SABC Board Inquiry report recommendations; Department of Communications on its Quarter 4 performance

Meeting report

Apologies were received from the Minister of Communications, who was attending another meeting. The Chairperson noted that the letter of apology was badly written on behalf of the Minister, as it stated the Minister was absent due to other ‘pressing matters’, implying that the Portfolio Committee was less important. Apologies were also received from the Deputy Minister, who was attending a Cabinet Committee meeting.

SABC Board Inquiry recommendations pertaining to Portfolio Committee on Communications
Adv Anthea Gordon, Parliamentary Legal Adviser, said the aim of the presentation was to extract salient recommendations from the SABC Board Ad Hoc Committee Report for the attention of the Portfolio Committee. It was pointed out that Part F in the presentation refers to Part F on page 72 of the Ad Hoc Committee Report. The numbering of the document before the Committee corresponds to the numbering contained in that report. The only recommendation not included in the presentation was the recommendation on the expeditious appointment of the SABC Interim Board which has been complied with already.

Recommendation 30.2.1 stemmed from the confusion that arose during the SABC inquiry on which memorandum of incorporation (MOI) was indeed the valid one before the Ad Hoc Committee. It thus recommended further investigation into the validity of the document.

Recommendation 30.2.3 arose from another confusion during the inquiry on which Act should prevail between the Broadcasting Act and the Companies Act, in respect of the appointment of SABC directors. It was discovered that the Companies Act had been amended subsequent to the Broadcasting Act; and a provision was contained in the Companies Act to the effect that it prevails over other relevant Acts. Common law however, states otherwise. It was therefore, necessary to look into this and create legal certainty about which Act prevails in relation to the SABC.

Recommendation 31.1.1 was about that the Portfolio Committee would be expected to commence a process to recommend an SABC Board that would take over after the six month tenure of the Interim Board.

Recommendation 33.1.6 refers to the funding model of the SABC, which came under scrutiny during the inquiry. About 3% of SABC funding came from National Treasury, while the rest was from commercial enterprises. The Ad Hoc Committee recommended that the funding model should be reconsidered with Treasury and a direct indication should be made to reflect that SABC was indeed a public broadcaster.

Recommendation 34.1.1 noted the parliamentary oversight function of the SABC. It was recommended that Members of Parliament should receive training on ethics, corporate governance, as well as the legislative oversight role with respect to SABC. This recommendation was linked to recommendation 34.2.1 which requires the National Assembly conduct more regular and thorough oversight. This recommendation was also in respect of the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA), Broadcasting Act and other applicable legislation.

Recommendation 34.3.1 referred again to the debate during the inquiry on which Act supersedes the other between the Broadcasting Act and the Companies Act. The National Assembly played a vital role in recommending the SABC Board. A Broadcasting Amendment Bill has been tabled before Parliament which aimed at weakening the role of the National Assembly. The Ad Hoc Committee recommended that the role of the National Assembly should not be weakened. In essence, the National Assembly should maintain its role in the appointment of non-executive directors, as well as other matters contained in Section 15 of the Broadcasting Act.

Recommendation 35.1.2 highlights the discussion about allegations of SABC employees being spied upon by State Security Agency (SSA). It was recommended that this allegation be referred to the Inspector General of Intelligence for investigation.

Recommendation 39.1.1 refers to the matters that were before the Ad Hoc Committee in its interaction with the then Minister of Communications as at the time of report, who stood as the shareholder representative. These were in respect of the appointment of Mr Motsoeneng in a permanent position at SABC; various amendments to the MOI; and failure to lodge the MOI with the Companies Intellectual and Property Commission (CIPC). Political interference in the SABC should be condemned. It was therefore, recommended that Parliament should refer any violations of the Constitution, Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act, the Executive Code of Ethics and/or the Broadcasting Act to Parliament Joint Ethics Committee as well as to the Presidency as relevant in respect of the shareholder representative.

Recommendation 40.2.1 relates to the editorial policies of SABC and the importance of such policies to the operation of SABC. The Ad Hoc Committee recommended that the Portfolio Committee should monitor the Interim Board’s progress in ensuring a restoration of public confidence in SABC’s editorial policies. The Interim Board has since given a progress report to the Ad Hoc Committee in this regard.

Recommendation 41 dealt with the giving of evidence before the inquiry, and particular contradictory or misleading evidence. The Ad Hoc Committee recommended that breaches of the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act in this regard should be looked into. Parliament’s legal services unit was mandated to identify persons who misled the inquiry by providing contradictory or misleading evidence within 60 days from the date the report was adopted. The mandated 60 days would lapse on 1 June 2017.

Recommendation 42 relates to the costs incurred as a result of the court challenge by the previous chairperson of the SABC board, who attempted to interdict the work of the Ad Hoc Committee. This application was brought before the Western Cape High Court on 2 December, and was dismissed by the judge with costs. It was recommended in 42.1.1 that Parliament should recover the legal costs incurred from the SABC Board Chairperson in his personal capacity, especially since there was no SABC board in place to authorize the court application at the time the application was made.

Another issue discussed by the Ad Hoc Committee was in relation to the attorneys who advised and acted on behalf of the SABC board chairperson and the Company Secretary denying Parliament access to requested documents for the inquiry. The attorneys were of the view that the documents were commercially sensitive. It was however discovered during the inquiry that these documents were not commercially sensitive and could have been presented to Parliament. The Ad Hoc Committee therefore recommended that the attorneys be referred to the appropriate law society for investigation of misconduct in relation to their interaction with the inquiry at that stage.

Discussion
Mr M Gungubele (ANC) asked for clarity on the SABC Act in relation to the Companies Act. He was worried about the likelihood of treating the SABC Act differently from other Acts that would generally come under the Companies Act. He wanted to know if any provision was contained in the Companies Act to deal with instances where a clash arose with Acts of other institutions. In essence, why was it necessary to amend the Companies Act because of confusion with partner Acts? It would have been expected that a provision be contained in the Companies Act to the effect that the Companies Act would supersede other Acts whenever a clash arose.

He found the presentation very useful, particularly in outlining the work of the Portfolio Committee in addressing issues identified by the Ad Hoc Committee. He proposed that the administrators should set out timeframes for implementing the recommendations. Where no timeframes have been given alongside recommendations, administrators could propose timeframes to the Committee.

The Chairperson reminded MPs of the Broadcasting Amendment Bill, which was before the Committee but had not been dealt with. It was necessary for this amendment to be dealt with immediately, as it has been tabled before the Committee since April 2016.

Ms P Van Damme (DA) spoke on the conflict between the Broadcasting Act and the Companies Act. She recalled that the matter was resolved during the inquiry to the effect that the Broadcasting Act governs the SABC and should be primarily relied on for SABC matters. However, the proposal was towards the amendment of the legislation aimed at making this position explicit in order to avoid similar confusion in the future. In essence, the Companies Act may be relied on, but the Broadcasting Act remained the primary legislation to be relied on in terms of SABC matters.

She highlighted a weakness in the drafting of the recommendations in terms of references to National Assembly, Parliament and the Portfolio Committee, resulting in a bit of confusion. Clarity was sought on the specific recommendations directed at the Portfolio Committee, National Assembly and Parliament.

She asked for progress on the investigation mandated by the Ad Hoc Committee about persons who gave contradictory or misleading evidence during the inquiry; and details of individuals that have been identified as part of those who gave misleading information.

The Chairperson replied that the Ad Hoc Committee had already assigned Adv Vanara, the Inquiry Evidence Leader to deal with the matter. He doubted the possibility of the Legal Services unit responding to this at the meeting.

Ms W Newhoudt-Druchen (ANC) asked how common law would fit into the debate around the Broadcasting Act versus Companies Act. She also asked for the exact date that the term of the Interim Board would lapse.

Ms V Van Dyk (DA) referred to Recommendation 35.1.2 and recalled the Committee’s oversight visit to Gauteng where the staff complained about offices being burgled. She asked for the steps that the Committee could take to ensure that the recommendation was implemented.

Reference was also made to recommendation 44.1.1, where she asked for the steps that could be taken by the Committee against the former Minister in the event that the validity of the MOI could not be proven.

Ms M Matshoba (ANC) asked about the implications of reviewing the funding model of the SABC.

Mr W Madisha (COPE) said the report was very clear. The main issue was to ensure speedy implementation of these recommendations. One that required urgent attention was the curbing of spying on employees.
He referred to Recommendation 42.1.5 and noted that the wrong usage of SABC funds had to be looked into. Restoring public confidence in the SABC editorial policies as recommended in 40.2.1 also required urgent attention.

Mr R Tseli (ANC) appreciated the work done by the Legal Services unit. He noted that a process was agreed upon at the strategic planning session that spoke to some of the issues before the Committee. It was agreed that an implementation plan would be needed for the recommendations. In other words, timeframes should be attached to each recommendation.

On Recommendation 34.2.1, he noted that there was a slim difference between the parliamentary oversight function and SABC Board oversight function. Parliament would have less work to do if the SABC Board carried out its oversight function effectively.

The Legal Services unit was asked to give progress on the investigation mandated by the Ad Hoc Committee about individuals who gave misleading information during the inquiry. He also raised the court cases initiated by either the Parliament or government entities, and asked if it was possible to develop a mechanism to identify which cases were winnable before proceeding to court, and in effect preventing the waste of resources on cases that were likely to be lost.

The Chairperson replied about the Interim Board’s tenure. He noted that the President signed the letter of appointment of the Interim Board on 22 March 2017, with a six-month duration. The tenure of the Interim Board should lapse around 22 September 2017. However, the process of advertisement for the new board has commenced.

On the allegations of SSA spying on SABC employees, the Chairperson said that process from the Portfolio Committee Chairpersons was to request the Inspector General of Intelligence to appear before the Committee to give progress on the investigation of the allegation.

On the interplay between the Companies Act and Broadcasting Act, Adv Gordon said that the Companies Act contained a provision that makes it supersede the Broadcasting Act in the case of a conflict between the two Acts. She agreed with Ms Van Damme’s submission that the issue before the inquiry was about the Broadcasting Act being specific in its application to the SABC, in the appointment of non-executive directors.

Adv Gordon said that the amendment to the MOI was aimed at displacing the role of the National Assembly and placing it squarely within the parameters of the provisions of Companies Act. The implication was that the National Assembly would be rid of its oversight powers in respect of the public broadcaster. The inquiry opposed the proposed amendment to the Broadcasting Act that would have the Companies Act supersede it. For that reason, the Ad Hoc Committee proposed the insertion of a provision in the Broadcasting Act that would state that the role of the National Assembly in the appointment of non-executive directors specified within the Companies Act cannot be taken away. Another provision was proposed to the effect that the Companies Act would apply in matters where the Broadcasting Act was silent about matters contained in the Companies Act. The role of the National Assembly in its legislative oversight function over the public broadcaster cannot be removed.

On the interplay between the common law and the Acts, it was noted that the report of the Ad Hoc Committee contained the legal view on the interplay between common law and the Companies Act. The Broadcasting Act also sets out common law principles, which were tabled before the Ad Hoc Committee. The legal view on this can be found on pages 12 to 15 of the Report which deals with the regulatory framework.

On the recommendation for Parliament’s Legal Services unit to identify individuals who gave misleading information to the Ad Hoc Committee, Adv Gordon noted that the recommendation specifies the assistance of the Evidence Leader. The identification process was ongoing and the Legal Services unit was not in a position to give details of individuals that have been identified so far. The role of the Legal Services unit was to identify and not investigate the individuals. The process following identification would be to refer such individuals to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA).

Adv Gordon said the Chairperson was right in his response about the allegations of the SSA spying on SABC employees. A first step to implementing this recommendation would be to invite the Inspector General of Intelligence to engage with the Committee on this.

In terms of the steps that can be taken against the Minister over the validity of the MOI, it was stated that the reality of holding the shareholder representative accountable before the Presidency and National Assembly would be looked into based on the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act. The issue would then be referred to the Powers and Privileges Committee, as provided by the recommendation. The information in the recommendation indicates that the Ad Hoc Committee was informing the President that the then Minister of Communications should not hold the position. Adv Gordon had been instructed to formally inform the Portfolio Committee that the Minister has subsequently issued a case in the Western Cape High Court against that recommendation. This issue was being dealt with and was currently before the Western Cape High Court. Further details would be given to the Committee as the case unfolds.

Mr Madisha asked the court case initiated by the former Minister against Parliament.

Adv Gordon replied that the application before the Western Cape High Court was brought by the former Minister of Communications. The case was not specific to the overall work of the Ad Hoc Committee but was specifically about the recommendations that relates to the former Minister. The Notice of Motion says that the National Assembly, and by extension, the Ad Hoc Committee was not competent to make the recommendation to the President and it was beyond the terms of reference extended to the SABC Ad Hoc Inquiry. The application was signed before the Cabinet reshuffle.

Ms Van Damme asked if the application was made in the Minister’s official or personal capacity.

Adv Gordon replied that the Notice of Motion was signed by the former Minister prior to 30 March 2017, when she was still the Minister of Communications.

The Chairperson confirmed that the application was signed in the capacity of the former Minister and not in her personal capacity.

Ms Van Damme said that since the application was brought in the official capacity of the former Minister, the case would be covered by the Ministry of Communications. She therefore asked if the case would be pursued now that the Minister was no longer occupying that official capacity. Will DoC continue to pursue the case for the Ministry? Will DoC also bear the cost of pursuing the case? What is the current Minister of Communications’ view on pursuing the case?

The Chairperson replied that the questions raised by Ms Van Damme were for DoC to answer and not the legal adviser, especially since the matter was currently before the court.

Mr Gungubele said that the matter should be left for the court to deal with, especially because the application was not only made in the former Minister’s official capacity; it also affected the personal competence of the former Minister.

Adv Gordon replied about the SABC funding model, saying the main issue was the percentage of funding, as well as the amounts received from Treasury versus the amounts received from commercial enterprises. This issue should be dealt with as part of the Committee’s oversight and budgetary functions.

The question on auditing SABC court processes to identify winnable cases was linked to the interdict by the then SABC board chairperson against the SABC Board Inquiry. In this instance, Judge Desai inquired who mandated the chairperson to bring the application in December 2016. This was because of the lack of an existing and appropriate board to mandate the application of the court case. The Judge therefore ordered costs against the board chairperson. The Legal Services unit has instructed the Office of the State Attorney to commence the process to recover these costs, and the process has already commenced.

Mr Gungubele noted the application of the Companies Act in instances where conflict arose another Act. He expressed worry over the inconsistency in the application of the Companies Act, as there were generic principles that should be followed by all established companies under the Companies Act. An amendment should be made to the Companies Act to create an exception for its application to the SABC Board.

Adv Gordon replied that there was nothing wrong in having two pieces of legislation that indicate what should apply. In a situation where the Companies Act applies to all companies, and the Broadcasting Act fell under the Companies Act, it would mean that the non-executive directors of the SABC would be appointed in terms of the provisions of the Companies Act. It would mean that the shareholder representative would appoint and the role of Parliament would be removed completely. The Ad Hoc Committee therefore refused to uphold this position.

Adv Gordon pointed out that the former Minister of Communications had changed the corporate governance structure in the MOI. It had been recommended to the Minister that the MOI should be re-aligned to the Broadcasting Act not the Companies Act, as the MOI did not provide for the role of the National Assembly. The intention has always been for the Broadcasting Act to govern the public broadcaster. The Ad Hoc Committee opposed the notion of having a public broadcaster that would be squarely governed by the provisions of the Companies Act, as this would lead to the determination of the non-executive directors of the SABC by the shareholder representative. It would also mean that the Portfolio Committee or any other Parliamentary Committee would serve no purpose. Based on the deliberations of the Ad Hoc Committee, it was pointed out that Parliament upheld the view of the application of the Broadcasting Act to the public broadcaster. Any provision in the Companies Act in relation to the public broadcaster should be secondary. There was nothing wrong in the Companies Act stating that a certain provision did not apply to the SABC, and also for the Broadcasting Act to state that its provisions applied notwithstanding the provision of the Companies Act. Both pieces of legislation can state that to clearly eliminate any confusion.

The Chairperson said that the Committee would deal with the Amendment Bill submitted before it.

Mr Tseli said that the Legal Services unit should assist with the investigation into the validity of the MOI. He wanted to know if the Legal Services unit has assisted with this and whether the validity of the MOI has been proven. The Legal Services unit was expected to provide guidance.

Ms Van Damme said it was disingenuous to refer to Adv Vanara as being responsible for identifying misleading evidence, especially since the recommendation places primary responsibility on Legal Services, with assistance from Adv Vanara. The identification of people who misled the Ad Hoc Committee has been discussed openly and it was no longer a secret that several people gave contradictory evidence. The Legal Services unit and Adv Vanara were required to look into the evidence given to make a determination of individuals involved. She asked how the outcome of the investigation would be presented; whether to the Committee or to lay charges with the Police.

Adv Gordon said that a debate ensued during the SABC Board Inquiry on the MOI to be used. CIPC (where all documents in respect of companies were expected to be lodged) was approached to ascertain the document it had in its files, and it was with this process that Legal Services unit offered its assistance. It ran background checks and assisted the Inquiry to ascertain that the MOI lodged with CIPC was the one signed by Minister Carrim and this explained the recommendation that emanated from this discovery. The Legal Services unit was unable to secure further information from the non-functional SABC Board at the time. The thinking was that once the Interim Board was established, the board would have access to documents and Legal Services unit would then be able to ascertain the MOI in use for SABC’s operations. This explained Recommendation 30.2.1 which states that the National Assembly and the Interim Board should investigate this, since the Interim Board was at the front door of the SABC and could get access to documents that the legal unit was unable to get during the Inquiry. The issue was therefore beyond the Legal Services unit and has been placed in the hands of people who could access that information.

Adv Gordon replied to Ms Van Damme that although Parliament’s Legal Services unit was solely responsible for identification of misleading evidence, as assisted by the Evidence Leader, roles were assigned during the Ad Hoc Inquiry. Legal Services was assigned to work in an advisory capacity in terms court work, subpoenas, summonses and analysis of evidence. The Evidence Leader, who essentially was a legal adviser, was expected to compile the evidence. However, it is anticipated that a report from the Chief Parliamentary Legal Adviser would be made available on 1 June 2017 for engagement with the Chairperson or House Chairperson, after which the next process to be decided on by the Committee and the National Assembly would commence. The Legal Services unit was only saddled with identification of individuals; it had no say on the process going forward.

The Chairperson said it would be necessary for the Committee to engage with the Minister on the issue of MOI now that the Interim Board was in place. The Legal Services unit was expected to submit an implementation plan for the outlined recommendations to the Committee. Further engagements would be held with DoC and the legal unit in a bid to monitor implementation of recommendations.

Department of Communications (DoC) 2016/17 Quarter 4 Performance
Ms Basani Baloyi, Acting DoC Director General, noting the wording in the letter of apology sent by the Ministry that the Minister could not be present at the meeting because of other ‘pressing matters’ needing attention. She said it was an issue of capacity as most of the staff in the Office of the Minister and Deputy Minister were new. She committed to making sure that subsequent letters were drafted properly to state the exact whereabouts of the Minister. She implored the Committee not to be offended by the drafting of the letter in question. The Minister was currently attending Cabinet Committees.

She noted that minor changes were made to the initial presentation sent to Members earlier. One such change was in respect of specificity in terms of training programmes as noted on slide 12 of the document. During the strategic plan and annual performance plan (APP), DoC indicated that it had no money for a workplace skills plan. She noted that the chief financial officer (CFO) could not attend the meeting as plans were ongoing for the audit and risk committee.

The Chairperson said that the new staff should be orientated, as some of them have approached him to say that the Quarter 4 report should be postponed due to some issues.

Ms Baloyi continued by outlining the performance for the quarter which showed that DoC had 22 planned objectives out of which 15 objectives have been achieved. Five out of six planned objectives for programme 1, which focused on administration, were achieved, resulting in an 83% achievement for programme 1. Three objectives were achieved out of the six planned objectives for programme 2 that focused on communications policy, research and development, resulting in a 50% achievement. With regard to programme 3 that dealt with industry and capacity development, five out of six planned objectives were achieved, leading to an 83% achievement. 50% of the objectives have been achieved in programme 4 that focused on entity oversight. The overall percentage of achieved objectives was 68%. A graph summarizing the overall performance was highlighted. A pie chart showing the overall fourth quarter performance was also given.

The strategic objective for programme 1 was to ensure effective and efficient strategic leadership, governance and administration. In terms of achieving the strategic objectives, GCIS officials have continued to provide DoC with information technology (IT), internal audit and supply chain management (SCM) support. DoC had 90 funded posts and 76 of those posts were filled while the remaining 14 were vacant. In terms of employment equity, 42% of the positions at SMS level were occupied by females while 58% were occupied by males. People with disability constitute 2.6%. Training programmes have been conducted based on the workplace skills plan. Only programmes funded by government were included in the training programmes.

DoC conducted internal audit projects and has submitted a progress report to the audit and risk committees. Reports have been compiled on contracts, memorandum of understanding (MOU), legal instruments and litigations managed by DoC. The GCIS depended on the DoC in terms of legal services. DoC compiled financial statements, which were submitted to Treasury. 90% of the invoices received have been processed and paid within 30 days. 96% of requisitions were converted to orders within 48 hours. DoC has submitted its third and fourth quarter performance reports to Treasury and the Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation (DPME) according to the prescribed legislation. The 2017/18 APP has been tabled in Parliament and submitted to DPME.

In programme 2, which was the core programme of DoC, the focus for the current financial year was to consolidate inputs towards the White Paper on Audio-Visual and Digital Content for South Africa. This has been done through a briefing with the Minister and no challenges were faced.

On the ICASA Amendment Bill, DoC should have submitted the Bill to the President but has been unable to do so because of the recent development of the ICT Integrated White Paper by the Department of Telecommunications and Postal Services (DTPS). DoC would engage with DTPS to ensure that no conflict arose between the two. However, DoC was working towards finalising the Bill in the current financial year.

On the amendment of the Media Development and Diversity Act (MDDA), the target was for DoC to consolidate the inputs and present the paper to the Cabinet, as well as publish the Green Paper. This process has not been finalised because DoC was waiting for the inputs on the Broadcasting Amendment Bill that was before the Portfolio Committee. It would, however, be finalised in 2017/18.

The target set for the implementation of the community media support strategy was for DoC to compile and finalise a research report on this. This target was achieved and the research report on community media support mechanisms has been compiled with recommendations. All stakeholders have been consulted. The report would be made available to the public soon.

The target to support community radio stations through the provision of broadcasting infrastructure to two community radio stations was achieved. The two radio stations were Ermelo FM in Mpumalanga and Elgin FM in the Western Cape.

Programme 3 focused on industry and capacity development. The first target for the programme was to conduct three digital broadcasting awareness campaigns. DoC exceeded the target by carrying 36 digital broadcasting awareness campaigns in KwaZulu-Natal, Free State, Limpopo and Mpumalanga. The target was exceeded due to the additional funds received from Treasury, which was allocated to the digital terrestrial television (DTT). At the time of setting the initial target, DoC had limited resources.

On the target to present progress reports on the implementation of DTT and content hub at multilateral platforms, DoC could not achieve the target because there were no platforms to present the progress report, apart from its internal forum. However, the SADC secretariat would be visiting DoC in June 2017 to conduct a study on impact assessment on the implementation of the SADC roadmap on DTT. This would serve as a platform for DoC to present a progress report on the status of implementation of DTT.

The target for a report on consumer access to digital broadcasting migration was achieved. The records show 98 863 registrations were done; 668 000 setup boxes (STBs) were distributed to South African Post Office (SAPO) warehouses; 258 556 DTT accessories (antennae and satellite dishes) were distributed to SAPO warehouses; and 20 752 installations were completed.

On broadcasting advisory body, the target was achieved, has it completed two reports that focused on broadcasting skills and funding for the sector. DoC attended the G20 Consumer Summit in Berlin in March. A report has been compiled on the deliberations at the summit.

On stakeholder management, the target was for DoC to coordinate three stakeholder engagements. This target was achieved. The engagements coordinated by DoC were highlighted.

Programme 4 focused on entity oversight and the first objective was to analyse the Q3 entities’ performance reports and submit these to the Minister. This was achieved but two analysis reports were not submitted to the Minister due to the failure of ICASA to attend the bilateral engagement due to other commitments, and the postponement of SABC report due to lack of a board. The target on the coordination of the report on governance forums was achieved.

On the accountability instruments, DoC targeted the signing of one shareholder compact and four accountability instruments for 2017/18. These instruments have been compiled and submitted to the Minister. DoC was waiting for feedback and approval from the Ministry. It was expected that this would be finalised by the first week of June 2017. The target to analyse five reports on entities as a final draft, as well as the alignment of the APP to DoC’s priorities were achieved.

On financial information, DoC highlighted the expenditure per programme in the fourth quarter (see document). Details of the expenditure per quarter per programme for the financial year was highlighted provided. Overall, DoC spent 99% of its budget by the end of the fourth quarter. Graphs depicting the total budget allocation per programme versus expenditure as well as per economic classification were provided.

Total budget for DoC amounted to R1.3 billion. Transfers to GCIS and entities amounted to R1.2 billion; R68 million was spent on compensation of employees; R45 million was spent on goods and services; and the amount for capital stood at R3.8 million. After the disaggregation of funds earmarked for transfers and subsidies, DoC had an operational budget of R117 million, which included compensation of employees.

During the adjustment of the national estimates, DoC received R41 million, which was earmarked for DTT. These funds were shifted from ICASA to DoC. During the course of the year, ICASA had a savings of R41 million, which had to be surrendered to Treasury, but which was directed to DoC on the instruction of Treasury for the sole purpose of the DTT programme.

DoC received roll over funds of R1.2 million, which was approved and allocated to DTT awareness. GCIS was allocated an additional R3.1 million for the Vuk’uzenzele Magazine.

Details of the adjusted budget per programme were given. The adjusted appropriation was R1.349 billion.

Discussion
The Chairperson observed that the amount allocated for programme 2, which was the core programme of DoC, was usually little. The Committee has discussed the issue of insufficient funds allocated to DoC. He remarked that the DoC report was not accompanied by the base document, which should contain greater details to which MPs could refer to when necessary.

Mr Tseli asked about the reported 99% expenditure as opposed to the percentage of achieved objectives noted on page 8 of the document. DoC was asked to furnish the Committee with a copy of the research report in order to assist with carrying out oversight functions. He referred to the report on consumer access to digital broadcasting. He wanted to know what target was set in the first place in to track performance. On the analysis report of the entities, DoC was asked to provide feedback on the findings of the analysis in order to measure performance of entities. He remarked that the explanation given by DoC for the shift of R41 million from ICASA to DoC was worrisome and unsatisfactory. He asked for the explanation given by ICASA for not utilising the amount.

Ms Van Dyk asked for an explanation why 100% of the amount allocated for programme 4 on entity oversight was spent while only 50% of the programme was achieved. She asked what the programme entails. She asked for the steps being taken to fill the 14 vacancies in DoC; whether the vacant positions were at the senior level; and what positions were vacant. She asked for the implication of distributing STBs without encryption; the number of STBs distributed in communities; and the cost implication. She asked what percentage of DoC budget was spent on compensation of employees and what percentage was directed at outward outputs.

Ms Newhoudt-Druchen asked for an explanation on the 14 vacancies and why they were yet to be filled. She applauded DoC for having a 2.6% quota for people with disabilities, and urged DoC not to relent in its efforts to increase that percentage. She asked the level of the positions in which people with disabilities were employed. She wanted to know if people with disabilities were aware of the digital broadcasting awareness campaigns. DoC was asked to provide statistics on the attendance of people with disabilities at the awareness campaigns conducted in the KZN, Free State, Limpopo and Mpumalanga. This was because she found out that people with disabilities were not aware of these campaigns. DoC was urged to contact relevant organisations to provide services to people with disabilities. On the STBs, she wanted to know if subtitles would be provided for people who had difficulty in hearing. No confirmation has yet been received on the accessibility of STBs through subtitles. An update was therefore needed on this.

Mr Gungubele said that there was a need for the Committee to engage with DoC on the language adopted for relaying results, as seen in the fourth quarter report. The Committee needs to be able to articulate the achievements made by DoC with the expenditure for such achievement. For instance, DoC should be able to explain the money expended on the development of a creative industry, and should state the aspect of development of a creative industry that was being targeted. This would assist the Committee in measuring DoC’s achievement.

He observed that the language of the entire report was not properly articulated. An example could be seen in the strategic goal for “effective and efficient strategic leadership”, which connotes the absence of an effective leadership within DoC. He asked about the level of effectiveness of its leadership at the moment. The strategic objectives were devoid of base targets that could be monitored by the Committee. For example, DoC was asked to comment on the state of viability and sustainability of the SOEs as part of its strategic objectives. DoC was asked to provide a base document with which the Committee could measure targets achieved. He proposed a session for further engagement with DoC on these issues.

The Chairperson said that DoC should simplify its responses to issues raised.

Ms Baloyi apologised for the inability of MPs to receive the base document that had been sent to the Committee secretary beforehand. The failure of the document reaching MPs would be looked into and resolved.

On 99% overall expenditure despite the partial achievement recorded in some programmes, she explained that achievements were only recorded for completed targets. For instance, although the policies targeted under programme 2 had been concluded, DoC could only record an achievement once the policies have been approved. The reason for this was because targets were not set on the processes but on the finalization of such processes. Another example in programme 1, was DoC did not have all the invoices that should be paid within 30 days, and this ultimately affected the underachievement of the 100% target.

DoC would submit the research report on the community media broadcast strategy to the Committee.

On the report showing consumer access to digital broadcasting, the actual achievement was assessed through the number of STBs and DTT accessories distributed. Targets of this nature were not contained in the APP. DoC admitted to the absence of baseline targets for this as no prior baseline existed. However, the concern raised by MPs that the achieved targets could be measured against a baseline was noted.

The analysis report of entities would be submitted to the Committee. The norm was for DoC to analyse an entity’s quarterly report before bringing such report forward. DoC conducted follow-up on matters raised by either the Portfolio Committee or the Auditor-General (AG).

On the R41 million from ICASA, the savings were derived from some services that were over-budgeted for and cost containment measures embarked upon by ICASA. DoC would inform ICASA to provide a detailed explanation on the savings in question.

Programme 4 on entity oversight was directed at GCIS and the five entities. This explains the 100% transfers within this programme. Most of the work done under this programme mainly revolves around oversight.

Ms Baloyi said the question raised on the percentage of budget spent on compensation of employees versus output was confusing. She asked whether the output being referred to was in terms of core business or the contribution of each employee to DoC.

The vacant positions in DoC were at various levels. However, DoC would only be able to fill the vacancies at the most senior positions in the current financial year, based on the available budget. These positions would include the DG, DDG: Entity Oversight, and DDG: Policy. An Internal Audit junior position would be filled. DoC currently had two acting appointments, which were the acting DG and acting DDG: Entity Oversight.

Ms Mathope Thusi, DoC Chief Director: Corporate Services, responded to the question on the levels of employment of people with disabilities within DoC. She noted that one employee was a female SMS member and the other employee was on level 5.

Ms Baloyi said that the encryption of the STBs was a delicate matter that could not be responded to at the meeting, because the matter was before the court.

DoC has not done much work on the campaigns in covering people with disabilities. This was an area that would be looked into and prioritised going forward. DoC would address the issue of subtitles through the team that was currently working on DTT and audio-visual policies.

DoC agreed with the observations made by Mr Tseli and Mr Gungubele on the need for DoC strategic objectives to speak to the eventual outcomes presented. DoC would ensure its outcomes gave an insight to the impact of the targeted objectives.

Mr Tseli asked for a timeframe within which the Committee would receive the research report.

Ms Van Dyk asked for the percentage of the budget spent on goods and services in comparison to the percentage spent on compensation of employees.

Ms Baloyi replied that DoC spent over 60% of its budget on compensation of employees. Of the R117 million DoC operational budget, R68 million was spent on compensation of employees.

The research report would be submitted to the Committee the next day.

Committee Programme
The Chairperson informed Members that the Committee would henceforth utilize Fridays for meetings, as Fridays were part of Committee meeting days. However, the meetings would commence at 09h00 and would not exceed 13h00.

A joint meeting on DTT would be held with the Portfolio Committee on Telecommunications on 6 June 2017. The Committee would engage with the SABC fourth quarter report on 9 June 2017. The meeting of 13 June 2017 would consider the briefing by DoC on the media transformation colloquium; adoption of oversight report; adoption of public hearing report on the Film and Publication Bill. Members training would be held on 20 June 2017 and oversight visits would be held from 27 June 2017 till 30 June 2017. The Committee would have to arrive in KZN on 26 June 2017.

Mr Tseli requested that the Friday meetings should commence next week, since Members already had plans for this week without prior notification of the Friday meeting.

Ms Van Dyk seconded Mr Tseli’s appeal, and noted that she would be unavailable on Friday. She asked if the Committee could make use of Wednesdays as opposed to Fridays.

The Chairperson replied that some MPs attended other meetings on Wednesdays. It had to be Fridays.

Mr Gungubele was in support of the Friday arrangement. He seconded the appeal to begin the Friday arrangement from next week. He observed that the outlined programme did not mention the process of appointing a new SABC board.

The Chairperson replied that the appointment of a new SABC board would be dealt with in the next quarter. Adverts would be sent out by the weekend and nominations would last for a month. The appointment process would only take place after the nominations have been received by the end of June.

Mr Gungubele said it was important for MPs to be aware of the process as this would assist with the implementation of the Ad Hoc Committee inquiry.

Ms Newhoudt-Druchen asked if MPs have already received the media transformation colloquium report, to enable them read it before the meeting.

The Chairperson replied that the report was yet to be received by MPs but the issue has been programmed for engagement.

The Friday meetings would commence on 09 June 2017. The Committee programme would be reworked and circulated to members.

Ms Van Damme said she was pleased about the extra day that the Committee had to engage on issues, particularly because of the volume of work the Committee had before it. She shared similar concerns with Mr Gungubele that an implementation plan for the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee was necessary, as it would help in organizing the Committee programme around it. She was concerned about the Broadcasting Amendment Bill. Attending to the appointment of the SABC board in the next quarter was okay but the implementation of the Broadcasting Bill had to be attended to.

Mr Gungubele asked if the ad hoc implementation plan could be submitted next week.

The Chairperson said the programme would be rearranged to prioritize the Broadcasting Amendment Bill and implementation plan for the Ad Hoc Committee recommendations. The adjusted programme would be circulated to MPs.

The meeting was adjourned.