South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport Amendment Bill [B7-2006]: briefing
EDUCATION AND RECREATION SELECT COMMITTEE
25 October 2006
SOUTH AFRICAN INSTITUTE FOR DRUG-FREE SPORT AMENDMENT BILL [B7-2006}: BRIEFING
Chairperson: Mr B Tolo (ANC)
Documents handed out:
South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport Amendment Bill [B7-2006] and [B7B-2006]
Gauteng Oversight Visit Report
[Reports available once tabled at Committee Reports]
SUMMARY
The Department of Sport and Recreation’s Legal Advisor briefed the Committee on
the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport Amendment Bill. A brief outline
of the objectives of the Bill was provided. The Bill sought to align existing
legislation with the provisions of the World Anti-Doping Agency Code and the
Copenhagen Declaration. The Bill would provide for certain changes to the
structure of the Institute such as staff composition and personnel regulations.
It became apparent during the briefing that members had not received the latest
version of the Bill namely B7B-2006.
Members asked various questions including whether the amendments to be
considered had originated from the Sport and Recreation Portfolio Committee in
the National Assembly; the need for Cabinet approval in terms of the
appointment of the Chief Executive Officer; the necessity for experience in
addition to relevant qualifications; the definition of an athlete; the criteria
to be used to compile a registered testing pool; how deviant trainers that
deliberately misled athletes under their supervision could be disciplined and
the need for experienced members of the Appeal Board.
MINUTES
The Chairperson stated that members had been scheduled to visit certain
projects in Stellenbosch but had rescheduled in order
to accommodate the briefing. The Amendment Bill was intended to amend the
principal Act passed in 1997.
Department of Sport and Recreation Briefing
Mr Gideon Boshoff (Department Legal Advisor) stated
that the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) had been established in 1999 to ensure
“fairness and equality” for athletes to compete in a drug-free sport. A Code
had been drafted to provide a framework for anti-doping policies, rules and
regulations and to harmonise anti-doping efforts across all sports. An
International Convention against Doping in Sport had been formulated to ensure
compliance from governments. The South African government was in the process of
ratifying the convention. Therefore, the Bill would seek to harmonise current
legislation with the Code and the Copenhagen Declaration. The Bill would
stipulate certain changes to the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport
such as staff remuneration and regulations. The Department would ensure that
all amendments would be conveyed to all national sport federations in
consultation with the Institute.
Clause 2: Amendment of section 3 of Act 14 of 1997
The clause dealt with the composition of the
Institute as appointed by the Minister of Sport and Recreation.
The Chairperson asked whether the clause should rather refer to a fixed number
of members of the Institute as opposed to “as many” as may be determined by the
Minister.
Mr M Sulliman (ANC-Northern Cape) asked whether the
Bill had been adopted by the National Assembly.
Mr Boshoff acknowledged that the Bill had been
adopted by the National Assembly. The comment pertaining to the number of
members of the Institute would be considered.
Clause 3: Staff of Institute
The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) would be appointed in consultation with
approval from the Cabinet. The CEO could appoint staff based on the
organisational structure required in terms of its strategic plan and within its
budget. Personnel regulations would be established in consultation with the
Minister for Public Service and Administration.
The Chairperson noted that section 4 would be deleted and replaced by section
5.
Mr Sulliman asked for clarity on the reason for
Cabinet approval and the deletion of the need for Public Service Commission
approval. The clause made no mention of the Minister of Finance or National
Treasury in terms of remuneration and appointment of staff.
The Chairperson asserted that the Minister of Public Service and Administration
would consult with the Minister of Finance.
Ms J Masilo (ANC North-West) asked whether the
insistence on an experienced candidate for the position of CEO was appropriate
given the large number of highly-qualified people with limited experience that
would be discriminated against. She asked whether the requirement for
experience would not delay the appointment process.
Mr Boshoff replied that the approval of Cabinet was
necessary as the CEO position was of a sensitive nature. The requirement for
Cabinet approval of high-ranking positions appeared in other pieces of
legislation. The involvement of the Minister of Public Service and Administration
in determining appropriate personnel regulations would provide a link to the
Minister of Finance. The need for Cabinet approval would also include the
Minister of Finance.
The Chairperson reiterated the concern about the need for an experienced CEO and
staff and asked if this
provision would not exclude newly-qualified individuals from submitting an
application. He proposed that the word “experienced” should be omitted.
Ms Masilo concurred that many young people had
qualifications that should be utilised.
Mr J Thlagale (UCDP-North-West) asked where the
amendments under discussion originated from if not from the National Assembly.
Mr Sulliman suggested that the amendments under
discussion had been formulated by the Department.
Mr Boshoff declared that the Bill had been adopted by
the National Assembly without amendments.
Clause 5: Amendment of section 10 of Act 14 of 1997
The clause provided for the establishment of a
centralised doping control programme to test athletes at short notice both in and
out of competition. The clause sought to align the Act with the provisions of
the Code. A WADA-accredited laboratory would be established in South Africa.
The Institute would operate independently but in consultation with the
Department and the South African Sports Confederation and Olympic Committee (SASCOC).
Mr Sulliman asked which sports persons would be
included under the definition of an “athlete”.
Mr Boshoff referred back to the definition of an
“athlete” as stipulated in clause 1. The Bill catered for all sports people
that operated at three levels namely, international, national and a local
level. Therefore, all athletes that operated at the international level would
be subject to the provisions of the Bill.
Clause 6: Amendment of section 11 of Act 14 of 1997
The Institute had to comply with the provisions of the PFMA (Public Finance and
Management Act) and adopt and implement anti-doping rules and policies that
conformed to the Code. Athletes would be informed of the sanctions likely to be
imposed on those that violated the anti-doping rules. A registered testing pool
of top-level athletes would be established and maintained. Any failure to
co-operate with the Institute by a national sports federation or sports
organisation would be reported to the Minister who would deal with the
situation in conjunction with SASCOC or any other relevant sports body.
The Chairperson asked whether the reference to the PFMA in clause 6 was
necessary as clause 4 stipulated that the Institute had to operate in accordance
with the provisions of the PFMA.
Mr Boshoff indicated that it could not be construed
as a repetition as clause 4 referred to section 8 of the principal Act as
opposed to section 11.
Ms Masilo asked what criteria would be used to
compile a registered testing pool of athletes.
Mr Boshoff replied that the registered testing pool
would test athletes both in and out of competition. The testing pool would
consist of top-level athletes. The Institute had the prerogative to formulate
its own criteria regarding the composition of the testing pool.
The Chairperson reminded Members that regulations would determine the criteria
and would not appear in the Bill.
Mr Sulliman referred to those trainers that
deliberately and maliciously misled athletes and provided them with illegal
substances. He asked how this deviant practice could be addressed.
Mr Boshoff stated that coaches had certain
responsibilities with regard to athletes under their control and severe action
would be taken against those coaches that contravened the regulations. The Bill
would seek to avoid the situation where coaches connived with athletes to
produce better performances.
Ms Lamoela (DA Western Cape) pointed out that
athletes could apply for exemptions on health grounds to consume prohibited
substances.
Clause 7: Doping Control Programme
The Clause outlined the doping-control programme to be established. Athletes
would be compelled to provide samples.
Ms Masilo asked if the reference to the South African
Customs Service in g(i)
included all ports of entries.
Mr Boshoff stated that all ports of entry would be
included in the provisions of the Bill.
Clause 10: Appeals
An Anti-Doping Appeal Board would be established to hear appeals against
findings delivered to athletes. The composition of the Board was explained. Two
members of the Board had to be practising attorneys or advocates with at least
three years experience.
Mr Sulliman enquired whether the Bill had been amended by the
Portfolio Committee or adopted as introduced.
Ms Lamoela asked why the appointees had to have a
certain amount of experience and whether suitable qualifications would suffice.
The Chairperson pointed out that the reference to experience in clause 10 was
different to the reference in clause 3. The latter dealt with staff
appointments to the Institute as opposed to members of the Appeal Board where
experience was of fundamental importance. The case to remove the need for experienced
Institute staff was stronger than that of the Appeal Board.
Mr Boshoff concurred that members of the Appeal Board
had to have the necessary experience to justify their appointments.
The Chairperson noted that the Members had a different Bill to the one in the
possession of the legal advisor. The relevance of the present briefing was
therefore severely compromised.
Mr Thlagale proposed that the Committee complete the
present briefing and that the additional amendments not incorporated in the
Bill in front of them be discussed next week.
Mr Boshoff indicated that B7B should be used and not
the tabled B7.
Mr Sulliman asked why the Bill stated that the Appeal
Board “may” hear appeals involving national level athletes as opposed to “must”.
Mr Boshoff replied that the word “may” actually meant
“must” in the particular context as the clause granted the Board the right to
hear appeals where necessary.
The Chairperson declared that the amendments originating from the Portfolio
Committee would be considered at next week’s meeting prior to the finalisation
of the Bill. The Committee adopted a draft report on an oversight visit to the Gauteng province. Committee minutes of the 27 September and
11 October 2006 were adopted without amendments. The Committee would arrange
follow-up meetings with Provincial MECs after
oversight trips to evaluate progress in addressing concerns raised and
recommendations delivered.
The meeting was adjourned.