Government Communications and Information System 2009/2010 Annual Report; Update on International Telecommunications Union Plenipotentiary Conference

Meeting report

Briefing on the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) Plenipotentiary Conference, Antalya, 2006
Mr Moseamo Sebola, Chief Director, Department of Communications, presented an overview of the matters arising from the ITU Plenary Conference held in Antalya, Turkey in November 2006.  A detailed document was distributed only to the Members of the Committee.

Mr Sebola explained that the Final Acts of the Plenipotentiary Conference amended the constitution and convention of the ITU.  The Final Acts constituted an international treaty, which had to be ratified by Parliament.  The instruments had been submitted to the Office of the State Law Adviser, Department of Justice and Constitutional Development and to the Department of International Relations and Cooperation to ascertain that the treaty would not contravene the South African Constitution, legislation or other international agreements.  The Final Acts were found to be acceptable by both Departments.

Mr Sebola gave a brief explanation of the member states represented on the ITU Council and the three international regions established.  The resolutions passed by the ITU concerned International Telecommunications Regulations (ITR’s) and issues related to the internet.  He advised that the sub-regional office in Zimbabwe were recently re-opened.  South Africa had elected to increase the country’s class of contribution to the ITU from three to four.  The annual contribution amounted to Swiss Franks 330,000.

Discussion
Mr N Van den Berg (DA) said that the matter should have been dealt with by the previous Parliament and Committee.  Although he had studied the circulated document, he did not understand much of the contents.  He felt that it was unfair of the Department of Communications to expect the Committee to approve the document when the Members did not have the necessary background knowledge.

Ms J Killian (COPE) had not studied the lengthy document in depth and asked the Department to provide a summary of the essence of the matter that needed to be approved by the Committee.  She noted that the next Plenipotentiary Conference was currently under way in Mexico.

Mr S Kholwane (ANC) remarked that studies were undertaken in the United Kingdom and in Brazil with regard to the digital migration project and that there would be an uproar if other telecommunications standards were adopted in violation of the ITU agreement.  The matter concerning the radio frequency spectrum was affected as well.  He felt that the briefing provided was too shallow and did not provide an adequate explanation.  The Department should have clarified the core issues to the Committee.  He asked for an explanation why a matter finalised in 2006 was only presented to the Committee in 2010.

Mr Sebola acknowledged the criticism of the Members concerning the length of the document and the brevity of the briefing.  An explanatory memorandum had been compiled for the Committee and submitted to the Speaker.  It would appear that the memorandum had not been forwarded to the Committee.  The circulated document was the 14^th version and the process to finalise the matter had commenced in 2009.  The document was subjected to a lengthy endorsement and participation process and was delayed in the office of the former Director-General.

The Chairperson requested a more detailed briefing document from the Department on the ITU and asked that the technical terminology was decoded into layman’s terms.  The Members of the Committee were unanimous that the Committee was not ready to adopt the treaty.  He noted that a period of four years had elapsed and that the next conference of the ITU was already under way.  He pointed out that the treaty had already been signed and therefore the Committee had no power to make any changes and could only submit a report and recommend the adoption of the treaty by the House.

Ms R Morutoa (ANC) remarked that similar problems were experienced whenever the Committee had to deal with international agreements and treaties.  The Members were not reluctant to approve the document but it was necessary to adequately explain to the Committee what was being approved.

Adv J De Lange (ANC) was not sure if the Final Acts of the conference was a treaty that had to be ratified or merely noted by the Committee.  Section 231 of the Constitution dealt with the ratification of international agreements.  The problem was that the Committee had not been part of the process.  The document was presented to the Committee after the agreement had been signed and the Committee could therefore not make any changes.  The fact that the document that was presented was the 14^th version only exacerbated the situation.  Section 231 of the Constitution was undermined if the Committee was presented with a fait accompli.  The Members needed more information and time to assess the impact before noting the agreement.

Mr Kholwane was in agreement with the other Members.  He noted that there were other stakeholders involved and further engagement might be required.  It was important that the Members had a thorough understanding of the issues before an agreement was adopted by the Committee.  He asked that the matter concerning the missing explanatory memorandum that was sent to the Speaker was investigated.

Mr Van den Berg agreed with the comments of the other Members.  He asked for an explanation from the Department on the delay in bringing the matter before the Committee.  The impression was created that the Committee was expected to rubber-stamp the agreement, only to be subjected to complaints if anything went wrong.  A number of important matters were dependent on the Geneva 06 ITU agreement.

The Chairperson requested the Department to return with a detailed briefing on the ITU and the agreement, resolutions and/or treaty that had to be ratified.

Adv De Lange suggested that the Department indicated the processes that would be followed in future as well as the involvement of the Committee in the briefing.

Government Communications and Information System (GCIS) 2009/2010 Annual Report
Mr Themba Maseko, Chief Executive Officer, GCIS, introduced Ms Phumla Williams, Deputy CEO: Corporate Services; Ms Nebo Legoabe, Deputy CEO: Government and Stakeholder Engagement and Mr Vusi Mona: Deputy CEO: Communication and Content Management to the Committee.  He tabled the apologies of the Minister, Mr Collins Chabane, who was unable to attend.

Mr Maseko gave an outline of the presentation (see attached document).  The briefing included feedback on previous recommendations made by the Committee, the vision and mission of GCIS and information on the Ministry.

Part 1 of the presentation covered the strategic role of GCIS in South Africa’s developmental agenda and included the Medium Term Strategic Framework (MTSF) of Government and the GCIS, the strategic objectives, the major areas of operation and the key achievements during 2009/10.

Part 2 dealt with the eight programmes of the GCIS.  99.7% of the total allocation of R496.78 million was utilised during the period.  The performance of the Administration, Policy and Research, Government and Media Liaison, Provincial Coordination and Programme Support, Communication Service Agency, International Marketing and Media Development, Government Publication and the Communication Resource Centre was provided.

Part 3 gave an overview of the human resources (HR) oversight management report.  A major challenge for the organisation was the retention of critical positions, especially at levels 7 to 9.

Part 4 included the annual financial statements for the 2009/2010 fiscal year.  A breakdown of the underspent amount of R1.3 million was provided.  A summary of the 2009/10 budget for each programme, the transfer payments and the performance and financial expenditure was provided.

Discussion
Adv De Lange noted that the GCIS had declared a surplus and presumed that additional funds would not be required.

Mr Maseko confirmed that a request for additional funding would not be made.  He explained that the National Treasury required that requests for additional funding had to be proven to be unforeseen and unavoidable.

The Chairperson explained that the Committee could recommend adjustments to the Budget Committee.

Ms Williams explained the budget process of GCIS.

Ms N Michael (DA) suggested that the additional funds were used to improve the answering of their telephones.  She complimented GCIS on the standard of the Vukuzenzele magazine and suggested that more was done to expand the content by publishing more articles.

Mr Mona replied that the contents of the magazine depended on the level of interest in and the news worthiness of the items submitted for publication.

Mr Kholwane expressed the hope that something could be done to address the problem of the retention of personnel before the organisation presented its budget to the Committee for approval.  He commented on the need to coordinate the services offered in the Thusong centres.  There were several stakeholders involved and the success of the initiative depended on the effective coordination of all the role players.  He noted that the GCIS had achieved an unqualified audit report from the Auditor-General for the fifth consecutive year and congratulated the organisation on this achievement.

Ms Legoabe agreed that the stakeholders in the Thusong centres, which included the South African Social Services Association (SASSA), the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA) and various Government Department programmes, all contributed to the success of the centres.  To date, 150 service centres had been established and additional personnel were trained and deployed.

Mr Maseko remarked that the purpose of the Thusong centres were to provide information.  In practice it was found that people went to the centres to access a wide range of services.  The question was who should be responsible for running the centres, which were intended to be a ‘one-stop shop’ for the community.

Ms Killian asked for an explanation of the donation of R150,000 by the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) for an award.  She asked if it was correct that the under-spending occurred as a result of the failure of the Department of Public Works to submit invoices.  She asked if the amount of R243,000 budgeted for the purchase of capital assets but not utilised were earmarked for the purchase of a critical item.  She referred to the responsibility for media monitoring and asked if the function operated on a 24 hour-per-day basis, if it was cost-effective and if it would not be better to rather make use of an external service provider.  GCIS needed to factor in escalating staff costs, which tended to absorb the increases in the funding made available.

Mr Maseko could not speak for the SABC but explained that the donation received was for an award event that was a part of a program to reward excellence in the field of communications.  The event was a marketing opportunity for stakeholders in the communications sector, including the SABC and private entities.  He explained that the Department of Public Works had to follow a complicated procedure to collect rent on premises occupied by Government entities.  As a result, invoices for rentals were received late and created the appearance that the budget for rental of premises was not spent.  He felt that the procedure followed needed to be improved.

Ms Williams explained that the unspent budget for the purchase of capital assets was earmarked for the purchase of Design Studio software.  GCIS was informed that a newer version was becoming available and decided to postpone the purchase.

Mr Maseko advised that GCIS provided a media monitoring services to Government departments and embassies on a 24 hour-a-day basis.  The function was retained because it was necessary to develop capacity and it was necessary to be in a position to respond to any media report at all times.  After hours, the service operated from a ‘virtual office’.  During the 2010 FIFA Soccer World Cup event, the service operated 24 hours per day throughout the event.  GCIS made use of media monitoring tools purchased from service providers but still needed the in-house capacity to analyse media reports.  The collection and collation elements of the operation could be outsourced.  A challenge was the fact that news items appeared in any language throughout the world, not only in English.

Ms W Newhoudt-Druchen (ANC) asked for details of the performance related to the accountability of GCIS to improve access to the media by persons with disabilities.  She asked if the Vukuzenzele magazine was published in Braille on a regular basis.  She asked what progress had been made to ensure that news items, particularly speeches made by the President, the State of the Nation Address and the budget, were broadcast with sub-titles.  She mentioned that South Africa would be hosting an international conference for the deaf during 2011 and the conference would be an opportunity to showcase the efforts made by the country in improving access to the media by disabled persons.

Mr Maseko apologised for not making specific mention of the services offered to disabled persons in the presentation.  He said that these services were considered by GCIS to be part of the organisation’s usual business.  He confirmed that a Braille version of the magazine was published on a regular basis and that a sign language interpreter was on-screen during important Presidential and news broadcasts.  He said that the GCIS accepted the challenge to improve the services offered to the disabled community and invited Ms Newhoudt-Druchen to provide input on specific initiatives.  GCIS was committed to ensuring that all Government departments participated in improving the services available to disabled persons.

Adv De Lange noted that most Government departments were unaware of the legal requirements and responsibilities of the Parliamentary Committees in the approval of their budgets.  He saw a need to re-align the Parliamentary and executive processes and suggested that the GCIS engaged with the National Treasury on the issue to ensure that the departments were adequately informed.

Mr Van den Berg remarked that communication was a two-way process.  He asked what role was played by GCIS to gather information from communities on matters affecting Government, for example the problems experienced with service delivery.  He asked if the GCIS reported feedback from communities to the relevant Government department.  He wanted to know how the GCIS monitored the achievement of the vision and mission statements.  He was skeptical that the public participation aspect was as rosy as reported but this aspect was important and it was essential that the process was properly implemented.  He observed that advertisements were placed in the Vukuzenzele magazine and he asked if the advertisements were placed by Government entities or privately owned organisations.  He asked if the GCIS had any connection with the New Age publication.

Mr Maseko agreed that the communication process flowed in both directions.  He advised that the GCIS conducted surveys in the community and made use of external contractors to collect data.  The data was collated with information from the media monitoring operation before being presented to Government entities at various seminars.  In this manner, Government was informed of issues in the community and was provided with the information that could be acted on.  Market research for Vkuzenzele was done from time to time as well.  The research undertaken by GCIS was utilised to develop a communications strategy and a scientific approach had been developed.  The information gathered from communities was submitted to the Office of the President and GCIS was involved in the planning of numerous opportunities for Government to interact with and communicate with communities every year.  GCIS set objectives in accordance with the outcomes-based methodology adopted by Government and developed the necessary tools to achieve the objectives.  Between 80% and 90% of advertisements in the magazine were placed by private enterprise.  GCIS had no relationship with New Age and considered the new publication to be a positive development.  The organisation found many media reports to be too negative and sensationalized and deplored the increasing negative trend of reporting in the media.  More balance was needed and diversity was welcomed.  GCIS had developed a good relationship with all the media entities in South Africa and adopted an open-minded approach.

Mr Kholwane asked what measures had been implemented to curb incidents of theft of GCIS property reported in the annual report.

The Chairperson was concerned that sensitive information could be stored on the stolen computers.

Ms Williams advised that GCIS monitored the incidents of theft and the loss of equipment.  All burglaries and incidents were investigated and appropriate action was taken, including recovering losses from personnel who had been negligent.  Many cases involved the theft of cameras and equipment from field workers working in the community.  Members of staff were required to save computerised data on the main server rather than on their laptop computers.

Mr Maseko agreed that the communication problems between Government and the executive had to be addressed.

The Chairperson thanked GCIS for the presentation and congratulated the organisation on the achievement of the clean audit report.  He was pleased to note that the delegation from GCIS was limited to only five delegates.

The meeting was adjourned.