Briefing by new Minister of Communications

Meeting report

Opening remarks
The Chairperson said the Committee would be addressed by the new Minister about the vision he had for the Department of Communications (DoC). He noted an apology from the Deputy Minister – Ms Stella Ndabeni – who was out of the country on work-related matters. How the Department was referred to, needed attention. It ought to be the Department for Communication and not “of Communication”. Even stakeholders had raised the matter saying it gave the connotation of a passive department. He cautioned Members about the amount of work they had, especially as it pertained to interviewing the 37 short-listed candidates for the SABC board although one had since withdrawn.

Minister of Communications briefing
Minister Yunus Carrim said the presentation was an overview of what would be done between now and the national 2014 elections. The information contained in the presentation was not a new vision, rather reprioritised. The Department looked to fast track some of the programmes. It would be preferable if Members commented and had an input into the document, because the Ministry wanted to put it out for public comment.

The paper set out the broad strategy, programme and broad deadlines to achieve certain targets. DoC was in discussions with key stakeholders to finalise more precise deadlines. The broad DoC strategy and programme for the August-May period building up to the elections had to be located within the framework of the National Development Plan (NDP). Whatever was done during the period building up to the elections needed to be the basis for effective service delivery during the next term of government.

The ICT sector had a key role to play in the country’s economic growth, development and job-creation goals. The ANC’s Mangaung resolutions would form the basis for the broad framework for the departmental policy approach. In any democracy, the ruling party policies determined the programme of government, and this was no different with the ANC.

Present Communications Terrain
The Department was going through a challenging time. The institution was relatively weak and divided. There was an inclination among senior managers to settle old scores and create new spaces for influence. Unsubstantiated allegations of officials committing offences were prevalent. The Department’s stance was that corruption ought to be rooted out of the system. DoC aimed to secure unity and coherence in order to be effective. Part of achieving that entailed decisive action against corruption. Overall the Department was challenged, but it had the skills that could be harnessed to ensure effectiveness. For all its inadequacies the Department was capable of doing better.

The Minister said it had been decided “for now”, to leave the Director General, in her current position until the elections. She had been working extremely hard over the past couple of weeks. Negotiations with her on delegation of powers and functions had begun, but these were not yet completed due to outstanding issues that had to be addressed by the Committee. There also were questions of compliance with the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA). Some DoC decisions were being investigated and needed to be finalised. As soon as the outstanding matters had been finalised, a decision would be taken on the role of the Director General.

Regarding some of the issues raised by the Committee, it ought to be understood that DPSA Minister, Ms Lindiwe Sisulu, and the Chief State Law Advisor, Adv Enver Daniels, had been consulted, and they both confirmed that there were no investigations currently going on into the Director General’s behaviour. She also won her case against the former Minister in the Labour Court.

The state owned entities falling within the Communication portfolio had capacity and resource challenges. This resulted in non-governmental organisations in the sector finding fault with government’s performance. The potential for community media was not being sufficiently developed. There was potential for the communications sector to contribute far more effectively to the country’s economic growth, development and job-creation goals. Government could not do this alone. It required active participation by Parliament, business, NGOs and civil society.

Consultations with the Communications Sector for the past five weeks
The Department had over the past five weeks had engaged in consultations with the sector to determine what needed to be prioritised in the little time available before elections. Meetings had been held with senior managers and staff generally of the Department to indicate that stringent strategic and political oversight would be done at DoC. Particular focus would be given to state owned companies (such as the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA) and Telkom). Meetings had also been held with the SABC, trade unions, SANEF, business, NGOs, technical experts and individual commentators.

A joint task team comprising the SABC, Auditor General South Africa, National Treasury and DoC had been established to deal with:
▪ finalising the shareholder compact;
▪ finalising key managerial positions;
▪ progress on digital migration;
▪ the financial sustainability of the SABC; and the
▪ location of the 24-hour news channel in the overall strategy of the SABC.

Meetings on key issues such as support and deadlines were held with the various DoC entities such as ICASA, Telkom, Universal Service and Access Agency of SA (USAASA), ICT Policy Review Panel, South African Post Office (SAPO), Sentech, National Electronic Media Institute of SA (NEMISA), and Domain name of SA (.zadNA). Over the next few weeks, DoC would be meeting a wide range of stakeholders including the cellphone service providers and the ZA Central Registry to allow them to have an input into the draft document. This was not endless populism. After having consulted a fair range of stakeholders, the Ministry would be decisive.

Broad DoC strategy
The overall strategy had six key aspects for now:
- A more effective DoC. The Department would act against genuine issues of corruption.
- Firmer foundation to perform better in the next five-year term of office. The Department had to be strategic about its work, in order to create a much firmer foundation.
- Less fragmented and fractious ICT sector.
- Realistic goals for August-May period: DoC was reviewing the Department’s annual performance plan (APP) to ensure realisable goals for the period up to the elections.
- The Department was looking to finalise the ICT Policy Review.
- The NDP and the New Growth Path would provide the framework.

Programme
The APP would continue to be implemented. However certain key aspect of the programme would be prioritised and, where possible, fast tracked. The Minister outlined the ten programmes that DoC would focus on attentively (see document for details):

▪ Broadband Policy, Strategy and Plan – the policy had been developed and submitted to the Minister;
▪ Developing an effective spectrum policy;
▪ Reducing the cost to communicate;
▪ Beginning roll out of digital migration – delays were due to indecisiveness on whether set top boxes needed to have control or not. DoC had resolved to call a September meeting with all contending parties under an independent facilitator;
▪ Greater focus on rural and other under-serviced areas – digital divide between the haves and the have not’s should be reduced. DoC was hoping to connect a number of the rural schools to the internet. SAPO had committed to 50 new post offices before the end of the financial year.
▪ Greater stability in the State Owned Companies (SOCs);
▪ Corporatisation of Postbank;
▪ ICT Policy Review;
▪ National ICT Forum;
▪ Community Media
▪ Legislation: It was hoped that the four Bills before Parliament would be processed before the elections: Electronic Communications Amendment Bill; ICASA Amendment Bill; SA Post Office SOC Ltd Amendment Bill; SA Postbank Limited Amendment Bill

The Minister said the SOCs, needed to use their resources more effectively, and if that happened they were likely to secure more funding from the fiscus. Experts to assist in the work would be called in from such institutions as the Development Bank of Southern Africa. Much more could be done in the community media sector and DoC would finalise a Community Broadcasting Support Policy by the end of the financial year.

He appealed to the Committee to process all four outstanding bills – Electronic Communications Amendment Bills, ICASA Amendment Bill, South African Post Office Amendment Bill and the Postbank Amendment Bill. He said he would like to engage Members on the bills, and requested that they be prioritised.

Role of the Portfolio Committee
The Minister said he took the two parliamentary committees dealing with Communications seriously and requested that Members hold officials accountable. If the executive was weak, Members should ask themselves whether the executive was doing its work. Members should be vigorous in oversight as they were the custodians of the interests of the people. No official could refuse parliamentary invites on account of other commitments. Parliament should help the Department develop a strong culture of accountability, even if it meant stepping on the toes of comrades. Government could not do it alone; a strong and effective Parliament, a vigorous media, and active NGOs were required.

Director General's comments
Ms Sekese said she acknowledged what had happened with regards to non-completion of her performance agreement in 2012. The impression was that the issues concerning the performance agreement had been resolved. The Department had worked through an interactive strategic planning that was approved; the performance agreement of a Head of Department should be aligned with the strategic plan. She said the agreement she signed and, subsequently, submitted to the former Minister at the time was based on the DoC’s strategic plan.

Ms Sekese said she regretted the mistake that was caused and apologised. She said she acknowledged and respected the oversight role of Parliament, and that she had learnt her lesson. Going into the future, the Director General would like to build a trusting relationship with the Minister, Deputy Minister, Parliament and all structures that oversaw the work of the Department.

Discussion
The Chairperson noted that this was what the Minister had to say about what he hoped to achieve with the Department. Members were welcome to engage and enrich his vision on how things should move forward.

Ms M Shinn (DA) thanked the Minister for the presentation and said in the four years she had been in Parliament, no Minister had ever spent such a lengthy period at the Committee meeting. She looked forward to working with the Minister.

Ms J Kilian (Cope) concurred and thanked the Minister. The Minister had already proven that he took the industry seriously and that he was “Mr Fix it”. He had engaged at length, and Members were impressed. The Committee did not regard the Communications portfolio as a major political portfolio. Members would want to see things happen; would want to see SA moving forward and regain its leading position in the sector. The Minister had the support of the Committee.

Ms Kilian sought clarity on how the Minister represented the sector and its role within the ruling alliance. In the past communication was regarded as an insignificant portfolio, and this was evident from the budget it was allocated. Irrespective of the size of the budget the impact of communications was incredible, and formed the backbone of the country’s infrastructure. How would the Minister re-position the Department within government?

The Minister said there were no areas of disagreement amongst political parties that the communications sector was crucial. He indicated that he had met a Democratic Alliance representative on issues that needed to be ironed out and such meetings would be held with other parties too. It was important for everyone to achieve a faster broadband. The differences would be around markets and the role of the state. Even then, parties could find each other as the imperatives were so great.

He downplayed the reference to him as “Mr Fix it” and said he was part to the same government that the former Minister was party to, and that they came from the same political party. Information technology was so critical, and such a view was expressed way back in 1995 by the then Deputy President Thabo Mbeki. Whatever people might say, the then Deputy President was a person with foresight. He spoke about the “information highway” back then, a concept many Members failed to recognise. The country was way ahead of the continent in 1995, and yet today it lagged behind.

The ruling alliance took ICT seriously. He said he was called to a recent ANC NEC sub-committee on legislature and governance meeting to give an account of his portfolio and he was shocked at the level of knowledge members of his party demonstrated. He was keen to set up an advisory committee to advise him on such issues.

Mr A Steyn (DA) said he would like, as well, to give the Minister the benefit of the doubt. It was hoped that the Minister would do his best to get a firm foundation ahead of 2014, in addition to other priorities that had to be addressed in the next few months. The Minister had the support of the official opposition.

Mr Steyn said the Committee was told that the issues relating to the Director General and her suspension were being handled by Minister Sisulu. It would appear the Committee was again being misled given what the Minister had just said. This was disturbing; it was becoming the norm that officials would come and lie to Parliament.

Mr Steyn said a glaring omission in the report was deadlines for the various task teams that had been established. It was not helpful to establish all these task teams without set deadlines, when the term was only eight months to the finishing line. The Committee would like to see the recommendations from the task teams and see how the Department could be improved.

The Minister said deadlines for the task team had not been discussed but also immediate deadlines would not be provided. Reporting would be done quarterly. If any of the Members expected that the SABC would be turned around in eight months, they were not being practical. The SABC would become more stable, but there would not be a magic turnaround. Parliament should call the task team in to report, as well as all the SOCs.

Ms L van der Merwe (IFP) said the document was comprehensive and exciting. She noted however that there was no reference to skills audit in the Department and its entities. She asked if any sanction was being considered for those officials that the parliamentary investigation fingered as having colluded with the former Minister. Would the Minister consider taking any steps against these officials when all processes had been concluded?

The Minister commented that he was surprised by the level of skills in the sector. There was a strata of young African intellectuals who were doing so well in the field. This was a good promise as this sector was not only for the non-African intellectuals.

The Minister said the state law advisors advised that any actions against officials regarding the former Minister’s matter, had to await finalisation of the Public Service Commission (PSC) investigation. The matter was with the PSC; DoC hoped it would finalise the matter and advised Ministers on what action needed to be taken.

Ms W Niewhoudt-Druchen (ANC) commented that she was concerned with the continued stance by the SABC to ignore the deaf community. The deaf community had not been given access to the SABC. She cited the Women’s Day function, where SABC proceedings were without an interpreter. She sought clarity on how the deaf community would benefit through digital migration. It would be appreciated if the Minister would put access by the deaf community on the agenda.

The Minister said DoC would contact the Chief Executive Officer of the SABC in the next 24 hours. But it was preferable it Members could write a formal letter so that the matter carried more weight. Within seven days, the Director General would come back to the Committee on the matter.

Ms R Morutoa (ANC) welcomed the presentation and said the Committee deserved a report on what was meant by the “DG’s issue”. What exactly was the Director General supposed to respond to Members about? Members and officials should not generalise the issue and mix it with departmental issues.

The Minister replied that the information given to the Committee on the Director General and her suspension was accurate. Minister Sisulu dealt with the matter. She completed her investigation and she could not find anything wrong with the Director General. The Director General’s fight with the previous Minister (Ms Pule) was simply due to personal issues. The matter was addressed, and this was not to say the former Minister was wrong. The outcome was that there was nothing that DPSA could find against the Director General.

The Chairperson clarified that the Director General had apologised to the Committee for misleading the Committee about her performance agreement last year. She also committed to taking the Committee and its oversight role seriously. Further, the Director General had indicated that she would better her relations with the Committee, and work in a manner that would be in keeping with all the rules of Parliament. It was important that Members were clear on this matter before moving forward. The Minister had indicated that he wanted to give the Director General space to do her work.

Mr C Kekana (ANC) commented that it was not ideal that Members discussed the matter. He requested that the Minister ensure the performance agreement with the Director General was signed, so that she could be held accountable by Parliament. The performance of the Director General was a bone of contention in the past. The Minister should ensure the Director General was properly guided on the objectives she had to achieve.

Ms Shinn said the issue with the Director General should be discussed, but at a different meeting.

Ms Morotua said there was nothing to discuss as the Director General had apologised. The Committee had been told what Minister Sisulu had discovered, and what strides were being taken to normalise matters at the Department. No individual was perfect; the Director General had apologised and was explaining what had happened. It was only prudent that the Committee accept the apology.

Ms Killian agreed. The Director General was part of the executive arm and the Minister should hold her accountable. It was important that the Committee and officials realise when they account to Parliament that it was done on behalf of the nation. The Committee had been informed that this was a problem between the former Minister and the Director General. She accepted the apology. This was a chapter that the Committee needed to close, and now focus on what needed to be done.

Ms M Lesoma (ANC) agreed that the matter should be closed; however, Parliament would want to be acknowledged and respected.

Ms Tsebe said the intention ought not to be to punish the Director General, but point her in the right direction. The Committee should accept the apology “without conditions”. The Minister had undertaken to run the Department without any lingering hiccups.

Ms van der Merwe said she accepted the apology. She would like to see stability at DoC. The Director General should continue with her duties.

Ms Shinn commented that Members needed to be clear on the two issues that were under consideration. The Committee undertook to write to the then Minister to complain about the Director General who misled Parliament about her performance agreement. The former Minister was mandated to take whatever action she deemed necessary. Secondly, there was an issue of how the former Minister dealt with the whole matter. It would seem there was a challenge with how the former Minister dealt with the employment of the Director General. That resulted in the investigation by the PSC.

Ms Shinn said the Committee did not require assistance on whether the Director General carried out her duties or was untoward about her behaviour. It was correct that issues of performance were dealt with by the Minister and there was no problem with that. It might be that the Director General had apologised but Members should be clear about the Committee’s initial complaint. It did not appear proper that the Committee should be guided by a minister on how the complaint should be dealt with. The apology was accepted regarding the complaint – misleading the Committee – but was it the best way for the Committee to close the matter.

The Chairperson reminded Members that they had taken the decision for the matter to be handled by the former Minister after the unfortunate incident. The difficult thing was that the Committee could not prescribe how the former Minister took the matter forward. The new Minister was now requesting Members to make a decision on the matter, taking into consideration the length of time it took to appoint a Director General and the stability of the Department. Someone needed to be at the helm if stability was to be achieved. And the Minister was of the view that the Director General should continue doing her work. Given the Committee’s centrality to her work, Members ought to forget and start with a clean slate about the complaint they had. This would allow the Department to move forward. So in simple terms, the Minister was recommending that Members accept the apology of the Director General so that a new environment could be created at the Department. This was what all the other Members, except the Democratic Alliance, had accepted.

Ms Shinn commented that her suggestion was that the matter be parked for another meeting, but said she had no objection accepting the Director General’s apology.

The Chairperson ruled that the matter be closed, on understanding that all parties accepted the apology of the Director General in relation to the complaint Parliament lodged with the former Minister.

The Minister commented that the reason all the Deputy Directors General were present at the meeting was an attempt to ensure that a similar thing did not occur in future. Another reason was to acknowledge that Ms Sekese was the Director General whether they liked it or not until other matters had been resolved. The third thing was that the Committee ought to realise it could not seek to separate the issues relating to the Director General – the complaint by the Committee and the relationship with the former Minister. When the relationship between the Director General and the Minister was frosty, the Director General could become vulnerable. DoC had learnt its lesson and had committed to the plans collectively.

The Minister said stern action would be taken against any official who came to Parliament and misrepresented the Department. All the performance agreements for senior executives were being reviewed. He pleaded with Members that everyone move on; the two issues were separate and yet were interlinked. If the Committee could not make a decision on the matter, DoC could not begin the next phase of the process. Delaying the matter would compromise the work of the Department. The Legal Unit had indicated a decision on the outstanding matter would be ready in the next 24 hours.

Closing remarks
The Chairperson said the apology had been accepted by all the parties, and the matter of the Director General as pertaining to Parliament need not be an issue going forward. He had checked with Parliament’s Legal Unit about the decision, and it had indicated that if Members accepted the apology, that became an acceptable outcome of that particular complaint.

The Committee would continue to be vigorous in oversight. He requested that the Minister be decisive in taking decisions; if people failed they needed to be removed from the system. It ought to be that people "shape up or ship out". Government could not continue to fail South Africans; it had delayed improvements to the lives of many.

The meeting was adjourned.