Communications Dept report-back on Committee recommendations: halted

Meeting report

Opening remarks
The Chairperson said the Committee would receive a report back from the Department of Communication (DoC) on how far it, and its entities, had gone in implementing recommendations of the Committee. An apology had been received from both the Minister (Dina Pule) and the Deputy Minister (Stella Ndabeni). The Minister was currently meeting the SABC, following the SABC’s absence from Parliament last week, and the ensuing saga that was reported on by the media. The Chairperson said he had personally advised the Minister to prioritise the SABC matter. Things were not going well at the SABC.

Cope proposal
The Chairperson said the Committee had received a letter from the Congress of the People (Cope) proposing that the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) Board and the Minister, be invited to Parliament on 12 March to account on what seemed to be the breakdown of corporate governance at the public broadcaster. The letter alleged the Minister had not appeared before the Committee for the past six months.

Ms R Morutoa (ANC) said in view of the ongoing meeting between the Minister and the Board there was no need to summon the SABC to Parliament. It would not be correct to consider Cope’s proposal. The Committee was just as concerned, as the Honourable Member, with developments at the SABC. She disputed the claim that the Minister had not appeared before the Committee for a period exceeding six months. This was an exaggeration, and therefore the letter should not be entertained.

Ms M Lesoma (ANC) agreed and said the letter was too open ended, in that it did not tabulate the specific issues the Member wanted to raise with the Board. The letter should have spelt out the kind of detail that would necessitate an urgent invitation, and that it needed to say what issues were there that the Committee could not deal with during the six-month’s absence of the Minister. She said the letter needed to be treated like any other correspondence to the Committee.

Ms L van der Merwe (IFP) commented that the statement about the Minister’s six months absence was no exaggeration. During the ten-month period she had been with the Committee, she had not once had an encounter with the Minister. There was no harm in interacting with the SABC Board especially in addressing governance at the entity, and address the current challenges the SABC faced.

Ms M Shinn (DA) endorsed the request and said it was the Committee’s duty to invite the SABC in an attempt to address the current crisis. The primary responsibility for the Committee in this situation would be to discuss the matter and suggest remedial action. Everyone knew the SABC was on fire. There was a gap on the Committee’s programme on the 12 March. The Committee could use that date and invite the SABC.

She commented that the Committee did not deal with core issues that the Department faced. The primary crises to deal with were the SABC, the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (Icasa) and DoC. The Committee needed not waste time on less important matters.

Mr A Steyn (DA) commented that there was a crisis at the SABC. That the Minister was currently meeting with the SABC made it that much more important that they came and briefed the Committee on developments. The Committee needed to be updated. It was unthinkable that any of the Members would seem not to realise the urgency of the situation. The situation at the SABC should not be allowed to run out of control. The Committee needed to tighten the agenda and squeeze the SABC. This would keep Members updated on the challenges the SABC faced. The letter needed not to be specific, and had to be included on the agenda. He fully supported the proposal.

Mr G Schneeman (ANC) commented he doubted there was any Member who was not aware of the challenges that existed at the SABC. The invitation could wait until the second term when the SABC was scheduled to appear before the Committee in April. The Committee could consider extending the time period to not only discuss the budget and the strategic plan, but also all the challenges the SABC was embroiled in.

Ms J Killian (Cope) was disappointed with the ANC Members who seemed not to comprehend that the oversight of the executive was done by the Committee. The Committee was scheduled to meet the SABC last week, but cancelled because there was no document presentation. The proposal was in part informed by a replacement meeting for 12 March; there was an opening on the programme and the Committee needed to utilise that.

She said the Committee could not sit and pretend that “Rome was not burning”. An extension until April was merely fuelling the crisis. She urged the ANC to consider the proposal. Let the Committee discuss the issue before it was taken to the National Assembly (NA). Otherwise opposition parties would have to consider what options there were to have the Minister and SABC account to Parliament sooner.

The Chairperson commented that the claim that ANC Members were confused about their role was too broad. He requested that the Member point directly at the Member to whom reference was made. He said, as a Chairperson, he was clear about the Committee’s role and responsibility.

Ms Shinn commented that it was Parliament’s responsibility to have the SABC appear in Parliament. It was urgent that the Minister and the Board came to the Committee. Failure to do so would mean the saga would continue to unfold through the media. The Committee could not wait until April to find out what was happening at the SABC. The Committee legally appointed the Board and needed to be part of the solution; the Committee should demand that the SABC appear on the 12 March.

Chairperson to decide
Mr Schneemann proposed that the Chairperson look at the Committee’s programme and decide how the matter could be accommodated on the programme. He reiterated that nobody in the meeting denied there were challenges at the SABC.

Ms Killian commented that the SABC matter needed to be prioritised. She supported the proposal, and said the Committee needed to do its oversight work so as to avoid a situation where Members received updates on the saga through the media.

The Chairperson commented that the SABC was on fire; this was precisely the reason he detailed the apology of the Minister. He would have to hear an update from the Minister, before deciding on the next course of action. The matter would be prioritised. It was suffice to state that Members proposed that this matter be dealt with by the Chairperson. The Committee needed to provide leadership urgently, and not fuel the situation by seeking to criticise the Board.

DoC response to Committee recommendations and concerns from oversight and BRRR
The response document highlighted a number of issues that emanated from the Committee oversight visits to the Northern Cape and the Western Cape as well as the Committee's Budgetary Review and Recommendation Report (BRRR). Mr Jabu Radebe, DoC Acting DDG ICT Infrastructure Development, commented that the response was not as detailed as it was supposed to be, but supplementary documents had since been availed to the Committee. Issues raised by the Committee during oversight could be categorised as including support for broadcasting (signal distribution and coverage); support programme for content and infrastructure; and support for community radios. Capacity building was one of the issues raised during the oversight visits. Another area of concern was coverage, local content and infrastructure in the Northern Cape. Another matter was the Post Office’s service efficiency, turnaround times and compliance with Icasa’s regulations. Another broad area was the staff efficiencies in provinces. Underpinning all these was the provincial coordination of teams.

The report sought to address those issues. He would highlight aspects of the 24-page document which identified each topic, the recommendations or concerns and then the current status and actions to be undertaken by DOC. The first page talked to community radio and providing support to stations (see document for what had been addressed). One of the recommendations emanating from the oversight visits was that Icasa should comply in providing “coastal inspections”. Icasa had complied with streamlining monitoring under a single manager, and a plan had been developed to address that. Another issue that was raised was to fill the vacant funded posts in the Northern Cape. The Post Office had complied with this recommendation by doing away with labour brokers, and thereby appointing 4500 people to do the work.

DoC presents an ‘outdated report’
Mr Schneemann interjected and commented the purpose of the meeting was to report on steps taken to fulfil the recommendations of the Committee subsequent to the oversight trips. The comment that the Post Office had done away with labour brokers and appointed 4500 people did not give the Committee a sense of whether the Northern Cape vacancy issue had been addressed. The Committee expected detailed information on what recommendations had been attended to and how.

Ms Morutoa agreed and said she had the same concern, and that the presentation was not telling the Committee anything. Members were interested in details; listening to the presentation was a waste of time.

Mr Radebe replied the separate entities could elaborate on the details of what steps had been taken.

Ms Killian commented that she too was concerned with how the recommendations were dealt with. She had expected DoC to present on how certain entities dealt with the recommendations that pertained to their operations. The reference throughout the report on tasks that would be achieved, for an example, by 24 June 2012 indicated that the report was outdated. The report was not up to date and amounted to wasteful expenditure. The format of the report-back was also not good.

Mr Radebe replied that he had from the onset indicated the report was not up to date, hence the supplementary documents that had be circulated at the meeting. The finer details on recommendations were being addressed, and would be dealt with by the entities concerned. He requested Icasa respond to the issue raised about community radio stations.

Ms Morutoa objected. She clarified that Members expected a way forward from DoC. Members in essence were saying they would not listen to what they already knew. DoC needed to give the Committee a report, and not entities.

Mr Schneemann proposed a 30-minute break so that DoC could interact with the entities and decide what information was needed where. DoC should tell the Committee what had been done about the recommendations. Entities were simply here to back DoC up and clarify where additional information was required. Going through the report would not assist the Committee.

Mr Steyn supported the idea and said he was concerned that an additional 30 minutes would too be wasted. A number of issues had been raised in the report; DoC should indicate to the Committee how old the report was. If the Department could not, then it needed to go back and come back with an up to date report.

Ms Killian pleaded with the Department to be transparent with the Committee. DoC should give the Committee accurate information on where it was with the matters raised. She commented that some of the information dated back to 2011. If the report did not give a current account of progress made it was a waste of time and money.

Mr Themba Phiri, DDG Policy & Entities, DoC, replied this was an updated report. There was a challenge with the report in so far as it related to entities. The Department had received inputs very late from its entities. The information was not submitted on time to meet the Committee’s deadline. But documents were in DoC’s possession, and could thus speak to some of the issues. He was not sure if it would help the Committee if DoC presented from the notes, and allow entities to clarify further detail.

Mr Schneemann commented that people needed to bear in mind that when the Committee went on oversight visits, it produced a report that contained specific recommendations. The report would then be tabled in the National Assembly (NA). Once the report was adopted, it was incumbent on the institution to implement such recommendations.

Mr Schneemann said he did not believe the Department got the information late and as a result could not comply with deadline. If this was indeed what happened, the question had to be asked what departments and entities did with the Committee recommendations, given that these were prepared in 2011. When recommendations were adopted by the NA, they were forwarded to departments who, in turn, ought to forward them to the relevant entities.

Mr Schneemann said he expected DoC to have a mechanism in place to regularly monitor the implementation of the recommendations. It was not correct for the Department to appear before the Committee unprepared, just for the sake of it. When the Committee went on oversight, many of the visits were to community radios and newspapers. They raised things with the Committee. These recommendations were not from the Committee, but from members of the community and different spheres of society. The recommendations had to be implemented. If there was a reason the Department could not implement them, then the Committee needed a report on that specific reason.

Ms Morutoa commented that the Committee could not comment on the claim that “some information” was available. She asked Members to propose a way forward.

Ms Killian commented that the Committee had a duty to conduct oversight. The Committee could not choose to do oversight, but had to do it as required by the Constitution. Parliament was an institution of record, and that whenever submissions were made, they needed to be accurate and factual. The Committee needed feedback; and that ought to be correct information.

Ms Killian commented that it was concerning that departments prepared lengthy documents with no substance. She proposed that the Committee break for a short while and, then, afford the Department an opportunity to indicate if it was ready to continue with the presentation. The document could not be a record of Parliament.

[break]

Mr Phiri said DoC had looked at the data that was available and several documents had been provided on 28 February. DoC missed the deadline to update the report, but also the structure was not according to how DoC information was presented. The information could be improved, but not in front of the Members. He said the Department was satisfied that entities present could speak on the information presented to DoC, except for Icasa. The Authority indicated it needed more time as some information required detail. In light of factual correctness, as already highlighted in the meeting, DoC was scared of misleading Parliament.

Mr Phiri said the information from the SABC was too detailed and that the delegation looked too thin to adequately deal with it. He requested more time to go back and re-look at the structure of the presentation. Also, written guidance from the Chairperson would be required in order to prepare the report in a manner that spoke to the issue.

Mr Steyn commented he was confused. Was this to suggest the entities had the information to present? He suggested the entities went back as well. The Committee wanted a single report from DoC that captured responses from the entities. This would be advantageous to the Department in that they also would be aware of what responses had been provided.

Ms Shinn supported the idea that the Department prepared a single report that it would present. The Department would not even need the big delegation to back them up, especially against the background of cost involved. It was DoC’s responsibility to get the documents from its entities.

Mr Schneemann said DoC should be allowed to rework the report, but the Committee should get an indication of who monitored the report and how the Department interacted with the entities. It was unacceptable that Icasa had indicated it was not ready to answer questions from Members. There were people who had expectations on the issues that had been raised.

Mr Schneemann commented that the “bloated delegations” for oversight meetings needed to be trimmed. How those delegations were constituted needed to be reviewed if today was the kind of response the Committee got. What were all these people doing at this oversight meeting? It appeared some just went for the trip.

Mr Schneemann said the delegations to Parliament needed to be looked at especially as it pertained to expenditure and budgets. The Minister of Finance (Mr Pravin Gordhan) continually raised the issue of tightening belts and curbing expenditure. The numbers of people in the delegation was not warranted. This was a report-back meeting on what had been done since the oversight visits. He requested that when the team came back it should be reduced drastically, even for future Committee meetings. People sent to Parliament should be the people who could answer. Some of these officials did not say a word, hey just looked.

The Chairperson commented that the final responsibility of a report, whether presented or not, was with DoC. The Department should be able to verify the information contained in the report. Parliament regarded inaccuracies by entities as coming from the Department. It was only fair to give the Department time to compile and consolidate the report, so that misleading elements were avoided. He commented that those who attend Committee meetings, should be those who could answer questions or elaborate.

The Chairperson said DoC should seriously consider the recommendations emerging from oversight trips, when presenting a report-back. There should be an element of accountability for those who were involved in the oversight, as that seemed to be lacking. He requested that officials on oversight should be those who were mandated to communicate with all senior officials at the Department. These people should have a clear mandate on how to interact with people who mattered when it came to taking decisions. One needed to rectify the line of interaction during oversight; the line was too cumbersome and bureaucratic.

The Chairperson pleaded with DoC to verify the accuracy of reports from entities before they were presented to Parliament.

Ms Killian proposed that 19 March be the new date for the next appearance. The Department would in any event be in Parliament on that day, and the Committee could consider squeezing DoC in the afternoon. She commented that the only way lack of preparedness in government officials could be curbed was to demand that they refund the department once there had been fruitless expenditure such as today’s trip. People had to be held accountable.

The Chairperson commented that there was a need to assess the ability of the Department to monitor its entities. He said the 19 March date was worth considering given that the Department would be presenting its strategic plans for two days in Parliament. This would not be at an additional cost. But the new proposed date would have to await approval from the Parliamentary programming unit.

Mr Phiri said the Department would be meeting with its entities so as to meet the deadline of 19 March.

The meeting was adjourned.