Chairperson, Minister and Deputy Minister, hon members in the House ...
... a kwa tshimilogong ke tlhalose gore go na le dikgang tse Tona a di gatisitseng tse a di buileng mme jaaka modulasetilo wa komiti ke tlile go di gatelela le go feta. [... let me start by explaining that there are issues that the Minister spoke about and emphasised, and as the chairperson of the committee I'm going to overemphasise them.]
Today the Department of Sport and Recreation presents its Budget Vote, 22 days before the actual commencement of the first Fifa World Cup tournament on the African continent. It is time to welcome the world, time to do the Diski, time to fly the South African flag and blow vuvuzelas. Indeed, as Sepp Blatter, President of Fifa, said:
Plan A is South Africa; Plan B is South Africa and Plan C is South Africa.
Media suggestions were floating around that some countries were literally already standing by to take over this responsibility from us, since they were certain that we would fail to do the things Fifa required of us to ensure that the 2010 Soccer World Cup would take place in our country.
Certain desperate people went as far as to suggest a close proximity and correlation between the death of the AWB leader and the Royal Bafokeng Stadium. This reminded me of a similar technique used in the pre-1994 era, when the same AWB leader was given the freedom of Schweizer-Reneke by the AWB, and Comrade Joe Modise was given the freedom of Ipelegeng on 7 August 1993.
All the armed forces were deployed and the media galvanised by the anticipation of bloodshed, but this anticipation was unsuccessful, futile and worthless. These events confirmed that South Africans are peace-loving people.
Although South Africa has successfully hosted a number of events like the Rugby World Cup in 1995; the African Cup of Nations in 1996; the All Africa Games in 1999; and the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002, to mention but a few, the Fifa Soccer World Cup 2010 is clearly different. One needs to take domestic and international attention and interest into consideration.
More extensively, on the legacy issue it is worth noting that the economic legacy, according to the research by Grant Thornton, is that the 2010 Fifa World Cup will contribute R55,7 billion to the South African economy, generate about 450 000 jobs and contribute R19,3 billion in tax income to the government. There are also firm estimates that about 483 000 tourists will spend around R8,5 billion during their stay in South Africa.
The African economy in general will surely change in a more positive direction. It will display the continent's positive values, and the world media will relay these values to the entire world in a way that will surely attract foreign investors to our continent.
Regarding mass participation, I'm happy that the Minister talked about this, but the time has arrived for all of us to scrutinise the impact and link of sports development, not only from a school sport and professional leagues perspective, but also from that of the broader principle agenda of transformation. This should occur through assessing the impact of programmes such as mass participation and sport support services.
We cannot shy away from asking the following: How is school sport linked to mass participation? What is this programme producing in terms of national goals? How is mass participation linked to rural activities? How is mass participation linked to high performance? How is mass participation linked to the production of professional players? Why do we struggle to replace players like Bryan Habana, Makhaya Ntini and Benni McCarthy on our national teams?
I'm raising these questions because the mass participation programme conditional grant allocation has increased at an annual rate of 45,1% between 2006-07 and 2009-10. This programme is the major consumer of the department's budget.
The municipal infrastructure grant, MIG, is a consolidated grant mechanism incorporating various programmes which were managed by different departments and was targeted at the provision of municipal infrastructure. The primary aim of the MIG is purely to provide basic infrastructure for the poor and to all South Africans.
The introduction of the MIG in 2004 saw a sharp decline in the number of sport and recreation facilities implemented, compared to the period of the Building for Sport and Recreation Programme, BSRP.
In 2004-05, for example, under the Building for Sport and Recreation Programme, compared to the MIG, the following facilities were built: In 2003-04, the BSRP had 114 facilities and the MIG 0 facilities; in 2004-05, the BSRP had 109 and the MIG 0 facilities. Based on the above information, it can be deduced that sport and recreation is not well catered for through the MIG.
The MIG funds for public municipal infrastructure, which includes, amongst other things, public transport such as bus shelters, children's facilities, cemeteries and local sport and recreation facilities are not adequate to address all these needs. However, the manner in which it is used prompts us to suggest that it be retrieved from the Department of Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs.
There are further constraints due to the fact that in terms of MIG policy, MIG funds can only be used for basic levels of service whilst most municipalities, except for some metropolitan and larger municipalities, do not have funds for intermediate and higher-level services, which are necessary for the development of sport.
The MIG funds are also only for services to the poor. Areas which are classified as not poor, but which may not have access to sport and recreation facilities have to source alternative funding. This funding is currently nonexistent, except in some metropolitan municipalities and provincial departments that receive allocations for sport and recreation facilities from their provincial treasuries. It is therefore evident that the sport and recreation facilities backlog, which is estimated at R14 billion, will not be met unless a different approach is employed in this country.
Mind you, the facilities co-ordination programme receives an allocation of R6,6 million. According to the annual report, some of the money in this programme is used for the compensation of departmental employees and other personnel-related costs. This obviously indicates the long way we still have to go if we are to make significant changes in the provision of basic facilities for our children. So, as members of this Council, it remains crucial that when we embark on our oversight role we consider the following: firstly, make practical follow-ups on the unsatisfactory revelations shared by the committee of public accounts in the annual report; secondly, conduct oversight on basic facilities built and upgraded to have first-hand evidence on public spending; thirdly, monitor the success and weaknesses of mass participation; and lastly, elaborate on an integrated and comprehensive antipoverty strategy, which addresses sections of the population most affected by the scourge of poverty such as youth, women, children, people living in informal settlements and people with disabilities. Ke Nako. [Now is the time.] Thank you. Ayoba!