Government Communication & Information Systems; Media Development & Diversity Agency & International Marketing Council Annual Re

Meeting report

COMMUNICATIONS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
22 October 2004
GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION Systems; Media Development and Diversity Agency AND INTERNATIONAL MARKETING COUNCIL ANNUAL REPORTs: BRIEFING

Chairperson:

International Marketing Council of South Africa presentation
Government Communication and Informtion Systems presentation
Media Development and Diversity Agency presentation
International Marketing Council of South Africa Annual Report (offsite link)
Government Communication and Information Systems Annual Report
Media Development and Diversity Agency Annual Report: Part 1
Media Development and Diversity Agency Annual Report: Part 2
Media Development and Diversity Agency Annual Report: Part 3

SUMMARY
The Government Communication and Information Systems (GCIS) presented their Annual Report for the financial year 2003-04, and shared some of their current activities and highlights of the year. The Committee raised questions about the Multi Purpose Community Centres (MPCC) and irregular and unauthorised expenditure by the GCIS.

The Media Development and Diversity Agency (MDDA) and the International Marketing Council of South Africa (IMCSA) addressed the Committee on their Annual Reports and the progress they were making in developing community media, and marketing South Africa's financial potential overseas. The Committee raised questions about the MDDA's financial reports and its role in transforming the advertising and marketing industry. The Committee expressed concern about IMCSAs role in Africa and what type of investment it was encouraging.

MINUTES

GCIS submission
Mr J Netshitenzhe (GCIS CEO) discussed the final report for the financial year 2003/4 and the representivity of the employees of the GCIS. He explained the core programmes, which were Administration, Policy and Research, Government and Media liaison, Provincial and Local liaison and the Communication Service Agency. He expanded on some of the programmes of action in conjunction with the GDS Agreements such as local economic development, small enterprise promotion, second economy intervention and promoting common understanding of the country's development vision. He concluded by explaining how the GCIS chooses platforms of communication and how it was moving towards new communication trajectories.

MDDA submission
Ms K Mkonza (Chairperson: MDDA) discussed the mandate of the MDDA that included the creation of an environment that enabled media development and diversity, and support for community and small commercial media projects, The MDDA had received R10 million from the government in 2003/4, and R3 million in the form of a roll-over from 2002/3. Highlights of the year were an unqualified audit and low administrative costs. She gave a report back on how the MDDA had faired in meeting its objective for the year.

Mr G Reddy (MDDA Board Member) continued with the report back by discussing how decisions on grants were made and stating whom the grants were given to in the 2003/4 financial year. There were ten projects in total, seven community radio projects, one community print project and two small commercial print projects. He discussed the Auditor-General's report and what progress had been made on the matters raised by the Auditor-General.

IMCSA submission
Ms Y Johnston (IMCSA CEO) stated that IMCSA had operationalised its strategy and built national pride that made a tangible impact on the South African psyche. She discussed the primary objectives of IMCSA and expanded on Stakeholder Perception research that indicated the progress of IMCSA over the past three years. She discussed the funding of IMCSA and the break down of spending in 2003/4. The challenge for IMCSA was to created public/private partnerships and to motivate South Africans to play a role in promoting the country.

Discussion
Ms M Smuts (DA) asked what progress had been made regarding the financial manager arrested for the R12 million irregular expenditure at GCIS and if the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA) had dealt with this matter yet. She asked what the disciplinary action that was pending for the unauthorised expenditure emphasised by the Auditor-General was and under which programme this expenditure took place. She asked what the over-expenditure in Programme Five was used for and wanted assurance that it was not used for political advertising prior to the elections. She commented that the shift of spending on marketing to make it more representative of the population required discussion as advertising was by its nature geared towards a target market, not the population in general.

Ms S Vos (IFP) asked what thought the GCIS had given to repairing the image of the Pan-African Parliament specifically because South Africa was the hosting nation. She commented that the IMCSA needed to advertise that South Africa was alive with possibility for partnerships and asked how the IMCSA would market that. She stated that many of the MPCC in the poorest areas were not yet functioning properly and asked how the GCIS monitored the MPCCs.

Ms N Magazi (ANC) asked what progress had been made on the implementation of the policy of integrated service delivery. She commented that there were many successful MPCCs and that the management of the centres was of vital importance for success. She asked if the GCIS had a management strategy for the new MPCCs.

Ms N Mokoto (ANC) asked if the GCIS had a plan to deal with poor communication capacity at all levels of government. She remarked that communication needed to be prioritised, as it played an important role in assuring the proper deliver of services to the public. She enquired why the MDDA had not spent the R3 million that had been rolled over. She commented that while the GCIS was addressing the questions of language and mass distribution, the documentation and format of their information is often too sophisticated for the market and this needed to be dealt with. She asked how the IMCSA's objectives help ensure the transformation and procurement agendas of the government. She enquired when the South African Brand would be ready and why it would be run separately from the Proudly South African campaign.

Mr T Trew (GCIS Deputy CEO: Strategy & Content Management) answered that the government was involved in social marketing, its target being all citizens and the bulk of its was universal. The GCIS had to ensure that its expenditure was not inequitable and it had to utilise all the various mediums. He responded that the shift from print to broadcast in the first half of 2003 was because of the implementation of the guidelines. The increase in radio media was met by a corresponding decrease in print media.

Ms I Mackay Langa (GCIS Deputy CEO: Centralised Service) explained that the fraud case had been before the court by was remanded until 3 February 2005. The amount that was fraudulently stolen was R700 000 and the rest of the money was accounted for.

Ms N Legoabe (GCIS Chief Director: Provincial and Local Liaison) stated that MPCCs were an inter-governmental project that the GCIS co-ordinated. This meant each government department, as a service provider, was responsible for providing its own resources. With the new MPCC's the GCIS had made preparations that the local municipalities would own the buildings and they would ensure that there was an infrastructure available for the tenants. She suggested the possibility of departments sharing resources and explained that the local municipalities would manage the MPCCs.

Mr J Netshitenzhe explained that the unauthorised transfer of money was a transfer to the IMCSA account before it had been official established as an independent body. A letter of warning was written to the CEO of the IMCSA as a disciplinary measure, but the transfer had been done in good faith so no further disciplinary steps were necessary. He clarified that while there had been over expenditure on one programme, the GCIS had under spent in others and that it would have balanced out if the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) allowed money to be transferred between programmes. He stated that the shift in advertising arose out of a philosophical shift and that the content of the advertisement campaigns needed to identify target markets and the best mediums to use for these markets. In the past the government departments tended to only use print media, which was ineffective for reaching the lower income groups. He explained that while the GCIS originally assisted the Pan-African Parliament, the Parliament needed to develop its own communications structure. He added that the GCIS could not interfere without being mandated or invited to assist.

He agreed that the new international investments should broaden the base of entrepreneurs through partnerships and that the GCIS had done a campaign in conjunction with the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) to explain the benefits and purpose of Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) to investors. In the next round of MPCC developments the GCIS had to ensure a buy in by National Treasury and the Department of Home Affairs (DHA). This was necessary to ensure that a condition of the grant that Home Affairs received for infrastructure included the proper servicing of the MPCCs. National Treasury had agreed to allocate more funding to DHA on the condition that they work with GCIS to provide services in the MPCCs. The question of the need for legislation to force departments and other spheres of government to provide services to MPCC was being addressed. He stated that there had been an improvement in communication on a provincial level but there was still a problem on the municipal level. GCIS was in negotiations to ensure that there was one system of communications methodology for all levels of government.

Ms Y Johnston explained that IMCSA had assisted African countries such as Kenya and Zanzibar with their national branding. She said that it benefited South Africa to assist to market Africa as an international destination. She explained that the "South Africa: Alive with Possibility" brand could not be used indiscriminately and that those international investors that did use it were in partnership with South Africa. She agreed that IMCSA should clearly and effectively communicate BEE. She elucidated that as Proudly South African and Brand South Africa had different mandates they were run separately and that procurement was part of Proudly South African's mandate. The development of the brand was complete.

Ms K Mkonza responded that one of their objectives was to investigate the culture of readership in South Africa and that the use of mother-tongue languages did increase readership. They were therefore looking to assist programmes that published in local languages. They were in the process of having their documentation translated into other local languages. She explained that they had not yet dealt with the issue of access to television.

Ms L Lloyd (CEO: MDDA) stated that, together with the Department and Sentech, the MDDA was attempting to get a mapping of the areas that do not have access to a public broadcasting radio station and of people who do not have access in their home language. This would help the MDDA prioritise the areas it would look at. She explained that the 2002 roll over occurred because the money was only deposited in March. The 2003/4 roll over was money that was approved by Treasury on the basis that there were tenders out for projects that had not yet been awarded. There was also R2,2 million that had not been committed to specific projects as the board had approved projects but these first needed to be assessed before the money would be committed. The money was subsequently spent.

Mr Pieterse (ANC) commented that some community radio stations were successful while others were not. He informed the IMCSA that Members were going overseas empty-handed and that they needed promotion material. He asked how the GCIS covered illiterate, semi-literate, deaf and hard of hearing people. He expressed his unhappiness with the GCIS's failure to reach their representivity target for disabled people. He commented that there was often no communication between municipalities and their constituencies and asked if the GCIS saw a role for itself in assisting in the setting up of communication structures. He commented that there were far too few copies printed for distribution by the departments.

Mr S Kholwane (ANC) stated that GCIS officials in certain areas were not in a position to fulfil their functions due to the political nature of the areas and asked if the GCIS had a structure to find alternative means to communicate to these areas. He asked what the relationship between the MDDA and other advertisers and marketers was and if the MDDA could influence the transformation of these advertisers and marketers. He asked to what extent the MDDA used community radio and print to advertise its services.

Mr M Mohlaloga (ANC) asked why the leadership of the country was not publicised in MPCCs and why the role out of MPCCs was occurring slowly. He asked what the difficulties in the roll out were. He added that emphasis should be placed on marketing South Africa in Africa, as South Africa's image in Africa was important.

Mr Oliphant (ANC) asked that the levels of support given to community radios be made available to the Committee. He asked for clarity on the number of projects being funded in the provinces as the report gave conflicting figures of 31 and 35. He enquired if IMCSA's ten-minute video on South Africa was available and asked for the full copy of the IMCSA's research to be made available. He commented that the municipal managers of the MPCCs needed to be trained. He enquired about the strategy of the GCIS in relation to its learnerships as it was suggested that the GCIS has not yet taken full charge of the learnerships. He commented that quality of services delivered at the MPCCs needed to be focused on. He said that the GCIS should use its leverage to assist the Committee in the transformation of the advertising and marketing industry.

Ms Smuts asked why Parliament should authorise GCIS over-spending and what happened to the overspent money.

The Chairperson asked what was constraining the roll out of MPCC and if there had been a study on the issue of availability of televisions in households.

Ms Mackay Langa responded that the GCIS was taking its disability target seriously and was specifically targeting its advertising at disabled people. She answered that progress had been made in municipal government communications and that the South African Local Government Association (SALGA) and the Department of Provincial and Local Government and GCIS were meeting with metros to assist them. She explained that their learnership programme would commence in April 2005 and that the budget for it was ready. There would be ten learners a year and they would be based at Head Office in Pretoria. There had been seventeen to 24 interns previously but this number would be reduced to ten to fifteen and the programme would be retained, as it was a requirement for students to qualify.

Ms Legoabe responded that there would be 61 MPCCs in operation by 31 March 2005 and five or six others were in various stages of completion. The MPCCs were not mushrooming as they were about the decentralisation of government. The challenges were the availability of resources and not compromising the quality of service. The Public Services Committee recognised that legislation was necessary to ensure that Departments moved into MPCCs. The publicising of leadership was not simple as the set up of the MPCCs played a role. All GCIS offices did have pictures of the leadership available and it would be suggested that they are put up in public places. She answered that the location and development of MPCC caused problems as Departments did not get involved with the co-ordinating structures but then wanted to use them.

Mr Trew answered that the GCIS was looking at platforms of communication to use for all citizens but that all their major publications were available in all forms and that they were investigating many other forms, especially face-to-face communication. He answered that the reach of broadcasting media was limited not only by the lack of infrastructure (ie the reach of the signal) but also by poverty, as people did not have televisions or radios. He explained that the MDDA was playing a role in encouraging the transformation of the industry. Its brief was to promote the development of small media and to offer advertisers and marketers a medium to use for promotion.

Ms Legoabe added that there were political reasons why some MPCCs did not publicise the leadership of the country.

Ms Johnston responded that the South African Tourism Board was putting together a library of footage of South Africa and that the IMCSA was dependant on the completion of this for the footage for its video. She explained that the video production would be a slow process, as each Department would be taken into account but that it would be widely distributed when finished and would also be modular, so its various sections could be used separately. She explained that all the IMCSA's resources were available to anyone who wanted to market South Africa abroad. She answered that the 2010 Soccer World Cup was a major opportunity to market Africa and it was being turned into an African Event. She agreed to make the IMCSA's research available to the Committee.

Ms Mkonza explained that the nature of the relationship that the MDDA has with the advertising industry was focused on the building of capacity within community media to interact on a professional level with the advertising industry. The Advertising Media Association of SA (AMASA) and the Advertising Media Forum (AMF) were assisting the MDDA in conducting workshops with community media on what the needs of the advertising and marketing industry were. The MDDA was looking at setting up a national agency that addresses all community radio stations. The MDDA had launched a national structure that looked at issues of distribution She added that a major problem with the communication media was its management capacity.

Mr G Reddy explained that there were 29 provincial projects but there were also six national projects, which accounted for the 35 projects. There were also two national radio projects.

Ms Lloyd said that they had asked AMASA and AMF to put out to the media planner the adoption of a medium to mentor after each media project. She agreed to e-mail the Committee the amounts the MDDA gave but she added that these figures were not known publicly. The average grant was R250 000 and radio grants tended to be less as the Department tended to make radio equipment available, making community radio better resourced. The MDDA did ask the media it assisted to advertise their services but most were reluctant as the increase in applications could lead to a reduction in the grants. The South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) did make free public service announcements about the MDDA.

Ms Mkonza said that the SABC did have figures available of their coverage and that the Department was looking into the areas without access to broadcasting.

Mr Netshitenzhe answered that GCIS made information available in brail and on tapes for people with disabilities and that the disability employment target was for 2005, so they were making progress to reach this by 2005. He expressed confusion around the availability of resources to Parliament question but said that he would raise it with their resources centre. The issue of free political activity needed to be addressed by local and provincial government and the political parties concerned. The GCIS has had to consider the safety of its offices in certain provinces. The target for MPCCs was 284 in ten years. He agreed that marketing in Africa needed to be increased as research by the South African Tourism Board found that most tourist spending was by Africans. The government's decision to open missions in all African countries should assist further marketing. He answered that the linking of MPCCs to constituency offices needed to be dealt with on the ground. The Financial Manager of GCIS had wrongly assumed that he could transfer funds from projects that had underspent and done so, and that was why there was overspending.

The meeting was adjourned.