GCIS and Media Development & Diversity Agency 2008/09 Strategy & Budget

This premium content has been made freely available

Communications and Digital Technologies

06 May 2008
Chairperson: Mr I Vadi (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Government Communication and Information System’s priorities for the 2008-11 encompassed Millennium Development Goals, the Accelerated and Shared Growth Initiative, the 2010 FIFA World Cup and the Five-Year Strategic Agenda for Local Government. In the short to medium term, GCIS would anchor communication on the Apex Priorities to ensure viable and practical implementation of government programmes targeting the poor. Members asked questions about the Thusong Centres, imbizos and the organisation’s review process. The Committee also debated the organisation’s shareholder compact agreement and controversy surrounding the resignation of the CEO of the International Marketing Council. Another issue raised was whether the CEO of GCIS should also be the government’s spokesperson.
The Media Development and Diversity Agency outlined their strategic approach for the period 2008-2011, the legislative and environmental context within which the MDDA was placed, its programme focus areas and the organisational and resource implications. Given its aim of the upliftment of underprivileged communities, the challenges were identified as limited funding, the unsustainable print media market, limited broadcast frequency, and lack of capacity. Questions were raised about the entity’s funding model, skills capacity and programmes for disabled people. Members complained that many people were not properly informed about government programmes because community newspapers were either published in English or Afrikaans and ignored the remaining nine indigenous languages.

Meeting report

Government Communication and Information System (GCIS) briefing
Mr Themba Maseko (CEO) said that GCIS’s priorities for 2008-11 were to provide communication on mandated targets for 2014 (Millennium Development Goals), the Accelerated and Shared Growth Initiative for South Africa (ASGISA) targets, hosting the 2010 FIFA World Cup and Five-Year Strategic Agenda for Local Government Communication. Greater emphasis in the first year of the Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) would also be on giving communication support to the Apex priorities mentioned by President Thabo Mbeki in his State of the Nation Address. The budget allocation for 2007/08 was R384 million and by March 2008, the organisation had spent R380 915 million, which amounted to 99, 1% of the total budget. Over the MTEF period, overall spending was estimated to increase at an average annual nominal growth of 9,8%, mainly due to GCIS and IMC activities in preparation for the 2010 FIFA World Cup as well as government’s initiatives in second-economy interventions. The department’s baseline has been increased by R28, 702 million (2008/09), R50, 144 million (2009/10) and R66,040 million (2010/11).
Finally, the strategic plan would guide the organisation in fulfilling the mandate to strengthen the government-wide communication system in order to meet government’s communication needs and the public’s information needs, so that the people of this country could play an active role in improving their own lives and the welfare of the country.

Discussion
Adv P Swart (DA) asked who had developed the idea of a shareholder compact and what such an agreement would entail.
 
Mr Maseko explained that the concept was spearheaded by National Treasury and promoted to the entity via the GCIS audit committee. In essence, the shareholder compact agreement was designed to clarify the roles and responsibilities between the accounting department and the two agencies it was responsible for: the MDDA and the International Marketing Council (IMC). Lastly, he reasoned that since GCIS was the mother department and that the head of GCIS was also the accounting officer for both agencies, it was necessary that all components understood their responsibilities and role

Adv Swart requested GCIS to shed some light on the media speculation that Ms Yvonne Johnston’s resignation was linked with the IMC’s marketing of a political leader.
 
Similarly, Ms L Yengeni (ANC) was also interested in the circumstances surrounding Ms Johnston’s resignation.

Mr Maseko cautioned that he could not divulge much because there was an agreement between the Minister of Communications and the IMC executive committee that the details of the settlement and termination of the CEO’s contract would be kept confidential. Nevertheless, he indicated that the basis for the termination of the relationship was largely because of disagreements on the strategic direction of the IMC. Finally, he acknowledged and appreciated the positive contribution made by the CEO during her stay at the helm.

Adv Swart alleged that the breakdown in the relationship between GCIS and the CEO of IMC was primarily due to the latter’s decision to market and promote the leader of the ruling party.

Mr Maseko dismissed the allegation and blamed the media for fabricating stories. He clarified that while there was nothing wrong with the IMC interacting with political parties, it nevertheless did not have a mandate to promote individual political parties.

Ms Yengeni examined whether Mr Maseko had the ability to occupy two positions - that of spokesperson for government as well as CEO of GCIS. She argued that his performance would be more productive if he focused full time on the latter job because all government departments already employed their own spokespersons

A member of the ANC enquired about the progress of the GCIS review into the functioning of both offices. He added that the public viewed Mr Maseko mainly as a government spokesperson rather than as the CEO of GCIS.

Mr Maseko replied that the Committee had debated this issue before and hoped that the review would clarify the roles of both positions. He disclosed that he spent 70% of his time acting as government spokesperson and the remaining 30% as CEO of GCIS. He explained that his time was divided in such a manner because he could rely on the assistance of his deputies in the GCIS to manage the entity. On the other hand, he remarked that the role of the government spokesperson was essentially a one-person job.

Ms Yengeni interrogated whether GCIS found it easy to access information from other departments and whether there was a forum for the GCIS to interact with department spokespersons.

Mr Maseko replied that GCIS seldom had trouble accessing information from department spokespersons. He announced that GCIS met with all government spokespersons on a quarterly basis to discuss issues of common interest. Conversely, he complained that GCIS did not have the authority to force department communication units to respond to media enquiries but could only urge them to do so.

Ms Yengeni was displeased with the last statement uttered by Mr Maseko. As a result, she questioned whether the position of government spokesperson was in fact necessary if department communication units ignored his request and did their own thing.
 
Mr Maseko reiterated that he generally experienced no problems when acquiring information from Directors General, spokespersons or Ministers. However, he admitted that it was problematic in cases where there was bad communication or no communication with a department. This was due to the fact that he did not have authority over any department spokesperson because they all reported to their respective Ministers. Also, he described his current role as that of cabinet spokesperson because he only spoke to the media after cabinet meetings. He claimed that in between cabinet meetings, he actually did not have the authority to speak on any matter in government. He maintained that he did not have the authority that came with the post (of government spokesperson) as was the case in the United Kingdom where all communication was centralised in the Prime Minister’s Office. He suggested that the capacity of the government spokesperson be beefed up if he was expected to communicate on all issues pertaining to government.

Ms Yengeni commended GCIS for making significant improvements to the Thusong Centres. Simultaneously, she criticised government departments for not being visible enough at the centres and informing the public about government’s programmes.

Ms Nebo Legoabe, Deputy Chief Executive Officer: Provincial and Local Liaison, GCIS, confirmed that GCIS continued to encourage government departments to view the centres as service delivery platforms for their departments. Accordingly, GCIS had entered into service level agreements and developed memoranda of understanding with departments to persuade them to use the centres to either provide actual services or to inform the public about their services. Finally, she mentioned that the Departments of Social Development, Home Affairs, Labour, Trade and Industry and the South African Social Security Agency were represented at the majority of centres.

Ms Yengeni asked about the GCIS review process.

Ms Baby Tyawa, Deputy Chief Executive Officer: Strategy and Content Management, GCIS and MDDA Board Member, explained that a reference team had been set up to review the institution. Its main aim was to determine what kind of communication strategy was needed for the country and whether the CEO of GCIS should also be the government’s spokesperson. She mentioned that the review would also include an assessment of the skills and competences of the different heads of communications.

A member of the ANC noted that GCIS had hoped to establish 283 Thusong Centres to correspond with the number of municipalities in the country. Currently there were only 123 such centres. As a result, he voiced concern that not all areas were being serviced and that there were varying levels of service. Also, he enquired what the process was for establishing a centre in a particular area.

Mr S Nxumalo (ANC) echoed the claim that certain areas were under-serviced by GCIS. Further, he mentioned that he only found out that GCIS existed when he became a member of parliament.

Ms Legoabe explained that the establishment of a Thusong Centre was directly aligned with the Integrated Development Plan (IDP) of a municipality. Municipalities either budgeted or acquired different sources of funding (including municipal infrastructure grants) for the implementation of the centres. She confirmed that 123 centres had been established. In terms of its rollout programme, GCIS planned to set up 20 such centres per annum and had exceeded this target by seven in the current financial year. In large sparsely populated rural areas, a hub was established together with satellite centres that were linked to the hub.

A member of the ANC urged the organisation to be more visible.

Mr Maseko answered that the approach was always to profile government programmes and not GCIS itself. Nonetheless, he conceded that this policy could be reconsidered in future.

Mr Nxumalo questioned why Members of Parliament were not invited to imbizos, particularly when they took place in their constituency.

Ms Tyawa acknowledged that the GCIS communication strategy was lacking and that MPs had never been invited to attend such gatherings. However, she was optimistic that this would be rectified and quoted research, which showed that citizens wanted their local councillors and MPs involved in these events.

Adv Swart insisted that MPs should, as a matter of courtesy, be informed about imbizos taking place in their constituency. However, he maintained that imbizos were about face to face communication between government and the people, and as a result, MPs should only be invited and not allowed to participate in such gatherings.

Ms Yengeni advanced that imbizos should not only be a platform where complaints were heard. A mechanism should be created to compel the Executive as well MPs to follow up their engagement with communities and ensure that their particular concerns were addressed.

The Chairperson commented that GCIS should consider re-branding itself and suggested that they adopt a “catchier” name. He claimed that people did not understand the acronym let alone what the organisation did.

Mr Maseko noted the comment and stated that it would be part of the current discussions taking place in the organisation.

Ms M Morutua (ANC) expressed concern that the work done by the GCIS did not reach the poor and disadvantaged, especially those living in rural areas. She asked if GCIS intended to fill its 27 vacancies, which amounted to a 5% vacancy rate.

Ms Tyawa admitted that there were still too many people who were completely marginalised from some form of access to publications, radio and television. GCIS continued to expand its scope as well as sensitize other departments that have communications units to do the same. She quoted data, which showed that at least 3% South Africans did not have access to government communications.

Ms Ilva Mackay-Langa, Deputy CEO: GCIS, answered that GCIS did intend to fill these vacancies and gave a breakdown on how this would be achieved.

Media Development & Diversity Agency (MDDA) Strategic Plan and Budget
Mr Lumko Mtimde (CEO) highlighted the achievements to date which included awarding grants totalling R55,2 million to over 172 projects and the provision of bursaries to 42 different radio and print managers. He pointed out that the MDDA had received unqualified audits for its financial management ever since its establishment. The challenges faced by the MDDA were limited funding (this included the duration of existing funding agreements that were due to expire in 2009), the inflexible regulatory requirements such as audited financials and tax certificates for groups that were in their formative stages, the generally disempowering environment and unsustainable market within print media, lack of skills within the socio-economic groups targeted by the MDDA, and the limited broadcast frequency and the limited exposure of the small commercial and community media to advertising revenues and marketing skills. The CEO cited the upliftment of underprivileged communities and the improvement of marketing skills as well as financial and production management as key areas in the MDDA’s 2008-2011 strategic planning.

Mr Lumko Mtimde (CEO) said that t
he MDDA continued to focus on ensuring that all citizens can access information in a language of their choice and contributing to the transformation of media access, ownership and control patterns in South Africa.Since its formation, the MDDA has achieved some major milestones including (as at 31 January 2008) the awarding of grants to the amount of R55.2m to over 172 projects, the provision of 49 bursaries to different radio and print media and the receipt of unqualified audits since its establishment.

The rationale for the MDDA strategy was predicated on the fact that historically disadvantaged communities were deprived of access to information that could assist them to participate in socio-economic improvement and democratic processes of the country. Current media was still insufficiently diverse with respect to reflection of the concerns of especially the socio-economically marginalised communities. Approximately 80% of the SA population was African, yet a huge number of indigenous language media products were written and produced in English. This was in direct contradiction to the notion of recognising all languages on an equal basis as prescribed by the Constitution.

The major challenges facing the MDDA included the limited funding that it received, the inflexible regulatory framework, the generally disempowering environment in print media, the lack of skills amongst the socioeconomic groups that are targeted by the MDDA, the limited broadcast frequency and the limited exposure of the small commercial and community media to advertising revenues and marketing skills. In this context the MDDA has developed a set of interventions to mitigate against these risks.

Discussion
Adv Swart congratulated the entity for receiving unqualified audit opinions over the years. He questioned whether the organisation had the necessary human resource capacity to do all the things it intended to do.

Mr Mtimde responded that the organisation was mindful of the skills that it needed, and was therefore beginning to capacitate itself accordingly in order to respond to all the challenges.

Adv Swart sought additional information on the organisation’s R20 million partnership with the Department of Communications.

Mr Mtimde clarified that the organisation was in discussions with the Department of Communications about implementing the programme production project. The project was intended to build the programme production capacity at community broadcasting level and increase the production of a whole range of programmes targeting themes such as rural development, health and education.

Mr R Pieterse (ANC) asked why the Agency placed a greater focus on the electronic media rather than the print media. In addition, he complained that many people were not properly informed about government programmes because community newspapers were either published in English or Afrikaans and ignored the remaining nine indigenous languages. Equally, he criticised community radio stations for not fulfilling their mandate. He contended that better funding was needed for community radio stations; otherwise they would continue to have a commercial approach.

Mr Mtimde replied that the Agency had a tendency to focus on community radio stations because it often encountered printing and distribution challenges with regards to community newspapers. However, the Agency was trying various interventions in order to uplift the community newspapers and there were plans underway to fund one community newspaper per district.
 
Mr Chris Moerdyk, MDDA Board Member, admitted that the Agency was working within certain constraints and could therefore not support all the projects that it wanted to. Personally, he believed that community newspapers were unsustainable and argued that a hub needed to be established to ensure cooperation across all media in terms of sourcing print advertising. In conclusion, he emphasised that community newspapers needed to be persuaded to share their resources.

Mr Mtimde mentioned that the Agency did not know what to do when struggling community media were taken over by established commercial players. Up to now, the Agency had not intervened in such circumstances and there was ongoing debate whether its mandate required other interventions to protect, promote and ensure the development and diversity of the media beyond mere funding.

Ms Jayshree Pather, MDDA Project Director, stressed that the Board recognised the importance of promoting indigenous languages. To illustrate this commitment, the Board recently took a resolution to pay for the translation costs of local newspapers. The bulk of the applications to the Agency showed that applicants preferred to publish in either English or Afrikaans. Many cited the perceptions in the market place and the unwillingness of advertisers to advertise in indigenous newspapers as a reason for this.

Mr S Nxumalo (ANC) asked the Agency to expand on its
awarding of grants to the amount of R55.2 million to over 172 projects.

Ms Pather clarified that since its formation, the MDDA had spent just over R55 million funding 172 projects. The grants were directed at a combination of radio, newspaper and magazine projects.

Adv Swart questioned whether the Agency had managed to spend all the money that it was allocated in the previous financial year.

Mr Mtimde replied that the Agency had never had a situation where it did not manage to spend the money that it was assigned in a financial year.

Ms Yengeni asked the reason for the Agency’s request for a budget increase. Secondly, she asked how the Agency ensured that projects that received funding from it, were sustainable.

Mr Mtimde replied that the budget increase request was informed by the great demand in applications for funding from the Agency. Also, the Agency’s
mandate went beyond what it was currently doing and hoped that the increase would help the organisation in meeting its obligations.

He said that when projects applied for funding, the Agency insisted that they provide a sustainability plan, which illustrated how they intended to survive over the next three to five years.

Mr Pieterse asked if the Agency worked with disabled people.

Mr Mtimde answered in the affirmative. However, he conceded that more needed to be done in this area.

The Chairperson asked if the Agency had a 50/50 funding model with the private media industry. He also pursued whether the print media had pulled back in terms of their contribution.

Mr Mtimde clarified that it was not necessarily a 50/50 funding model. In addition, he explained that the print media had not pulled back on their contribution and that the Agency’s five year agreement with this sector was scheduled to expire in the following year and should be renewed.

Ms Tyawa agreed that it was not a 50-50 model. Unlike the government contribution, the print and electronic media did not link their contribution to inflation. As a result, the Agency felt that it should renew and discuss the service levels agreements with the private sector. There was a feeling that after five years of existence, the Agency should be systematic in how it created partnerships.

Mr Mtimde indicated that broadcasters were obliged to contribute to the MDDA in terms of the Electronic Communications Authority whereas contributions made by the print media were derived from a process of negotiation.

International Marketing Council (IMC) Strategic Plan briefing
The Committee was disappointed by the attendance of only a single board member for the meeting. They pointed out that one board member was not at all sufficient for the meeting to go ahead. They reasoned that the delegation, which consisted only of the management of the IMC could not be held accountable for anything as they were responsible for the operational side of the business only. In line with being consistent with their practice across all departments and public entities, that there had to be a sufficient number of board members for meetings dealing with strategic planning and budgets, the delegation was not allowed to deliver its presentation.
 
The meeting was adjourned.

Share this page: