register.
The Chairperson asked when this would be resolved. If not, another audit query would be raised.
Ms Cloete said that she was no longer the CFO. The Acting DG should answer this question.
Dr Phaahla replied that she had been the CFO at the time. The plan should have been in place at that time already.
Ms Cloete said that the AG had stated that the discrepancies were due to the number of vacant posts at SRSA. The same situation still persisted. Vacancies had still not been filled. She did not know how to solve the problem, but would be willing to do so if re-instated.
The Chairperson said that the AG had raised the matter. He asked how SRSA intended to solve the problem. He asked if the AG had a view on the issue, and what the response had been at the time.
Ms Cloete said this would happen as soon as all the vacancies had been filled. It had not happened yet. SRSA was still trying to address crucial matters.
Mr Masango looked at the programmes listed on page 22 and page 50. Programme 5 was about facility co-ordination and planning. He asked if this was part of the strategic plan. He asked if the 49 municipal programmes mentioned earlier were what the Department wanted to achieve. Concrete outcomes were needed. IDP’s could be shifted from one year to the next.
Dr Phaahla did not understand the question. The target was for a hundred local authorities to be involved. The 49 municipalities were included. Sport and recreation facilities were included in the IDP’s.
Mr Masango said there was a strategic plan for this year. He asked how this could be measured against the IDP’s at local level. Facilities could be identified in an IDP, but they would only be a reality once they were built.
Dr Phaahla said that during the year SRSA’s role had changed from having the budget for facility provision to that of advocating and monitoring the process. The target was to prioritise a hundred local authorities to include sports facilities in their IDP’s. Only 49 had met this target. Whether this was an achievement was a relative judgment.
Mr Masango said the rest must be given a chance to go back and see what they could do.
Ms Mkhonto said that the special programmes referred to were part of the mass participation programme (MPP). Programme 5 also referred to the MPP. Special projects were linked to priorities, such as women’s and disabled persons’ sport and indigenous games. The 16 days of activism campaign was part of the standard annual programme, and was co-ordinated by Deputy Minister Oosthuizen.
Ms W Makgate (ANC) said that in programme 2 on page 13, 100% of the budgeted amount had been transferred by SRSA. The Tourism, Hospitality and Entertainment Training Authority (Theta) had not managed the programme properly. The report said that there had been a problem with the management of funds.
Dr Phaahla said that money had been transferred to the sports service providers, who were, in the main, the federations.
The Chairperson said it seemed to him that the money had just been given out. There did not appear to have been any monitoring of its use. He asked how the department was managing money.
Dr Phaahla confirmed that the transfer was made to the federations.
The Chairperson asked how they measured the achievement of output.
Ms Noma Kotelo, Director, SRSA said that staff members had been allocated to work with federations. Business plans had been submitted. There was an agreement that federations should indicate when these programmes would happen. An official of SRSA would then go and monitor these activities. It was true that funds were transferred. Another area was in high performance, and this was indicated in the presentation.
Mr Matlala added that there was a service delivery improvement plan. Part of the agreement was signed with the individual’s supervisor. A performance evaluation was conducted, and this would indicate what training needs that person had.
The Chairperson said that the Committee was not able to interact fully with the report as there was far too limited a time to do justice to it. However, there was a picture forming of the Department deteriorating into a dysfunctional state. The answers given to the members’ questions did not give him much hope.
He noted that the Committee had to table the Annual Report in Parliament, but he could not see this happening in its current form and so he would meet with Parliament to see what could be done. The report clearly impacted on the Committee’s work. For example, many of the activities listed in programme 1 had been part of the strategic plan for 2004/05 and again for 2005/06. Many activities shown as being in progress in 2004/05 were still neither completed nor near completion in 2005/06. He could not make sense of what was going on.
Hall of Fame briefing
Mr Butityi Konki, Trustee, Hall of Fame noted that it had been over a year since he had last presented to the Committee. Everything was going well with the project. The Freedom Park project had been a key recommendation by the Truth and Reconciliation Committee to serve as a monument for all South Africans who had made sacrifices during the struggle. Sport had been a part of the struggle. The Hall of Fame was now becoming a reality. The vision had come from Mr Naas Botha, who was also present at the meeting. The Hall of Fame would not be just another museum. Various businessmen had been approached for assistance, and R110 million had been raised. The Trustees had asked the Committee asking for support.
The Hall of Fame would be operating on its own from 5 December 2006. A company had been established to manage the project, and was black economic empowerment (BEE) compliant. Its mission was to unite all South Africans by their common love for sport. There had initially been no relationship with Freedom Park. However, the Committee had urged them to meet with Dr Serote, who had endorsed the Hall of Fame. The result was that the Hall of Fame would now be a part of the Freedom Park project.
Mr Konki said that accessibility had been a potential problem. It had been the initial intention to base the operation in Knysna, but the location was a worry. There would now be elements of the Hall in each of the nine provinces. The South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) had negotiated exclusive rights to the project. Displays would be set up at all SABC offices. The Minister was happy with this arrangement. This would be part of the process of building a united nation. Therefore some space had been allocated for the Hall at Freedom Park.
Mr Konki noted that there had been a media launch in October 2005. Since then, various meetings had been held. They had tried to sell the concept to the SABC, M-Net and ETV. SABC had however been given exclusive rights due to the involvement of government, as they were the national broadcaster and covered the entire country. A thirteen part series would be screened on SABC television, starting in November.
An eminent group of persons would select those to be honoured. The panel represented well-known figures from various codes. He listed all the steps that had been taken already. A launch would be held at Emperor’s Palace in Johannesburg on 5 December 2006. Several companies would be involved at this occasion. A trust fund had been set up to finance the Hall of Fame, which would be a non-profit organisation.
Mr Konki said that 57 athletes would be inducted in 2006. This included 22 athletes who had been inducted into the Halls of Fame in other countries. These included Naas Botha (Australia) and Stanley Christodolou (USA). Of the remaining 35, seventeen would be black athletes. In the following years 52 sportspeople would be inducted each year. He said that the Majola family had been approached as the trustees wished to induct Eric Majola, but the reaction had been unfavourable.
Mr Frolick recalled the first meeting and said that it was good to see that those plans were now being implemented. He endorsed the concept. Halls of Fame were an international trend. He wished the trustees well. He said that Eric Majola was a legend, both in rugby and cricket. Further discussion was needed, as the family had made huge contributions to South African sport.
Mr Masango speculated that only one town in each province would host the display. He thought that this should go to the rural areas as well.
Mr Solo paid tribute to the amateur coaches.
Mr Konki replied that expanding the concept to the nine provinces was a major step. Knysna would have been the only venue in the original plan. The project would also sponsor a talent identification programme. Two trucks had been fitted out with British equipment and would tour the country to look for talent in the rural areas. This concept had previously only been applied to soccer, and there had been no other proper programmes of this sort. The trustees would welcome any names, with their background described. He stressed this should not turn out like the “Famous South Africans” television show, but it would get people talking.
The Chairperson said that he had read an article in the Noseweek magazine that had put both SRSA and the government in a negative light regarding the Hall of Fame. This Committee, together with the Portfolio Committee on Arts and Culture, had been the first to understand the need for projects like this, and it was necessary to look at the broad history. Recent experience showed that people knew more about European history than South African history and there was a lack of patriotism.
South African Institute for Drug Free Sport (SAIDS): briefing on Annual Report
Dr Shuaib Manjra, SAIDS Chairman, said that there were twelve key areas to the activities of SAIDS. All those who violated the doping rules should be prosecuted, but should nevertheless have a fair trial. Current and future athletes should be educated. The public should be educated to support SAIDS. Analysis procedures should be above question. There should be no undue hardship. Athletes should understand that the purpose of drug-enforcement was to allow them all to compete on a level playing field, and their rights should be protected. Academies and institutions should have knowledge of doping. International co-operation should be fostered. SAIDS had met nearly all its objectives.
He said that 2290 tests had been done using the budget received from SRSA. A further 470 tests had been done at the request of international clients. The tests conducted for SRSA had covered 53 different disciplines. The ratio of in to out-of-competition was 60:40. There was an increasing trend to increase the out-of-competition testing. It had been found that this was when most doping occurred. SAIDS was moving towards a 50:50 ratio.
Dr Manjra said that during the tests, 22 violations had been recorded (1.62%). At a conference held in Cape Town the previous week, it had been claimed that up to 30% of athletes were doping. The worst culprits were believed to be in cycling. SAIDS had conducted 115 tests but none had turned out positive. He felt that this was an indictment of the testing procedure. Of the positive tests, the vast majority had revealed the use of anabolic steroids. Seven of these were athletes, and six of them were from the Harmony club in Pretoria. Two footballers had tested positive for marijuana use.
Dr Manjra said that SAIDS had been given a budget of R4.8 million. They had paid R 3.7 million for doping tests. R 2.2 million had been spent on administration, and R500 000 on education. However, he felt that not enough was being done to educate sportspeople and to market SAIDS. There were a couple of issues in the AG’s report. It was recommended that SAIDS use the risk management policy used by SRSA. He recommended that SAIDS develop its own plan. The requirements of the Public Finance Management Act had curtailed the advertising for a new CFO. An internal audit process had been followed.
Mr Dikgacwi noted that the Report indicated that there had been tests in only ten codes.
Mr Masango asked how the percentage had been calculated.
Dr Manjra replied that the codes had been listed in 1997. He could not offhand list those former codes. When SAIDS had started testing, it had concentrated on the major sports like rugby, soccer, athletics and cycling. As funds increased they would be able to eventually test 53 different codes. The percentage applied to the positive tests was calculated against the total number of tests. Some athletes were tested more than once.
Mr Masango asked if it was correct that 23 % of positive tests were out of competition.
Dr Manjra said that 40.43 % tests were out of competition and 59.49 % were done in competition. The statistics reflected four categories, namely in or out of competition, and those paid by SAIDS or by users. The percentage was relative to the total number of tests.
Mr Dikgacwi asked when multiple tests were done on the same person.
Dr Manjra said that two samples were taken from a person for each test. These were known as the A and B samples. If one tested positive and the other negative, then the test was deemed to be negative. This happened in four of five of the tests done. Certain enzymes could break down protein over time, which meant that it sometimes did occur that the A sample, which was tested first, could be positive, while the B sample test might prove to be negative after standing for longer. If tests were made at different times, then they were regarded as independent tests. The different illegal substances had different breakdown times.
The Chairperson asked what the extent was of the roll-out of educational programmes. He asked what the cost implication was, and if it had an effect on testing. He had heard that it was difficult to detect marijuana. He asked whether it was true that SAIDS had bought a R 2million testing machine.
Dr Manjra said that of all the positive tests amongst soccer players, 75% had been for marijuana. This had been misquoted and had caused embarrassment. In fact, this was one of the easiest tests. The traces could be stored in the body for up to 30 days. However, in casual users this might only last for 24 to 48 hours. The expensive machine was in fact used to test for the drug EPO, which was generally used for endurance athletes. The money had been a grant from SRSA.
He felt that the budget should dedicate 10% towards education and awareness programmes. Far too little was being done in this regard. Testing was expensive, and tests for EPO cost about R3 000 each. New substances were being used which needed new procedures to detect them. Tests for testosterone had to be sent overseas. There was a lack of resources for testing. There was a need to reach out to the public. The cricket administration had had a road-show, during which they had spoken to all the professional players. Young athletes and learners had to be educated about substance abuse. It was frightening what was happening on the ground. Doping was becoming a huge problem at the more competitive schools. There was a problem of jurisdiction. Additional funds from the lottery would help SAIDS to reach more schools. SAIDS should be present at all major events, and more resources were needed.
Mr Saloojee noted that two Pakistani cricketers had recently been caught for doping. He asked if this was the first time that cricket players had been caught out.
Dr Manjra replied that they had not had a doping problem to date with the hard performance-enhancing drugs. Positive tests had mostly been for recreational drugs. Shane Warne had been found to be using diuretics, possibly as a masking agent. At WADA level, cyclists returned the majority of the positive tests, with baseball players second. Tim May had however said that the demands on cricketers kept going up. Countries were generating more income, and there was huge stress on the players. Both the Pakistanis were fast bowlers, and their bodies took the biggest physical beating. This was a potentially huge problem.
Mr Saloojee remarked that tennis players were exposed to the same level of exertion. However, tennis players were seldom found to be using performance-enhancing substances.
Dr Manjra countered that huge problems were being encountered at the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) level. There had been many positive tests, although the sport had only started testing recently. At least ten top players had tested positive for nandroline. The blame was being put on the use of diet supplements. The ATP was only cleaning up its act now.
Mr Masango referred to the figures on pages 28 and 29 of the Annual Report, noting a sharp increase was noted in honoraria and books and magazines.
Dr Manjra was not sure of why the expenses on books had increased so much, but undertook to investigate. Honoraria were about R250 to R300 per day. These fees could only be increased by the Minister. This year had seen the first increase.
Ms Cloete said that honoraria were in line with Ministerial and Treasury guidelines. SAIDS was fully compliant with regulations.
Dr Manjra said he thought the rate was R 800 or R 900 per day for members of the board. The Chairman received a bit more.
The Chairperson asked for more information. The cost of books was R221 000. He asked if the PFMA was being implemented by SAIDS.
Dr Manjra said that SAIDS used the policies of SRSA. Ms Cloete had been the CFO, but needed to operate independently because of her responsibilities at SRSA. SAIDS complied with the PFMA requirements.
Mr Komphela asked how much of the R 5 million budget came from SRSA and how much from other clients.
Dr Manjra said that in 2006 SAIDS received a grant of R4.8 million from SRSA. They had received a further R1.5 million from their other clients for user controlled tests. Their Australian counterparts worked on a budget of $Aus 10 million. He did not know what the situation was in Tunisia.
The Chairperson said that comparisons were always made with Australia or Europe. He would like to see what the Tunisian budget was. There were only 30 or 32 such institutions worldwide, and only two were in Africa. SAIDS had a very lean budget. He noted that another aspect of cheating in sport was in age. The Department needed to make some recommendations in this respect. He had been at an Under- 17 tournament in the Midlands. One player had been taking part in the tournament for four years. All the players in some teams had passports, and not identity documents, and there were some suspicions that the passports might have been issued fraudulently. He asked if there was any way of checking the ages of players.
Dr Manjra replied that SAIDS did not have the capability to do this. It could be done, and Canada in fact did so, but it was a long and expensive process.
Dr Manjra said that SAIDS published a booklet that listed all the allowed and prohibited substances. This might have accounted for the variance on the budget, as the number of books published had increased. These had to be updated every time that WADA updated its list.
The Chairperson said he would like to see what the remuneration of the CEO was. The Boxing South Africa CEO was paid very little. This limited the ability of the organisation to attract the best candidate for the job.
Dr Manjra said that the issue of the CEO should be resolved by the end of January 2007. Dr Phaahla had pointed out how low the salary offered was, and the advertisement was being revised.
2010 World Cup: briefing by 2010 Unit, SRSA
Mr Dan Moyo briefed the Committee on the achievements of the 2010 Unit during 2005/06. The Minister had set up an administrative office. This was to co-ordinate meetings with the lawyers of the Local Organising Committee (LOC), who were responsible for the implementation of the 17 guarantees given to FIFA. Most of these guarantees were understood and had been transferred into projects. For example, in terms of immigration, visa control and customs, the Department of Home Affairs had started on a plan to expand their capacity and had formed a 2010 Unit. All other departments had appointed people to lead their programmes. Monthly meetings were being held with the other departments in order to interpret the guarantees.
He said that two legal workshops had been held with teams from FIFA. There was a clear understanding of what was needed. An Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) had been formed, which had led the Ministers represented on the LOC to forming a Section 21 company. This had been registered in July 2005. Six Ministers served on the Board of this Company. They interacted with the LOC at regular meetings. A DG had been appointed for the 2010 Unit. All departments were interacting with this unit, and submitting reports to the DG.
Mr Moyo said that the different government clusters were also reporting on their progress. Seventeen Ministers sat on the IMC’s monthly meetings, which had in fact now been changed to fortnightly meetings. Even President Mbeki attended meetings at times, and the Deputy President was the Chairperson.
Professional teams served on various project teams, such as assisting local authorities with stadium planning, construction and upgrading.
He said that the only department lagging was the Department of Foreign Affairs. They had missed the deadlines, but had a comprehensive plan in place for training officials in the required protocol.
An amount of R241.5 million had been granted for the preliminary planning and design of stadiums. The DBSA had been managing the funding until recently. The money had been used, and Treasury had now approved all plans. An allocation of R600 million had been directed as a conditional grant directly to municipalities. A framework had been agreed. The cities were responsible to account for the distribution of this funding. Of the R8.3 billion that would be disbursed, the R600 million was for the first phase of construction. This would begin as soon as the documentation had been finalised.
Mr Moyo said that the interaction between the LOC, cities and provinces was taking place in a formal structure. The Host Cities Forum was in the form of a monthly meeting. On the first day, the activities within the cities were discussed. On the second day, the national departments reported on progress. This was in the interests of co-ordination. This process had now been resolved. Brainstorming sessions had been held.
He said that the internal stakeholders were spearheaded by the LOC. Dr Maluka chaired a legacy committee. FIFA’s concept of the World Cup had been merged into an African concept. The Southern African Democratic Countries (SADC) sports ministers had been meeting, and communicated with other African countries. The African Union had designated a secretariat to work with South Africa and FIFA. A task team was working on this.
In November 2005 a business opportunities conference had been held to get inputs from the small business sector. This was an ongoing engagement. Partnerships had been set up with all departments, and he thought they were all communicating with each other on 2010 issues. They shared a fortnightly forum. A workshop had been held to brainstorm on economic opportunities. South African had learned much in Germany on legacy issues. The World Cup had been declared a protected event in July, following input by the Department of Trade and Industry. He had just been told that National Treasury was ready with their Special Measures Bill. This would relate to taxes, imports and so forth. There were also questions of temporary infrastructure to be provided such as the International Broadcasting Centre. Documentation would be provided to the Committee as soon as it became available.
Mr Frolick said that he had been in Durban the previous week. There had been elaborate discussions with the eThekwini Municipality. Good working relationships had been established. They were being approached by national departments on a weekly basis to provide progress reports. However, there was no uniform format for these reports, and staff involved found they were spending the majority of their time compiling these reports. The reports being generated for the City were not good enough. There was a feeling that report writers might have to be employed. This matter required further attention, as there was too much red tape.
The Chairperson observed that the LOC could not tell the Committee where to go. They would follow their own programme. They had not done justice to their programme for this meeting, nor to the issues arising from the Annual Report. He would communicate with the Minister and the South African Football Association (SAFA) to meet in connection with the strategic plan. There was a need to look at issues. Other work would have to be carried over to 2007, and the meeting dates would be communicated in time. Issues would not be carried over again. He would discuss this with the Minister.
Other Committee business
The Minutes of Committee meetings held on 3, 12, 13 and 19 September, and 17, 18, 24, 25 and 31 October were all approved.
The Committee decided that its own Annual Report would be held over into February, as there was not enough time available to go into detail. The Committee’s report would deal with the number of meetings held and other administrative issues.
The Chairperson said that there was still some business to be dealt with regarding the SAIDS Amendment Bill. The Bill had gone to the National Council of Provinces, which had proposed some amendments. A brief meeting would be called before the recess to approve these amendments.
The Chairperson also announced that arrangements had been made for the debate on the 2010 Special Measures Bill to be held the next day.
A draft 2007 committee programme was agreed to.
The meeting was adjourned.
No related documents
- We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting
Download as PDF
You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.
See detailed instructions for your browser here.