Department of Arts and Culture on 2015/16 3rd Quarter performance

Arts and Culture

23 February 2016
Chairperson: Ms X Tom (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Deparment of Arts and Culture briefed the Committee on its Third Quarter Performance Report for 2015/16. Members were informed that the presentation was only a summary of the actual Third Quarter Report. The DAC would provide the Committee with more specific performance information at a later stage. The DAC had improved on its performance as it progressed from Quarter 1 to Quarter 3. The Committee was provided with some key highlights for 2015/16. SA had hosted the China Year in SA in 2015 and a cultural agreement was signed between SA and China during the state visit in December 2015 to further increase the level of cultural collaboration and cooperation. The Minister of Arts and Culture had launched the Living Legends Programme to celebrate living legends from diverse fields and to educate a new generation of artists. A total of 412 bursaries had been provided to support education in language professions at universities around the country. The DAC had also secured a grant of R132m from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for library Information Communication Technology (ICT). The intention was to make libraries modern and connected spaces. As a legacy project of the French Season the digitising of the Rivonia Trial dictabelts had been completed in partnership with the French archive INA allowing access for the first time to the full court transcripts. Members were provided with detail on selected performance indicators for each of the DAC’s branches.

Branch 1: Administration - On the total value of procurement awarded to Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment (BBBEE) compliant service providers the Quarter 3 target was set at 70% but performance had exceeded the targets as achievement was 83%.

Branch 2: Institutional Governance - On the number of fully constituted and functional boards of the Arts, Culture and Heritage (ACH) public entities the target had been set at 24+2. Progress was that all 24 institutions had fully constituted councils with the Market Theatre providing oversight over Windybrow.

Branch 3: Arts & Culture Promotion & Development - On the number of multi-year Human Language Technology projects implemented and or completed the target had been set at 8 which had been achieved for the Quarter.

Branch 4: Heritage Promotion and Preservation - On the number of schools receiving an installed flagpole and flag and a guide on flag use a target of 500 had been set. The target had been surpassed with 999 schools receiving flags and flagpoles.

The Committee was also provided with detail on the budget and expenditure performance of the DAC for Quarter 3. At the end of Quarter 3 the DAC had spent 68% of its budget. This amount was broken down in terms of its Branches and as per economic classification. Members were furthermore given a snapshot of governance issues with certain areas being highlighted. For example at the Performing Arts Council of the Free State (PACOFS) the Chief Executive Officer had been suspended and an Acting CEO had been appointed. It also had an Acting Chief Financial Officer and the process of appointing a CFO had been initiated. Furthermore the Pan South African Language Board Council had been dissolved in January 2016 and interviews were held for the filling of its CFO post. On the Robben Island Museum its Council’s term of office was expiring in 2016 and hence there had been a call for nominations but only five nominations had been received. The DAC thus had to re-advertise for nominations and the closing date was now 29 February 2016. The term of the current Council had to be extended.

The Chairperson expressed disappointment about how the Department was doing things. She urged the DAC to improve its performance. The Committee felt that it was raising the same issues with the DAC over and over again year after year. The DAC needed to apply its mind on what it did. For example racism and language issues remained unresolved. People at grassroots level were, through Membersm levelling complaints against the DAC. One of the main issues that remained unresolved was on the South African Roadies Association (SARA). The dispute was about renovations that were supposed to be done at the SARA building. The SARA believed that the DAC should take charge of the renovations but the DAC was of the view that it remained the SARA’s responsibility. The DAC’s response was that all it could do was to support the SARA by way of providing funding for the renovations. The matter remained unresolved and had reached a stalemate. The Chairperson felt that the funding model of the Department was at the crux of the dispute. People needed to have insight into the funding model of the DAC in order to know what the DAC could and could not fund. Members were also provided with an update on the dispute at the Windybrow Theatre. A forensic report on the matter was distributed amongst members. Members complained that they were not aware of the DAC’s events and asked to be invited to them. Members on the performance of the DAC observed that some of the targets set were on the low side. Performance for the most part was on par with targets set. The Committee also felt that the spending of the DAC was less than what it should have been. Under-spending was heavily frowned upon by the Committee as it impacted upon service delivery. Members were concerned about how the DAC was to up the ante on its spending given that the financial year end was not far off. The Committee was in agreement that the DAC could improve its performance and spending. Progress was nevertheless made. The DAC was asked to provide the Committee with a list of its infrastructure projects. The Committee felt that the entities of the DAC lacked stability. There were too many entities that had Acting Chief Executive Officers. Disciplinary cases at entities dragged on for far too long and members felt that the DAC should have resolved issues. The Committee was disappointed that the presentation given was far too economical and sparse on information and asked for additional information on a variety of issues. The presentation gave the reasons for variance but did not give the variance itself. Members asked in which areas had the DAC awarded bursaries. Librarians were in short supply. Members pointed out that libraries built by municipalities did not perform as well as those built by the DAC. What was the DAC doing to get all libraries on par on performance? The DAC was also asked if it monitored the allocation of conditional grants to provinces. The fact was that many libraries remained under resourced due to under spending by provinces. Members were concerned about media reports that stated that of the R200m paid out in royalties to artists less than 1% was paid out to South African artists. Media reports further stated that local artists were not given airtime on television and radio. On a matter of interpretation of how one read the presentation document on page 15, members disagreed on whether the DAC regarded Afrikaans as a foreign language and not an African language. The Committee in the end agreed that languages were an issue which the Committee needed to discuss. Members pointed out that the presentation had been silent on capital projects. What was happening on capital projects? The Committee impressed heavily upon the Department that its Quarter 3 Performance Report should be informed by its Annual Performance Plan. Members suggested that the DAC have meetings with departments at cluster level so that one message could be filtered down to grassroots level. In the end members felt that the presentation had not said much and that binformation was lacking. Given that the financial year end was approaching the DAC was urged not to engage in fiscal dumping. 

Meeting report

Opening Remarks

The Chairperson stated that the Committee was not satisfied with the manner in which the Department of Arts and Culture (DAC) was doing things. The DAC needed to improve its performance. The Committee felt that year on year it was raising the same issues with the DAC. It was unacceptable. The Committee needed to do things that it was mandated to do. It took its constitutional oversight function very seriously. The Committee had wished in the five years of its term to have seen changes in the performance of the DAC. Members felt that something was missing. Leadership needed to lead and managers needed to manage people. Managers needed to positively influence the people they managed. The problem was that the DAC was perceived not to be fulfilling its mandate by people out there. The language issue fell within the mandate of the DAC. Issues of racism tied in with issues of culture. What was the DAC doing on issues of racism? The DAC needed to apply its mind on its programmes. The Committee had looked at the DAC’s programmes and had asked questions. The answers provided by the DAC raised further questions. The DAC needed to do its job. The presence of the DAC needed not only to be seen but to be felt as well. The Committee received messages from people on the ground complaining about the DAC’s performance. There seemed to be a lack of communication. The DAC did not communicate with entities and artists. People asked Members what was happening. She was concerned that if the public complained to Members then it meant that they could not get the DAC to respond to their concerns. People complained that there was no response from the DAC. She urged the DAC to respond to people and to do so truthfully. She urged the DAC to adhere to the Batho Pele (“People First”) Principle. The DAC had to put people first. She had received complaints on a daily basis and could not do the DAC’s job. Members were not administrators. The DAC needed to do its job. The Committee did its work to the best of its ability. Its wish was for its presence to be felt. She also noted that the DAC owed the Committee a great deal of information. The Committee was asking the same questions over and over and was starting to sound like a broken record. One issue which remained unresolved was the South African Roadies Association (SARA) matter. People looked to the Committee for answers. The issue of SARA emanated from the Public Protector. Why was the matter unresolved?

Mr Vusithemba Ndima, Acting Director General, DAC, addressed the SARA questions first and said that the DAC had communicated what it could and could not do. The issue was about renovations to be done at the SARA. The DAC would assist SARA. The problem was that the Department and SARA were not seeing eye to eye. SARA expected the DAC to do things for it. The DAC could not do things for SARA as it would set a precedent. The DAC could not do things for an institution. The DAC could support an institution by way of providing funding. The DAC could not tie itself into the operational budget of the SARA. The DAC could support programmes. The DAC valued the work that the SARA was doing. The DAC could provide SARA with letters of endorsement.

The Chairperson responded that it all went back to the funding model. There needed to be clarity on what the DAC could fund and could not fund. People needed to know what the funding limits of the DAC were in a specific area. The Committee had been asking for the DAC’s funding model for a long time.

Ms Monica Newton, Deputy Director General: Arts and Culture Promotion and Development, DAC, stated that the DAC had just made a commitment to the Live Events Technical Events Production Conference. The Department made a 3-year commitment of R2.5m. There was also the development of a series of sector strategies by the DAC which would inform how it did its work. There was a live events and technical services strategy. The Conference spoke very well on how the industry should get along and network with one another. She noted the Chairperson’s comment that the DAC did not present a clear face of itself and how it did its work. On the International Programme, the DAC was still waiting on a response from SARA. The Programme was in its final year and was going well. The DAC was also still waiting on a response from the SARA on how it intended to meet the balance of the cost of the renovations to SARA House. Until such time that there was a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the DAC on the renovations, SARA would not be able to embark on fundraising to raise additional funds. There was however a stalemate on what the expectations of the SARA was versus what the DAC belief was on what a sustainable building project was. The DAC had written letters of support and endorsement. The investigation into specific allegations that the SARA made pertaining to an application that was made to the National Arts Council (NAC) was underway. With the permission of its audit committee the DAC handed the investigation over to its internal audit firm BIG and they worked with the NAC and the SARA to conduct the investigation. It was expected that the investigation would be completed by 31 March 2016. On the renovations project without an MOU it was difficult to give the Committee clear timeframes. The crux of the dispute was preventing the MOU from being concluded. The DAC had made provision for the renovations project in the new financial year and would continue to give its support until such time that the SARA could give an indication of how things were too be done. The DAC had made its position clear to the SARA and it had responded. The DAC would in the near future respond to the SARA’s response. The relationship was a difficult one and there were real challenges between the two entities.

The DAC was trying its best to honour the settlement agreement to which it was a signatory. The DAC would continue to support the SARA and the work it did. It was a complex and challenging process. The DAC was struggling to take the relationship forward.

The Chairperson still felt that the DAC was repeating the same things that it had told the Committee previously. The DAC needed to do an introspection exercise about itself on why it was continuously repeating itself. Unresolved issues would remain on the agenda of the Committee until they were resolved. Perhaps the matter needed to be elevated to Deputy Ministerial or Ministerial level. The situation was not good for anyone.

Mr J Mahlangu (ANC) suggested that when the DAC liased with the SARA via email it should copy in the Public Protector. In this manner the Public Protector could be kept abreast of what the DAC and what the SARA was saying. The Public Protector needed to be kept informed.

The Chairperson said that what would be useful was if the DAC applied its mind when it took decisions. It seemed as if the DAC looked at its policies after it took decisions. On the one hand, the DAC was saying that it could provide funding for programmes that the SARA was running but not fund the running of the SARA. On the other hand, SARA gave the Committee the names of organisations where the DAC was funding organisations and not their programmes. There was a need for the DAC to have a funding model which clearly stated what it funded and what it did not fund.

Mr Ndima said that the DAC had a forensic report on the Windybrow Theatre issue which it would circulate to members. He asked Ms Kelegogile Sethubelo, Deputy Director General: Institutional Governance to speak to the issue.

Ms Sethubelo explained that the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) had made an award to Mr Mapela and Mr Achmat. The pensions of the gentlemen had not been paid out by Sanlam. The DAC had instructed Sanlam not to pay the pensions out as the matter at the CCMA had been appealed. The DAC had taken the decision by virtue of the fact that the gentlemen had committed serious offences previously.

Mr Mahlangu stated that the Committee appreciated the forensic report.

Mr T Makondo (ANC) said that the Committee wished to understand the award itself made by the CCMA. On what grounds had the award been made? He asked whether the DAC had complied with the award and taken it on review later.

Ms Sethubelo responded that the award had been made based on a procedural matter. The DAC was taking the award on review. She suggested that Members peruse the forensic report.

The Chairperson said that the Committee needed to look at the process. The DAC needed to apply its mind on what it did. Even when the DAC outsourced work the process should be stated. If the process was flawed then the product was flawed.

Mr Ndima, on the last item on the Committee’s meeting agenda, said that a Draft MOU was in place and would be signed by both parties soon.

The Chairperson commented that work done in this area would bring about reconciliation. The DAC should provide Members with answers. Sometimes Members knew the answers already and just wished to check if the DAC gave the correct answers. The Committee needed specifics down to the tiniest detail. The Committee was not only tasked with an oversight function but could also assist the DAC.

Briefing by the Department of Arts and Culture on its Third Quarter Performance Report 2015/16

Mr Ndima briefed the Committee on the DAC’s Third Quarter Performance Report 2015/16. He noted that the presentation was only a summary of the actual Third Quarter Report. He noted that the DAC would provide the Committee with more specific performance information.

The DAC had improved on its performance as it progressed from Quarter 1 to Quarter 3. The Committee was provided with some key highlights for 2015/16. SA had hosted the China Year in SA in 2015 and a cultural agreement was signed between SA and China during the state visit in December 2015 to further increase the level of cultural collaboration and cooperation. The Minister of Arts and Culture had launched the Living Legends Programme to celebrate living legends from diverse fields and to educate a new generation of artists. A total of 412 bursaries had been provided to support education in language professions at universities around the country. The DAC had also secured a grant of R132m from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for library Information Communication Technology (ICT). The intention was to make libraries modern and connected spaces. As a legacy project of the French Season the digitising of the Rivonia Trial dictabelts had been completed in partnership with the French archive INA allowing access for the first time to the full court transcripts.

Members were provided with detail on selected performance indicators for each of the DAC’s branches.

Branch 1: Administration - On the total value of procurement awarded to Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment (BBBEE) compliant service providers the Quarter 3 target was set at 70% but performance had exceeded the targets as achievement was 83%.

Branch 2: Institutional Governance - On the number of fully constituted and functional boards of the Arts, Culture and Heritage (ACH) public entities the target had been set at 24+2. Progress was that all 24 institutions had fully constituted councils with the Market Theatre providing oversight over Windybrow.

Branch 3: Arts & Culture Promotion & Development - On the number of multi-year Human Language Technology projects implemented and or completed the target had been set at 8 which had been achieved for the Quarter.

Branch 4: Heritage Promotion and Preservation - On the number of schools receiving an installed flagpole and flag and a guide on flag use a target of 500 had been set. The target had been surpassed with 999 schools receiving flags and flagpoles.

The Committee was also provided with detail on the budget and expenditure performance of the DAC for Quarter 3. At the end of Quarter 3 the DAC had spent 68% of its budget. This amount was broken down in terms of its branches and as per economic classification. Members were furthermore given a snapshot of governance issues with certain areas being highlighted. For example at the Performing Arts Council of the Free State (PACOFS) the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) had been suspended and an Acting CEO had been appointed. It also had an Acting Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and the process of appointing a CFO had been initiated. Furthermore the Pan South African Language Board (PANSALB) Council had been dissolved in January 2016 and interviews were held for the filling of its CFO post. On the Robben Island Museum its Council’s term of office was expiring in 2016 and hence there had been a call for nominations but only five nominations had been received. The DAC thus had to re-advertise for nominations and the closing date was now 29 February 2016. The term of the current Council had to be extended.

Discussion

Ms N Bilankulu (ANC) asked that Members be invited to the events of the DAC. She was disappointed with the targets and performances on the percentage of total procurement spend awarded to black women-owned businesses and on the percentage of total DAC headcount employed on internship programmes on page 9 of the presentation. She also asked whether the target of two public platforms was a Quarter 3 or annual target. On page 12, she asked why the number of artists placed in schools was higher for the Eastern Cape (56) and Free State (75) Provinces when the rest of the provinces all had the same number of 35. The DAC had overshot its targets on the provision of library materials and on the supply of flags and flagpoles to schools, why? She referred to page 19 and asked why the Institutional Governance Programme had only spent 30% of its budget. What was the plan to address the issue? On page 21 which spoke to expenditure as per economic classification, she asked for an explanation on why under the expenditure of Public Corporations (Curr) the percentage was 113% and under Public Corporations (Cap) it was 0%. She also asked for explanations on why some of the other items had low expenditures. On the total expenditure by the DAC she asked what plan was there in place to get expenditure to where it should be. She further asked for the DAC to in its documents to explain what abbreviations stood for.

Mr Ndima undertook to ensure that Members participated in the programmes of the DAC.  In the future abbreviations would be explained. He said that capital works was a major problem. It was also about spending problems. The DAC intended to get technical expertise that would be employed on a five year contract. It was difficult to get people on a three year contract.

Mr Makoto Matlala, Chief Financial Officer (CFO), agreed that greater detail could be provided to the Committee. He noted that expenditure patterns between January 2016 and the present would improve. He explained that the 113% was where by year to date the budget had been exceeded by 13%.

Ms Matildah Mogotsi, Deputy Director General, DAC, addressed the question on the number of interns and stated that the headcount was 5%. She noted that it was perhaps better to have reported the number of interns as an annual target.

The Chairperson said that the Committee needed a list of infrastructure projects. 

Ms Newton pointed out that a minimum of 35 artists had been sent to schools. The Free State Province had managed to send more than 35 artists to schools as they had utilised the Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP) funds. There was therefore no impact on the budget of the DAC. The DAC had implementing agencies which placed artists in schools. The DAC took heed of the increased numbers of the artists that were sent to schools by the Free State and the Eastern Cape Provinces and could perhaps learn something.

Ms Bilankulu asked if the Department had advised other provinces to follow what the Eastern Cape and Free State Provinces had done.

Ms Newton said that the DAC had not yet advised the other provinces to follow the Eastern Cape and the Free State Provinces’ model.

The Chairperson said that good ideas should be pollinated.

Ms S Tsoleli (ANC) noted that that there was little stability in the entities falling under DAC. She would have liked to have information on the areas in which the DAC had awarded bursaries. Figures on bursaries in various spheres were needed. For example how many bursaries had been awarded to librarian studies? Specific detail was needed. In 2015 there had been a shortage of librarians. On the allocation of conditional grants to provinces, she asked how the expenditure in provinces of conditional grants for libraries was monitored. Most provinces were under-spending and most libraries were not fully resourced. Was this service delivery? The DAC had a spent 68% of its budget at the end of Quarter 3. How did the DAC plan to spend the remainder of its budget? Under-expenditure under the Administration Programme was unacceptable. There were media reports that stated that out of a total of R200m paid out in royalties not even 1% was payable to South African artists. The rest of the R200m went to international artists. Media reports also said that local artists were not given airtime on television and radio. She was very disappointed and asked what the DAC was doing to ensure that local artists received airtime on television and radio.

Ms Newton explained that the DAC administered bursaries to six universities ie Nelspruit, Witwatersrand, Limpopo, North West, Western Cape and the University of SA. Specific information on the bursaries would be provided to the Committee. There was a need for a pool of professionals to take up posts in various language fields.

The Chairperson pointed out that bursaries should be allocated according to need. For example Port Elizabeth needed Afrikaans teachers.

Ms Newton responded that discussions were taking place on how to make the bursaries more effective. The DAC would endeavour to expand the Language Programme in the future. Supplementary bursaries could however also be provided by the DAC.

Mr P Mulder (FF+) referred to page 7 and asked whether he could listen to the Rivonia trial via the internet. On page 10 he referred to the target set and achieved for the number of fully constituted and functional boards of entities and asked whether PANSALB was one of them. He referred to page 15 and asked why Afrikaans was not categorised as one of the African languages. Was it considered a foreign language? He felt it unfair as Afrikaans was only spoken in SA and was named after Africa. It did not bode well for nation building by categorising Afrikaans as such.

Mr Makondo noted that the presentation was much better than what the Committee usually received but it was too “economical” on information. Why had the DAC decided not to submit certain information? The Committee was in agreement that the DAC could improve on its performance and spending. If spending was only 68% at the end of Quarter 3 then how was 100% to be reached by the end of Quarter 4. There was nevertheless good progress made. He would continue to raise the issue of instability of the DAC’s entities. There were still many entities that had Acting CEOs. The Committee had told the DAC to assist entities to resolve their issues. Disciplinary processes were prolonged for too long. It was unacceptable as the CEO who was involved in the disciplinary process still got paid and the Acting CEO in his place also received an allowance. Hence there was double payment. Since he had started his tenure as a Member of Parliament, the Nelson Mandela Museum has had an Acting CEO and would probably continue to do so until the end of his tenure. The issue at Nelson Mandela Museum had dragged on since 2014. The presentation was silent on capital projects. What was happening in relation to this? The DAC should categorise the challenges on performance and spending on each and every programme.

Mr Ndima agreed that the DAC could do more to support its entities. There were however sensitivities on how far it could go, especially if there was a board or council. The DAC’s involvement could be perceived as interference. The issues were whether entities were doing what they should be doing. He further explained that where a person was suspended then the person was still paid. The person acting in such person’s capacity was not paid. Only once the suspended person was dismissed would the acting person be paid. So there was thus no double payment.

Mr M Rabotapi (DA) noted that libraries that were built by municipalities tended not to perform well. There was a distinct difference in the performance of libraries that were built by the DAC and those built by municipalities. It was concerning since all libraries were supposed to serve the same purpose. The DAC was asked what it was doing to ensure that all libraries were on par as far as performance was concerned.

Mr Ndima replied that there was a Public Library Bill being drafted which set norms and standards. The South African Local Government Association (SALGA) would be consulted on the Bill and thereafter it would be submitted to cabinet. Libraries were an intricate matter. The DAC did transfer funds to provinces. Monitoring was done by quarterly reports and by looking at the performance of provinces. Better planning was however needed in the provinces. The building of libraries had infrastructure implications and the DAC had raised the matter. Some provinces performed better than others. 

Mr G Grootboom (DA) shared the concerns of Mr Mulder and felt it was totally unacceptable that Afrikaans and English were considered to be foreign languages. He asked for an explanation on what cultural seasons entailed. The presentation had said that the Quarter 3 target for flags and flagpoles in schools were 500 but actual performance sat at 999. He pointed out that the 2014/15 Annual Report had set a target of 2000 flags.  The DAC was asked how many of the 2000 flags had been provided to schools. He agreed that the presentation was very economical.

Mr Ndima noted that the annual target was to have 2000 flags distributed. The DAC had exceeded its targets. There were eighteen companies appointed to distribute the flags. National Treasury had approved a virement that the DAC had requested. .

Ms Newton adressed the question on cultural seasons and said that there were bilateral international agreements which gave rise to the Chinese and French seasons etc. The DAC cooperated on the delivery of seasons programmes. The DAC was currently in discussions with Algeria and Russia.

The Chairperson asked how much was spent on cultural seasons. What was the value of it? How would rural people benefit?

Ms Newton said that cultural seasons operated on a bilateral basis hence there was co-funding. Exchange rates was however a constraint. These were collaborative programmes which benefitted both countries.

Mr Mahlangu agreed that the 1% of total royalties was a negligible amount being paid to local artists. The Committee had to meet with the SABC, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Communications on the matter. He noted that the Quarter 3 Report should be informed by the Department’s Annual Performance Plan. He asked what had been achieved on heritage promotion and added that Committee conversations were not reflected in the presentation. The presentation also did not feature the Mzanzi Golden Economy (MGEs) Strategy. Also, the presentations spoke about libraries in the Limpopo Province but nowhere else.

Mr Mahlangu referred to the concerns of some Members about English and Afrikaans and said that it was not how he read it in the document. Afrikaans was not a foreign language. It was just the manner in which that it was captured in the document. The intention was not to place Afrikaans in a bad light and it was not written as such. All eleven official languages of SA were captured in the document. The expenditure of the DAC at the end of Quarter 3 should be 75%. For example on the Administration Programme expenditure was only 61%. One of the items in its economic classification had expenditure at 0%. If funds could not be spent then the funds should be sent back to National Treasury and be used elsewhere. He noted that it seemed as if the DAC was concerned about the suspension of the CFO of PACOFS. The Committee on the other hand was delighted that the Council suspended him. He was far too arrogant and too many things were going wrong. He was concerned about the issue of policies at PACOFS. The DAC was asked to follow up on the issue. How many entities did the DAC have?

Ms Sethubelo replied that the DAC had 26 entities. A CEO had been appointed for Freedom Park. A total of 33 community platforms were initiated. It started off in Mpumalanga and would proceed to the other provinces as well. The idea was to have communications on national identity and pride. Themes included race and racism, social cohesion, economic inclusion and economic redress. The DAC had invited Non- Government Organisations, businesses, the media and labour.

The Chairperson asked what was intended to be achieved. How were people to know about it?

Ms Sethubelo said the idea was around nation building. Everything was happening at grassroots level. There would be a report compiled on whether women in rural areas had the same issues as women in urban areas.

Ms Newton said that it was difficult to monitor the impact of MGE projects. A report on it would be forwarded to the Committee. Communication on MGE projects had been a challenge. The DAC asked provinces to assist with communication. Various platforms were however used to speak about the MGE Programme.

The Chairperson pointed out that the presentation document was not assisting the Committee much. It gave the reasons for variances but did not give the variance itself. The Committee had to be provided with all information.

Mr Ndima noted the comments around the DAC reviewing its reporting mechanisms and the templates used for its presentations. The presentation was a summary of a bigger report. The bigger report would be provided to the Committee.

Ms Tsoleli said that African languages were defined in the constitution. There was nothing wrong with the manner it was captured in the presentation document. Afrikaans and English were not African languages. English and Africans were however South African languages. African languages had their ancestry in Africa.

Mr Grootboom disagreed with Ms Tsoleli. He said that Afrikaans had developed in Cape Town. Slaves from Madagascar and the East etc formed their own language ie Afrikaans. Ms Tsoleli was wrong.

Ms A Matshobeni (EFF) asked whether MGE projects did not add value to the work of departments.

The Chairperson asked what the MGE meant to a small ordinary artist.

Mr Mulder concurred with Mr Grootboom. The DAC was saying that English and Afrikaans were foreign languages. It was a difficult debate. The way it was captured was exclusionary to nation building. He cautioned the DAC about capturing things incorrectly.

The Chairperson stressed the need for the Committee to deal with the issue of languages. It was an emotional issue which could unite or divide South Africans. The royalty issue was another issue to be debated. The documents should assist the Committee to do its work. There were things not mentioned in the presentation that were in the Annual Performance Plan of the DAC. Under-expenditure was not only regarded as a crime by the Committee but it was regarded as a crime against society and artists. The Committee was not accepting the same old stories from the DAC. She asked what the need for virements was. Did the DAC thumb suck when it did its planning? The Annual Performance Plan gave an indication of how much funding was needed. She asked what the financial implications were for sending more artists to schools than what was planned for. She asked the DAC whether it looked at the adjustment estimate of national expenditure. Sometimes the Committee received information from the DAC which was different from what the Committee already knew. 

Mr Ndima noted the comments by Members and the sensitivities around Afrikaans and African languages.

Ms Newton, on the matter of local content on television and on radio, said that the DAC did speak to its sister departments. She agreed that the outflow of royalties was concerning. She welcomed an intervention from the Committee’s side. She explained that virements were needed to meet demands. Virements were needed in the Arts and Culture Promotion and Development Programme due to core projects.

The Chairperson asked what had been done thus far on royalties.

Ms Newton stated that the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) had a DTI Copyright Commission. A report would be provided to the Committee.

Mr Makondo said that the Committee needed specifics on where the activities of the DAC were taking place.

Ms Bilankulu asked the DAC whether it was having meetings at cluster level to get the same message down to grassroots level. The Departments of Social Development, Education and the DAC had separate but similar dialogues. Greater impact could be made at cluster level.

The Chairperson stated that the DAC was telling the Committee a story. The DAC needed to be clear on what it did and at what time. The Committee did not police the DAC but could advise it. 

Ms Sethubelo said that the DAC had a schedule on community dialogues and it would be provided to the Committee. She noted that cluster work was taking place. The Departments of Justice, Education, Sport and Recreation, Labour and Social Development were on board. She added that the reason behind under spending and issues on institutional governance was because of Capital Expenditure (CapEX).

The Chairperson thanked the DAC for the briefing and said that funds should be spent appropriately. She said that during the final quarter of a financial year departments tend to do fiscal dumping. She urged the DAC to refrain from doing it.

Mr Mulder once again asked if he could via the internet access the Rivonia trial.

Mr Ndima said that the DAC was busy digitising it.

Committee Minutes

Minutes dated the 2 February 2016 was adopted unamended.

Minutes dated the 16 February 2016 was adopted as amended. 

The meeting was adjourned. 

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: