Government Communication & Information System, International Marketing Council & Media Development & Diversity Agency: Strategic Plan & budgets 2009-2012

Meeting report

Government Communication and Information System (GCIS) Strategic Plan and budget briefing 2009-2012
Mr Themba Maseko, Chief Executive Officer, Government Communication and Information System, briefed the Committee on GCIS Strategic Plan for 2009-2012. He included a review of the activities in the past financial year and the expansion of the reach of access to government information (see attached document). He then outlined the strategic priorities. These included providing strategic leadership in Government communication, strengthening the government-wide communication system for effectiveness and proper alignment, the need to continuously communicate and inform the public on government policies to improve their lives, leadership and guidance of the domestic and international marketing of South Africa, the need to build partnerships with strategic stakeholders in pursuit of GCIS’s vision and the need to ensure an optimally-functioning institution. He noted that the original budget allocation was R418.2 million, but after the adjustments in September 2008 this had increased to R439.8 million. At the end of the year 97.2% had been spent. The expenditure was projected to increase at an average annual rate of 4.7%. Additional funds had been allocated over the Medium Term Economic Framework (MTEF) period, and these would be used for accommodating the Re Kgabisa Tshwane project, upgrading IT infrastructure, establishing the government community radio link, and running the energy campaign.

Mr Maseko briefly described aspects of human resource development, the staff composition, the plans for information management and technology, and the end-of-life cycles. There would be a review of the Government Services site.

Discussion
Mr K Zondi (IFP) asked how successful efforts to synchronise communication between GCIS and various organs of government at national, provincial and especially local levels had been. He added that there was clearly a great need to train the spokespersons of some of these departments and wanted to know what was being done to bring them up to speed.

Mr Maseko replied that he personally tried to meet with the spokespersons of various departments every fortnight to discuss strategies and programmes that needed to be implemented. However, GCIS had limited power to compel attendance at these meetings. In addition there would, on a quarterly basis, be communication forums, when communication objectives and the necessary steps to improve communication were discussed. GCIS was also in the process of setting up communication units and functions in municipalities. The next phase of this programme was to begin training spokespersons in municipalities.

Mr L Mkhize (ANC) asked how many of the 15 Thusong Service Centres (the Centres) could be said to be functioning properly and providing what was originally intended. He questioned what the role of GCIS was, after handing over a Thusong Centre to a municipality. He also noted that he did not see Thusong Centres mentioned under GCIS strategic priorities. 

Ms Nebo Legoabe, Deputy Chief Executive Officer: Provincial and Local Liaison, GCIS, replied that it was most crucial to have efficient service providers at the Centres to ensure the proper functioning of the Thusong Centres. Most of these service providers needed to be State providers. She said that research conducted in 2007 had shown that most government departments did not use these Centres as much as they should. There was also a lack of co-ordination between different government departments, such as the Department of Home Affairs and the Department of Social Development.

She added that one of the biggest challenges facing the Centres was a lack of information and communication technology (ICT). Many people did not have access to computers and therefore had to visit offices personally. Branding was another critical problem. Municipalities owned many of the Centres, and often struggled to collect rental owed to them by national and provincial government.

With regard to the role of GCIS, she said that programmes were run by municipalities, together with the provincial government, and GCIS merely facilitated the decision as to how the Centres would be used and what services they would offer, but did not build them.

Mr Maseko added that GCIS, together with National Treasury, was in the process of conducting and implementing a review of the Centres, which included identifying the programme’s weaknesses and challenges and the remedial action needed.

Mr Mkhize asked for an explanation of the Re Kgabisa Tshwane project.

Mr Maseko replied that this was a project run in conjunction with the Department of Public Works to find and improve office accommodation for Government departments in the City of Tshwane.
The GCIS itself was itself looking for better and more modern accommodation, as its present premises were old and inadequate.

Ms M Magazi (ANC) asked about collaboration between different departments towards achieving some of the strategic objectives listed in the presentation. In particular she asked about the relationship between the Tshwane Metro and GCIS in relation to the Re Kgabisa Tshwane project, especially with regard to budget and planning. She also asked about score cards and timelines for completing objectives, so that the Committee could know when implementation should have been completed.

Mr Maseko replied that the broader mandates of GCIS and the Department of Communication differed. While the Department of Communication dealt more with telecommunication and policy issues, GCIS focused more on disseminating government communications. He noted that the score cards had been finalised, and merely had to be submitted to the various departments, which would be completed within the next two months. These would set out how it was expected that government communicators should be measured, thus providing a measurable framework for assessing the performance of government spokespersons and communicators.

Ms J Kilian (COPE) asked how some of the programmes mentioned, in particular some of the recently made adjustments and additions, would be accommodated by the budget of the new financial year.

Mr Maseko responded that it was too early to say whether the new adjustments would require additional funding.

Ms Kilian also asked whether GCIS received special rates for advertising from the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC), and why it was even considered necessary to advertise on television, given that GCIS was often advertising a service in which it had no competitors.

Mr Maseko said that GCIS had what was known as centralised media buying, which ensured that it got the best possible price for media space. With regard to the necessity for advertising, GCIS took the view that use of its official communication platform and taking out paid advertising were not mutually exclusive. When there was an important campaign to be launched, or announcement to be made, advertising was sometimes considered necessary to augment ordinary media briefing functions. However, he conceded that often a press conference alone was sufficient to convey a message.

Ms R Morutoa (ANC) asked whether the 15 new Thusong Centres were situated in rural areas, where they were most needed. She also said that although she thought that using a new technology such as Mxit for communicating information to people was a very good idea, she nonetheless wanted to know whether the information was in fact reaching the people targeted. As an example, she cited the 16 Days of Activism for No Violence against Women and Children Campaign. Many of those attending briefings were not ordinary people on the street, but rather were staff members of various organisations.

Ms Legoabe replied that, as a result of research it had done, the most recent being done in 2008,  GCIS had developed an eight-point plan for each identified issue, such as ICT challenges. It had now developed a blueprint and was working together with the Department of Public Service and Administration and the Department of Communication. There were now 42 Centres with internet and Telkom access. GCIS had also drawn up service level agreements that local municipalities were driving and which were in the process of being signed. Guidelines on public/private partnerships (PPPs) had also been developed and these were being adopted at the Centres, especially when non-government or private business partners were involved. An analysis for the last quarter, October 2008 to March 2009, had shown that 3 million transactions had taken place in such Centres. Reports had been received from about 85 out of the 127 Centres. The analysis had also shown that approximately 355 transactions took place on a daily basis at each Centre. Although she could not say exactly where each centre was, most of them were in the deep rural areas.

Ms Morutoa asked about the R12,3 million (representing 2,8 % of GCIS budget ) that remained unspent at the end of the 2008/2009 financial year. She had noted, but was not entirely happy with, the reason for the under spending, which was given as late allocation of Energy Efficiency Campaign funds.

Ms Phumla Williams, Deputy CEO, Centralised Services, replied that the under-spend figure was misleading, as much of it had in fact been spent. GCIS actually operated on a cash basis and the R7,4 million for the Energy Efficiency Campaign was part of the commitment for the campaign that extended up until March. The payments, however, could not be finalised as some of the advertisements had not been flighted. Part of the other R4 million under spend had arisen through measures that helped to save electricity, and the remainder was a result of vacancies and resignations in the Department.

Ms Morutoa also asked whether the braille editions of the State of the Nation speech were already in circulation. 

Mr Maseko said that every time Vuk’uzenzele magazine was published, it was also published in Braille. The same was done with SoNA. The GCIS had a commitment that no one should be left out of the communication loop because he or she might be disabled or visually impaired.

Mr N Van Den Berg (DA) congratulated the GCIS, saying it was very well run and spent its money well. He said it was crucial to have a well-informed nation because when people were not well informed, they became restless. He asked how, in light of the fact that Government was now larger than before and had many new departments, GCIS would communicate the functions and purpose of these departments to the man in the street, especially in the rural areas. He also enquired what feedback GCIS received from such communities, so that it could be sure its message was reaching its target audience.

Mr Maseko said GCIS published Faces of Government, and that poster would continue to be issued and would explain the new structure. It was distributed to every part of the country and targeted schools, clinics and hospitals. Because GCIS strongly believed in the importance of feedback, it would, each time it published a magazine such as Vuk’uzenzele, undertake a survey asking readers for their feedback on content. It also arranged for ministers to appear on talk shows on community radio stations, to allow citizens to provide feedback on government services. All this was part of an attempt to help Government find a better way of keeping in touch with popular sentiment. In addition, GCIS was currently putting together a plan about how the presidential hotline would work, and would submit its ideas to Government. Although GCIS had no structured relationship with agencies such as the SABC, it had very good working relations with the public broadcaster and its journalists. If it felt it was necessary to do more to promote a particular idea or story, it would approach the SABC and would then get government departments to put money on the table to help pay for the campaign. The Economic Opportunities campaign was such an instance. The GCIS used post offices as distribution points.

Hon Collins Chabane, Minister in the Presidency, referred to the facility of the toll-free number, saying that the decision as to where it should be located was a matter of great importance.
He pointed out that GCIS was not an agency that served the Presidency alone, but one that serviced the entire country. It was also important to look at the experience gained in running other toll-free numbers, such as crime and corruption hotlines. It was necessary to understand what its scale, capabilities and costs should be. It was hoped that these matters would be finalised within a short space of time.

The Minister also referred to the splitting of departmental functions, saying that overlaps of one kind or another were inevitable, especially in a function such as communication. It was therefore important that there should be no promises or commitments made with regard to the responsibility of one or other department for running a campaign such as the 16 Days of Activism for No Violence Campaign. It was necessary to see all communication authorities as resources for Government to use to communicate programmes of various kinds and rather call for greater co-ordination and coherence.

The Chairperson asked whether it was true that the President intended establishing a Presidential Hotline, to enable ordinary citizens to voice concerns and raise questions to the Government. He said that the idea of having direct public access to the President was excellent, but cautioned that it had the potential to go horribly wrong if there was not a very efficient response service. He asked for clarification on how this hotline would work.

The Chairperson asked whether GCIS had any partnerships with other State-Owned Entities.  He noted that SABC, for instance, was an important medium for communication, and enquired what kind of structured collaboration there might be between GCIS and the SABC. The same was true for post offices.

The Chairperson finally referred to the five-year core message. He said that while it was a good idea in principle, the problem was that people became bored over a five-year period. It was, at the end of the day, critical to ensure that the public service worked well, because that was how people measured government. This message had been emphasised by the new President.

Ms Baby Tyawa, Deputy CEO:Content and Strategy Management, GCIS, said the five-year core theme or message worked well because it provided a focus to the work at hand and allowed the man on the street, after a period of five years, to assess to what degree Government had lived up to its promises. Members of GCIS had visited overseas countries such as Brazil and Tunisia, where similar long-term goals or themes for government performance were being implemented successfully, and where government in those countries had succeeded because it had kept its focus on a theme connected to the electoral mandate.

Ms Magazi asked about whether funds had been allocated for the 16 Days of Activism for No Violence against Women and Children Campaign, and what communication with other government departments there had been in this regard.

Mr Maseko stressed that GCIS had not come before the Portfolio Committee to ask for money, but rather to inform the Committee what its plans were for the following five years, and explain how money had been allocated to implement such plans. With the new administration and its new mandate, GCIS might have to review its goals and the manner in which it worked. GCIS fully expected National Treasury to cut, rather than increase, its funding and envisaged having to find new ways of working so as to keep within its budget.

Mr Maseko noted that there were some instances where GCIS worked together with other government departments. In some cases, such as the Energy Efficiency Campaign, Government had asked GCIS to help run the campaign and National Treasury had promised GCIS an additional R15 million to help run the campaign. In other instances, such as its Economic Opportunities Campaign, Government had asked GCIS to run a campaign together with other departments within the economic cluster, to inform ordinary South African citizens of the economic opportunities available to them.

International Marketing Council (IMC) Strategic Plan Briefing 2009-2012
Mr Paul Bannister, Acting Chief Executive Officer, International Marketing Council, briefed the Committee on branding and the Strategic Plan of the IMC. He set out the nature and characteristics of a brand, the branding of the South African nation, and the mandate of the IMC to build the nation’s brand reputation to improve the country’s global competitiveness. It was also to develop value proposition, build pride and patriotism and unite the nation. There were recommendations for addition to the mandate, including increasing South Africa’s global competitiveness by developing partnerships with stakeholders, and identification of and approach to target markets for the South African brand.

Mr Bannister then highlighted the strategic shift in thinking about the South Africa brand, and tabled a revised Strategic Plan (see attached document for details). He summarised the changes as a move from brand activation to strategic brand consultancy, a move to a broader stakeholder focus, more resources, more focused hosting for 2010, and a change to a streamlined, functional and agile Board. He then compared the changes in the international and domestic marketing.

Mr Bannister outlined some of the factors that could inhibit the brand. He detailed the target markets.  e set out the five strategies for 2009 to 2012 as brand strategy management and development, reputation management, brand intelligence and performance management, stakeholder and partner alignment and integration and organisational development.

Mr Bannister tabled the targets and budgets, both before and after the strategic review. He compared the allocations from 2005 to 2011 (see attached document)

Mr Bannister then said that the nation branding concept would require buy-in from Government, with the President as the key brand champion. This in turn required an articulated national vision. There must be brand alignment for global brand power, and ongoing discussion on branding by all Portfolio Committees, as well as coordination of resources. After 2010, there would need to be support for re-positioning of the branch, and acceptance of it. He finally indicated what the IMC could do for the South African brand.
 
Discussion
Ms Magazi asked to what degree the IMC worked together with the Department of Arts and Culture.

Mr J De Lange (ANC) complimented the IMC on its presentation. He suggested that the IMC had started off with the wrong focus on business and trade, and that it was now sensibly moving rather in the direction of targeting the man in the street and focusing on nation building and building patriotism. He suggested that perhaps another fault line lay in the IMC’s over-concentration on the national level. Parliament, as an institution, should to his mind be one of the major role players in how the IMC presented South Africa, and provincial and local levels of government should play a large role as well.

Mr Bannister replied that SA Tourism sold South Africa as a tourist destination, and the IMC would enhance the environment in which SA Tourism did its work in attracting tourists to the country. The IMC had indicated quite clearly that it wanted to work more closely with all other government departments such as Arts and Culture in future, as well as with other levels of government such as provincial and local. Parliament must of course be included as an institution. He noted that the IMC did not distinguish in focus between business and people on the street, so that it was not a case of focus on one or the other, but rather on both business and ordinary people. it was not a case of or but rather and. In other words the focus would be business and ordinary people.

Mr Van Den Berg echoed Mr De Lange’s comments about the IMC and said that he was excited about their efforts to make South Africa a better place.

Ms Kilian said it was refreshing to be able to focus on similarities and common concerns rather than on differences for a change. She asked whether, in addition to what was already being used to position South Africa, it should not also be positioning itself as a growth point on the African continent, and considering what else could be used to publicise the brand and other strengths, such as a stable democracy.

Ms Morutoa asked what role Parliament played in nominations for the IMC Board.

Mr Maseko pointed out that the IMC was not a creation of Parliament but was rather a trust. It was conceived as a partnership between Government and the private sector, in which each contributed funds, but it had not worked out that way. In terms of the Board’s present constitution, the Department of Trade and Industry (dti), and GCIS  nominated appointees from the business sector and elsewhere for the board, and submitted this to Cabinet for approval. The IMC believed the board was currently too large and needed to be restructured and would discuss this with the new administration.

Ms Morutoa asked about the implementation of international instruments, and pointed out that the implementation of the international governance convention seemed to be largely male-dominated.

Mr T Bonhomme (ANC) asked whether the IMC had sufficient staff resources to do a proper job in 2010, since it stated that it had started with a workforce of only 22.

Mr Bannister replied that the IMC might be small in terms of numbers, but was “big in heart and intellect” and that it also ignited and co-ordinated the efforts of others.

Mr S Zondi (ANC) asked how long it would take South Africa to develop its brand to the same extent as a country such as Germany.

Mr Bannister responded that the IMC believed in, and was focusing on, sustainable balanced growth for the future.

The Chairperson suggested that perhaps the strategy of the IMC had been too orientated towards a Western audience, and when it would shift its focus more to African and Eastern targets.

Mr Bannister said that IMC realised that the future lay not just in talking to a Western and European market. The West, as shown in the past few months, did not provide all the answers. The IMC would move in whatever direction its customers dictated, and in future the South-South axis and the rest of Africa would be an important part of its market focus.

Mr Maseko agreed that sport could play a vital role in uniting South Africans. He said, in regard to the focus of the IMC, that it had been realized that the majority of tourists coming to South Africa were from the rest of the African continent. In the past this had not been considered when marketing the country, but this would certainly change in future. He noted that the IMC accepted that it needed to talk to and work together with many departments such as the Department of Arts and Culture.

Media Development and Diversity Agency (MDDA) Strategic Plan and Budget 2009-2012
Ms Gugu Msibi, Chairperson, Media Development and Diversity Agency, and Mr Lumko Mtimde, Chief Executive Officer, Media Development and Diversity Agency, briefed the Committee on the MDDA mandate and objectives, approach, key values, and the legislative environment in which it worked (see attached presentation). Highlights of the previous financial year were listed as including finalisation of funding agreements with government and funders, and increase in government funding, conclusion of a R20 million agreement with the Department of Communications to support community radio programme production, spending of approximately R77 million by way of grants for 239 media projects, and provision of bursaries and training. The current period would include an evaluation of the organisational structure, placing MDDA firmly on the public agenda, developing a database of grassroots publications, research into community television and other research.

Challenges facing the MDDA were highlighted as including limited funding, especially in the area of print media. The market environment for print media development was not enabling. There had been loss of skills from small commercial and community media to the more lucrative commercial and private media and public broadcasting sectors. Limited broadcast frequency spectrum remained a challenge, and there were sustainability issues. Internal challenges included the level of organisation skills and capacity, the drop of capacity relative to the increased beneficiary numbers, and inadequacy of financial resources, which was contributing to staff dissatisfaction.

The strategic focus for the current period and the reasons for the choices, were then set out. The strategic objectives were listed as contributing to improving the operating environment of the community and small commercial media sectors, and strengthening relations with MDDA contractual and non-contractual stakeholders. It aimed to promote and strengthen the small commercial print and community media, to enhance their sustainability and to strengthen beneficiary projects. It would also attempt to enhance learning and innovation in the sector, promote media literacy and a culture of reading. It would try to enhance and improve programming, production and build capacity in the community broadcasting sector. Internally, it aimed to strengthen the MDDA capital base, increase funding and the MDDA’s resource base and beneficiaries, strengthen its own operational efficiencies and maintain its image as the main performing public institution.

Priorities for 2009/10 were listed as including advocacy for media development and diversity, establishing partnerships, obtaining funding, capacity building interventions for beneficiary organizations, research and knowledge management, media literacy and culture of reading promotion, a public awareness campaign, promotion of quality programming and fundraising.

Risks were highlighted as lack of adequate funding and insufficient human resources to implement the operational plan.

Mr Mshiyeni Gungqisa, Chief Financial Officer, MDDA, then outlined the budget, noting that it was based on the assumption that the human resource requirements would follow the organogram tabled, and that funding agreements with SABC and eTV would be successfully renewed. The budget would rise from R36.7 million in 2009 to R41.6 million in 2011, with no anticipated surplus or deficit.

 Discussion
Ms Magazi complimented the MDDA on its work, saying it was the only organisation that seemed to be doing well despite being underpaid. She asked how the problems and conflicts within the SABC impacted on the MDDA.

Mr SE Kholwane (ANC) asked for more clarity about the agreement between the MDDA and Universal Service and Access Agency of South Africa (USAASA), and what funding implications this had.

Mr Mtimde replied that the SABC had committed to renewing the funding agreement and the MDDA believed that the former would meet this commitment. He added that the MDDA would be meeting eTV the next day, and believed that it would make a similar commitment. Most broadcasters, in complying with ICASA regulations, had made a commitment to contribute to the MDDA. They had done so partly because they realised that their contribution supported the entire industry, from which they too benefited. Multichoice had committed to contributing to the MDDA, but reserved the right to make a smaller contribution to USAASA as the need arose. He added that the agreement between USAASA and the MDDA provided for cooperation between the two and the sharing of information, where appropriate.
 
Ms Msibi thanked the portfolio committee for understanding the hurdles facing the MDDA. She said it was important to see how important and relevant the work of the MDDA was. The MDDA  believed that charity began at home. She added that with regard to the relationship between the MDDA and the SABC, certain members of the MDDA board were from the SABC and thus channels of communication were always open.

Ms Morutoa asked whether the MDDA had included disabled people under its objectives in terms of the Act.

Ms Jayshree Pather, Projects Director, MDDA, replied that the MDDA had a commitment to look at marginalised communities, which included people with disabilities. However, MDDA did need increased resources to reach out to such communities.

Mr Mkhize asked whether it was possible to get a breakdown of beneficiaries per province.

Mr Mtimde said that the MDDA had full details of beneficiaries, and provincial distribution, and would bring this information when presenting the Annual Report to the Committee. He reiterated that 60 % of funding would go towards community media, 25 % to small commercial media, 5 % towards research and 10 % to “other”, which included any other media chosen by the board.

The meeting was adjourned.