Presidential National Commission role

Meeting report

The Chair presented the Director General’s apologies for not being able to attend the meeting.

Mr Mokwining Nhlapo, COO of the Presidential National Commission (PNC), briefed the Committee on the Apex Project 3, which entailed implementing the ISAD Plan and increasing uptake and usage of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) by government and individuals. The Apex Project 3 was one of the 24 Apex priority projects of government, announced by the President in his State of the Nation Address in February 2008.The project was decided on because of SA’s low uptake and usage of ICTs. Underpinning the project was the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in particular its plan of action.

The main sub-project of the Apex Project 3 was the connectivity of the Dinaledi Schools using Sentech’s Wireless Broadband Network. The project was aimed at creating Information Society hubs in the coverage areas of the Dinaledi Schools network. The project would be implemented by the Forum of South African Directors-General ISAD Cluster which was established as one of the institutional mechanisms in February 2008 when Cabinet approved the ISAD Plan.

In building SA’s information society the ISAD Plan had to be aligned with the WSIS Programme. The programme set out targets and lines of action. Mr Nhlapo listed the targets to be reached by 2015 and the action lines. He continued by elaborating on information society hubs. An information society stood on four main pillars: infrastructure broadband connectivity, content development, appropriate applications (e-Education, e-Health, e-Government etc) and lastly skills development. The information society hub needed to address developmental challenges like unemployment and poverty whilst creating opportunities for accelerated implementation of Local Economic Development (LED) initiatives and programmes.

Mr Nhlapo stated that Sentech had been allocated R500m for the Dinaledi Schools connectivity. Based on the cost of the technology 150 base stations could be set up and it would cover 233 Dinaledi Schools. The Committee was provided with the criteria with which schools were chosen and given a breakdown of schools chosen in each of the nine provinces.

Mr Nhlapo provided detail on all the sub-projects of the Apex Project 3. He concluded by stating that on the 26 June 2008 the ISAD Inter-Ministerial Committee, amongst others, would have to make decisions on recommendations made by the Cluster on learner-computer ratio and whether government institutions could be subsidised or provided with connectivity for free.

Discussion
Mr R Pieterse (ANC) stated that the Presidential National Commission used to be a standalone project. Somehow it had found itself to be integrated within the Department of Communications (DOC). The Director General of DOC was also the Chairperson of the PNC. Mr Pieterse said that it would seem as if PNC was doing the work of DOC.

Mr Pieterse referred to the presentation on Apex Project 3 and stated that policy needed to be developed up front and not at the time the work was to be done. He asked whether the Policy Unit within DOC still existed. Mr Pieterse felt that someone else other than the policy unit was developing policy.

Mr Nhlapo replied that the PNC had its own staff and did its own work. It also had its own strategic plan. He stated that the DOC and the PNC were two separate structures but that they supported each other. He added that he sat on the Executive Committee of the DOC. The DOC had a policy unit and it had its own staff complement. He noted that on the rolling out of programmes, certain policy decisions needed to be made such as the e-Education Policy. Research had shown that SA was doing well in terms of its IT policies, the challenge was implementing the policies. 

Mr M Kholwane (ANC) asked how far SA was in implementing the WSIS resolutions. He referred to the subsidisation of connectivity costs and asked if it would be connected to the e-rate that was set out in legislation. A way needed to be found for subsidisation to be 100% as 50% was considered not to be good enough. Mr Kholwane asked what the policy was on the ratio of computers at schools for students. He asked if the Thusong Service Centres referred to in the presentation were already in place or had the projects still to kick off? Finally was the DOC in its current form able to assist the provinces especially since many municipalities lacked capacity?

Mr Nhlapo replied that the process of implementing WSIS resolutions had started. SA needed to develop a plan, that is, an e–Strategy. There was a need for a developmental plan. The result of implementing WSIS Resolutions was SA’s e-Health, e-Schools, e-Villages etc. The Apex Project 3 was a big way to have national impact. The e-rate subsidy was in the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act. It would seem that there was a need for the subsidy to be 100% as some schools could not even afford to contribute 50% of the costs. The policy was quiet on the computer per students ratio. The President had launched the Thusong Service Centres and a blueprint did exist.

Mr Nhlapo said that in an attempt for DOC to assist provinces, the Minister had asked the provinces to appoint two MECs. This would assist with interaction between the DOC and the provinces. The DOC had an Intergovernmental Relations Unit, which would also engage with provinces. He added that a municipal conference was to be held in KZN in August 2008.

Adv P Swart (DA) was concerned about the implementation and maintenance of the plan. He felt it to be very money intensive. He also noted that there were shortfalls in funding the sub-projects that had been outlined. He asked how the shortfall problem was going to be addressed. Specific reference was made to the R500m rollout figure for Sentech and the accompanying shortfall of R200m. This was besides additional costs for maintenance.

Mr Nhlapo referred to the funding shortfalls and said that it was not only up to DOC to fund projects. Other government departments had made commitments to assist with funding.

The Chair asked what the PNC was. He was under the impression that it was a presidential think tank. It was also supposed to consist of individuals from the private sector, outside of government, to help shape broad policy. The PNC would have both a national and an international level. He referred to the work being done by the PNC and said that it was ordinary DOC work. He asked whether the PNC had met in the last year. Was there a PNC staff complement? If the PNC was doing the work, what was the DOC doing? Who was in the PNC? Had the PNC reported to the Committee since before 2004? He said that he was not to clear on what the PNC actually did.

Mr Nhlapo responded that the President had announced the establishment of the PNC and the Presidential International Advisory Council on Information Society and Development (PIAC on ISAD) in 2001. The structures were intended to assist government in developing an information society. CEOs from Vodacom, Telkom and so on would sit on the advisory council. The Secretariat of the PNC advised government. Mr Nhlapo noted that the DOC was a line department. The Department of Public Service and Administration was also involved.

Mr Nhlapo explained that the Director General of DOC was also the chairperson of the PNC. It was the PNC that co-ordinated the ICTs of government. Mr Nhlapo was the COO of the PNC Secretariat. The PNC did supporting work. It had its own strategic plan and looked at building information society broadly. Co-ordination between government departments such as DOC, Education, Arts and Culture, was needed and the PNC was performing this function. The DOC had different branches and projects and the PNC was the sixth project of the DOC. The PNC had a staff complement of 35 people. The PNC had not met in the last two years but had made a recommendation to the President to reduce the size of the PNC in order to advise on ICT matters.

The Chair responded that if the PNC had not met in the last two years what were the guidelines for its strategic plan? He asked who the principals of the PNC were and whether its 35 staff members had been approved by the public service. The Chair noted that whatever was presented by the PNC in this meeting would be operationalised by other persons. What did the PNC do on a day to day basis? He pointed out that the PNC was no longer in the Presidency since it was now based within the DOC.

Mr Nhlapo responded that most of the projects emanated from the ISAD Plan. The role of the PNC was to facilitate and not to implement. The PNC did not have funding. The role of the PNC was to advise. The work of the PNC was to co-ordinate different players. The PNC had looked at international models, such as Ireland, for how it should function. The conclusion was that the PNC should assist and advise government. The DPSA had approved the PNC structure. The PNC was Programme 6 of the DOC. The PNC was nevertheless separate from the DOC.

Mr Kholwane asked whether the DOC could not do what the PNC was doing. He felt that the DOC could perform whatever the PNC was doing. He asked who had approved the report that had been presented to the Committee. He asked if the PNC Secretariat had presented the report without the approval of the PNC Council, since there had not been a meeting in two years.

Ms L Yengeni (ANC) asked what the difference between the work of DOC and that of the PNC was. She asked for an explanation of what each could or could not do and how the two entities reinforced each other. She asked why the DOC could not do the work that the PNC was doing. She asked for an organogram of differences between the two entities for staff and so on.

Mr K Khumalo (ANC) said that perhaps members would get better answers if the Director General was present. The issue about what the roles of DOC and the PNC were, needed clarification. A broader debate was needed.

Mr Pieterse said that commissions had specific mandates and that they had limited a life span. He pointed out that PNC was tasked with co-ordinating yet it was taking up more and more tasks. Mr Pieterse was not convinced by the explanations that were given. What was the PNC’s mandate and what was its lifespan?

Ms Yengeni suggested that perhaps the Director General should be called upon to answer some of the questions raised by members. Perhaps Sentech could also be invited.

Mr Nhlapo replied that that he had presented on Apex Project 3 whereas much of the questions pertained to the PNC structure itself. He conceded that perhaps the presentation should have been more on the PNC structure.

The Chair said that the Committee had expected an in-depth report on the PNC and its work. He was concerned that the PNC had been absorbed as a sub-unit of the DOC. The PNC was hence not a presidential national commission. He stated that a meeting would be scheduled with the Director General, the PNC and Sentech. He noted that perhaps the PNC needed to re-conceptualise itself.

The meeting was adjourned.