DCDT 2020/21 Quarter 1 performance & progress made on reconfiguration of entities; with Minister & DM

This premium content has been made freely available

Communications and Digital Technologies

18 August 2020
Chairperson: Mr B Maneli (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Committee met on a digital platform for a briefing by the Department of Communications and Digital Technologies on its 2020/21 first quarter performance, at which the Minister committed to ensuring that proposed internet censorship regulations would not infringe on the constitutional rights of South Africans to freedom of expression. The period for public comment had been extended to 30 September.

The Department had achieved 14 (45%) of its targets in the first quarter, with the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown leading to 17 targets not being met. A digital economy master plan had been drafted and would be finalised by the end of October. Engagements had begun with the State Information Technology Agency (SITA) and the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) on the national e-government strategy, to align the implementation of the e-government road map as defined in the Act.

The Minister addressed issues that had appeared in the media, such as allegations made against her by the South African Broadcasting Corporation, and said the Department had met with the Post Office regarding the distribution of social grants, and would employ certain interventions.

The Department indicated that certain targets had not been achieved because it was a new entity and was in the process of revising its organisational structure. Most departments were affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, and had to work from home. The Department had incurred a budget cut of R111 million, and its revised 2020/21 Annual Performance Plan would be tabled before the end of August. International membership fees had exceeded the budget due to the significant depreciation of the rand against major foreign currencies. Additional funds had been requested from the National Treasury to cover the shortfall.

Committee Members raised concerns over the regulations for online content in the draft Films and Publications Amendment regulations, which would potentially infringe on the constitutional right of freedom of expression. They were concerned about the SABC board resignation, and the reasons for this. They said they were receiving emails and petitions from members of the public who were concerned that Vodacom, MTN or Telkom would be able to set up masts on private property. Questions were raised over the South African Post Office’s capacity to distribute social grants, and the fact that the Department had not achieved many of its intended goals. Other issues discussed included the SABC bailout, and why the government did not do all its information communication technology procurement through the State Information Technology Agency.

Meeting report

Minister’s overview

Ms Stella Ndabeni-Abrahams, Minister of Communications and Digital Technologies, said the Department would present on its organisational performance and the work it had committed to doing during the first quarter of 2020/21.

It had achieved 14 (45%) of the targets set by the Department of Communications and Digital Technologies (DCDT). Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown, certain targets could not be met through remote working. 17 targets had not been met.

On the targets which had been met, such as the Department’s reconfiguration, the merger and other processes, the DCDT would support the digital economy and a position paper had been drafted and presented. A digital economy master plan had been drafted and would be finalised by the end of October, and the Department was still on track with this plan. The information communication technology (ICT) strategy for small, medium and micro enterprises (SMMEs) needed to be reviewed, and a concept document had been developed. The feasibility study of SA Connect Phase 2 was in the process of being finalised, and the service provider had committed to complete the study by the third quarter. Consultations on cyber security had begun, given the migration to digital platforms.

Engagements had begun with the State Information Technology Agency (SITA) on the national E-government strategy to align the implementation of the e-government road map, as defined in the Act. The e-services concept document had been drafted. A digital and computer skills implementation programme had been developed, and consultation had taken place with the relevant stakeholders. The Department would give an account of the final programme when it reports to the Committee in the next quarter. A framework for the integrated economy and society model had been developed, which accounted for 45% of the Department’s target, and 55% was related to its organisational structure.

Areas of underachievement included the integrated DCDT digitisation strategy, the country’s position with the Universal Postal Union (UPU), the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) bill, the data and health policy, the performance management system for the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA) counsellors, the implementation of the SABC turnaround plan, the state IT infrastructure company bill, and the finalisation of broadband services.

Minister Ndabeni-Abrahams said there were issues in the public domain which she would like to talk about. She would like to highlight two things that she had seen in the media about the Post Office and the SABC. About the allegations made against her by the SABC, the Department had met with the Post Office and would employ certain interventions. It would consider the legalities, the shareholder and what could be done by the board. She requested that the Chairperson allow the DCDT to give the committee a blow-by-blow account of what had transpired if there was enough time. The SABC had not made any reference to the Department on the popular retrenchments stance, but she was talking about this because it was an entity for which the Department was responsible. It was finalising filling the vacancies on the Post Office board, and would give feedback to the Committee next week after the process was finalised.

Discussion

The Chairperson asked Members if they had any questions or comments.

Ms P Van Damme (DA) said she had two questions for the Minister. There had been a resignation from the SABC Board, and she had not informed the Committee, as she understood – unless she had informed the Chairperson and he had not had the opportunity to present it to the Committee. Had she received the resignation letter, and what were the reasons provided in this letter?

Ms Van Damme addressed the Committee, saying that at the beginning of the term it had committed to the resolution that in the event of someone resigning from the board, the Committee would conduct an exit interview. This was because the SABC had historically been connected with strife. It was important to know exactly why the person resigned.

The regulations published on the Film and Publication Board (FPB), which require online distributors to register with it, was problematic. When the Bill was put before Parliament during the last term, the Committee had specifically removed this requirement, because it felt this would result in a form of censorship. However, it had now been brought back by regulations, which was very problematic. The legislature had specifically said it did not want this. She knew that this was still open for public comment, and would quite likely change, given the public outcry about it. She wanted to give the Minister the benefit of the doubt. Was it the way that section had been specifically drafted that was problematic, and did she intend to stick to it, or would she change its requirements. The way it was drafted meant that if a member of the public wanted to publish something, they would need to go through the FPB. People had YouTube -- they record videos -- and if someone wanted to post a tweet or a Facebook post, it would require the person to go through the FPB. This was crazy. She was just trying to understand if this was something the Minister was intent on sticking on, or if she was going to take on board opinions and public comment and remove it.

The Minister said she could not respond to details in the media, and that was why she had requested that the Department meet with the Committee again to provide further details on the Post Office. Unfortunately, she was not the source of what was happening in the media, so she would not be able to go blow-by-blow on that, and she wanted to apologise for that up front.

Ms Van Damme had expressed her discomfort at what she perceived to be an intention to abuse the constitutional rights of people and their participation. She would appreciate it if Ms Van Damme could be specific about which regulation created this perception. The Department had extended a period for engagement, and she would like all those who were listening and the participants to make their voices heard, because the regulations had been drafted and gazetted so that people could make inputs. It was out of these inputs that the final product had been issued. Right now, it was a draft. She would call on everyone who had concerns about that to be specific, and then make their inputs in the process that was defined by law.

Ms Van Damme raised a point of order so that the Minister could answer her question properly. The Minister had said she did not know which regulations she had been speaking about, but had then said that there would be an extended period for engagement. She just wanted to understand which regulations the Minister was speaking about.

The Minister said this was for clarity, and a point of order. As she had said, Ms Van Damme should be specific about the regulation. That was why she had said Ms Van Damme’s perception was that it infringed on constitutional rights. She had not said she did not know the regulations. She had said “when published.” The Member had the answers to the question she was raising about what had transpired in Parliament and the Bill that was to be approved. She had asked if she could be specific on that regulation. She had called on those who were interested to make inputs on the gazetted draft regulations on the same matter. The period for this had been extended for maximum participation. All inputs would be considered for final gazetting of the regulations. This was what she had been saying earlier on. She apologised if that had not come out clearly.

Mr C Mackenzie (DA) said he was not sure whether it was just the Minister’s choice of language, as Ms Van Damme had alluded to, or if she was precise in the use of her language. It appeared that the policy directives the Minister had been issuing and the actions she had taken of late had contained some very inflammatory language. The two week recess had not been a recess for him, because he had spent all his time answering questions, emails and petitions from people who were terribly concerned that Vodacom or MTN or Telkom were going to pitch up in their rose gardens and stick up an aerial -- and this had been because of the policy directive the Minister had issued to ICASA, which had no counsellors as far as he was aware. The Minister really needed to clarify this, because this involved private property rights.

Did the Minister, in terms of her policy directive, support the constitutionally enshrined property rights of people who owned their own homes and their own gardens, and who were terribly afraid that every 500 metres there was going to be a mast? He had defended that position himself and had welcomed the Minister’s policy directive and the rapid deployment guidelines, because he thought they all agreed that these things were essential, and the way they had been explained made a lot of sense. He asked the Minister to provide clarity on this and the way she saw ICASA implementing this particular aspect of the rapid deployment guidelines.

Did the Committee have clarity on the ICASA counsellors? Did the Minister accept that Parliament actually had the oversight over her Department and her particular role, and that her powers were in fact limited when it came to that?

The Post Office issue was giving him grey hair. It was like the Minister was playing musical chairs with peoples’ lives. He knew Mr Andrew Nongogo (Acting Group Chief Executive Officer) personally, and he had been of great assistance to him in the last term and this term, and he was great at the Post Office. He was a really nice person and he would seem to be a sort of victim being pushed around in a battle that the Minister was having with the board she had appointed. What was really terrifying about the Post Office was that when Mr Mark Barnes (former SAPO CEO) had left, he had left an organisation that was not only capitalised, but had R835 million in the bank. It was very focused on what it was going to do in terms of social grants distribution and being an e-commerce hub for the region. He and the board had been very focused, and then the whole thing had collapsed. One now had absolute chaos at the Post Office. One had demoralised staff again, and the track and trace system did not work because the website was down. Nobody could tell when this website was coming up again. People had had street deliveries in one area, but they had not had post box deliveries for the last six months, and he was sure the Post Office was not going to give people a discount on post boxes.

One should not blame COVID-19 for anything, because everyone had managed to work their way around it. The Minister had said she had made certain interventions, and he would like to know what these interventions were, other than trying to remove the Chairperson of the Board illegally -- and she really should not do this. These were the people that she had put in place to drive her vision and her government’s vision, and they were doing it. If they had told her that the Post Office could not distribute social grants, it could not. It could not distribute the COVID-19 grant. It did not have the cash on hand, the security to maintain social distancing, or adequate sanitation, and there were hundreds and hundreds of vulnerable and desperate people who had turned up for these grants.

The board had been quite correct when it said that the Post Office was not ready to distribute these grants. Instead of giving them time, or making some sort of alternative arrangement, the Minister had gone ahead and pushed her vision and imposed her will on the Post Office Board to do what she required. Why would the Minister do that? Why would she overreach her powers like that and interfere in the operational procedures of the Post Office? He did not understand how the entity could go from being focused very clearly on delivery, to being almost completely derailed. It just looks to him like ego, and he would appreciate her answers.

He thanked the Minister for her courage in making herself available for this meeting, as he was sure she could have excused herself quite easily.

Minister’s response

The Minister said so many allegations had been about SAPO. She assumed this was because of the media inquiries. She had requested that the Committee afford the Department the opportunity to make a presentation on what was happening and the engagements it had had with the Post Office and the Post Bank. Once the Department had finalised these matters, she would request that it make a presentation.

Mr Mackenzie had made comments about overreach, interference and imposing. If he felt strongly that there were such actions by the Minister, there were platforms to make that Minister account, so that she could know where her powers were. As she had said, she would not be able to respond to what the media had reported, but the Department would provide the Portfolio Committee with reports after it had finalised the matter. Unfortunately, the Department had no control over what the media did, and could not be jumping up and down because of the media. It had to follow the protocols and steps as defined within the law.

About the Post Office stability, she believed the Committee had been given an account of when Mr Barnes had left, and why. She would not be able to respond to this. The stability of the Post Office and ensuring that they were able to deliver on the public service mandate, was a great priority to the Department. As a shareholder, the Department had the responsibility to ensure that its strategic importance found resonance with the socio-economic impact of what the Post Office was expected to do. The report would be presented to the Committee in due course.

Mr Mackenzie had questioned the language used. She asked him to bear with her, as English was not her home language. If the language was offensive, it was the language that had been advised by those that had written it in government, so she would also apologise on their behalf.

Mr Mackenzie said he was sorry to interrupt the Minister on a point of order. The Minister was misleading the House. He had not said the language was offensive, but that her choice of language was very wide and open to interpretation, which was why people were obsessed with the idea that cell phone companies were coming to put masts in their gardens. It had been her choice of language – he had not said it was offensive.

The Minister apologised for the misrepresentation, saying she had not got the gist of what Mr Mackenzie had been saying.

On the view that people had that the Department wanted to invade their properties, the DCDT had gazetted a draft for comment so that people could make inputs and seek clarity on this. Matters that had been included had been checked by a legal team, and it was the language that was used according to them and state law advisors. Again, if there were concerns, input must be submitted accordingly so the Department could respond -- and of course, the Department had no interest in invading peoples’ lives. It was the Department’s responsibility to ensure at all times that it enhances and promotes peoples’ lives and privacy, and at the same time it should not hinder the processes of rapid deployment that needed to be undertaken. The Department had considered what the rapid deployment sought to address. The regulations were made not only by the DCDT, but also by the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA) and others. It would await inputs by all Members and participants, and changes would be made to address peoples’ concerns. She gave an assurance to all that the Department would never undermine the property rights of owners, and it was not the first time that it was undergoing the deployment of infrastructure. Nobody could just come and break everything. That would not happen. South Africa was a constitutional country.

Further discussion

Ms N Kubheka (ANC) thanked the Minister for the clarity she had provided, saying she was somewhat concerned about the Post Office. The Minister had said she would intervene and give the Committee feedback. She hoped that this would not take long, because now she had tried to find some solutions by engaging with the board. This was very important because the people from the rural areas, in particular, were relying on the Post Office. It seemed that there was a challenge on the Minister’s side with retrenchments. Was she saying that there was no debate or engagement within the Department or with the shareholder on this? The SABC played on the side of the media while the Department was trying to engage one another.

The Minister said she wanted to assure the Committee that the Deputy Minister, Ms Pinky Kekana, had been reporting back to the Department. The Department was engaging with the SABC through the Deputy Minister. She had met with the unions and the board, and was in the process of finalising her recommendations. The Department had even issued a statement to clarify the importance of the turnaround strategy that it had approved. The Department was engaging on the matter.

Ms P Faku (ANC) said the Committee understood the effect of COVID-19, and the Department could not meet all its targets. Of course, there were areas that needed improvement, as it had achieved less than 50% of its target. The Committee appreciated the effort, but more was expected from the Department. She was happy that the Minister had raised the issues relating to the Post Office. The Committee should allow the Minister to come back again to explain what was happening with the R350 grant. Did the Post Office have enough capacity to deal with the matter? One of the things she appreciated was that the Post Office could cover rural areas where there were no banks. For people in rural areas, this would be the most effective way to get the grant. When the Minister returned, she should also tell us what was happening with the SAPO board. The Committee also needed a full briefing by the Department on the SABC.

The Chairperson said he was sure Ms Faku’s questions would be answered in the report to which the Minister had referred.

The Minister said the Department had met with the Post Office and Post Bank, and would be engaging with the South African Social Security Agency (SASSA) now on the challenges faced with the project. It could give a clear account after this engagement, because it required three stakeholders to come together.

The Chairperson said the Committee had made it clear that it would discuss the matter, because it had received a referral. At this point in time, it did not have a formal referral from the Speaker, including the Announcements, Tablings and Committees (ATC) on the resignation, and how the Committee should react. Once this matter was formally referred to the Committee, it could follow up on the point Ms Van Damme had raised about exit interviews for people that resigned from boards. What the Minister was saying was that other matters still had to come before the Committee, and it could engage in detail once that had happened. That would also refer to SAPO, and would require a proper discussion after the report was presented to the Committee. The Committee should appreciate that there had been an extension for the comments people needed to make formally. He told Mr Mackenzie that he knew the Committee was receiving the same communication from the public who were concerned about the 5G deployment policy.

The Minister said Ms Van Damme had asked whether she had informed Parliament about the resignation, and said she had done this. The Department had said that Parliament must follow the processes that needed to be followed. People were saying the rapid deployment policy that the DCDT had issued was 5G, which was why she urged people to read it. The Department had not issued any 5G policy in this country. What was open to the public was the rapid deployment policy and regulations, which spoke to deploying the fast-tracking of infrastructure for 3G, 4G and 5G, when 5G would be licensed. She stressed that it was not a policy for 5G. The Department had directed a study to look into the economy and the social impact of 5G so that by the time it dealt with licensing, the Department would be aware of the entire ecosystem. Most municipalities had complained about the fact that while they were busy digging for water, the Department came to dig for fibre. This sought to address the issues that cut across different spheres so that there could be agreement and they could work as one government.

Mr Mackenzie thanked the Minister for her explanation, adding that for someone who was not a native English speaker, her eloquence was very good. He supported rapid deployment as she had outlined it, but had just thought her choice of language had been unfortunate. He was glad that clarity had been provided and trusted that it would be reported on. However, the Minister had not answered his question on the ICASA counsellors -- whether this had been finalised, and if the Minister had withdrawn her rather strong position on that. He thanked the Minister for her candidness, saying he appreciated it.

The Minister said that the Department had received the letter from Parliament on 13 August, and it needed to undergo certain internal procedures before it reached her office. She emphasised that she would respond to the letter sent by the Speaker. If one read the draft policy on rapid deployment, it did address the provision of consultation between property owners and licensing. These documents had been drafted, based on law, and would allow space for identification of blind spots and for public comments. This would then be taken into consideration by the established bodies, following which the Minister would sign what had been approved.

Ms Van Damme said she had asked for the reasons for the resignation, and if the Minister was aware of them. When the Committee dealt with it, it would not deal with the reasons. She wanted to say something which would guide the way in which the interaction with the Minister should proceed in future. She did like the way the Minister had answered her and Mr Mackenzie. Her tone had been one of aggression and someone who wanted to fight. They had both been very polite in asking her questions, but the way she responded and spoke like this -- Ms Van Damme made a physical gesture demonstrating this – was as if she was speaking to someone stupid, which was not right. What they had both asked was the intention of the regulations. The intention, or unintended consequences of legislation, was sometimes bad. With the rapid deployment regulations, was the intention that anyone could erect masts on private property? If it was indeed a matter of language, which was not the intention, they were asking about the regulations and if they had not been passed. The regulations had been amended when they were before Parliament, because this was not the intention. The regulation, as it was written, would have had unintended consequences. For example, if she posted something on Twitter, she would have to go through the FPB first. What she was asking the Minister was whether the unintended consequences would be amended, once the final regulations were passed. She understood that the regulations were open for comment, but what we were discussing here was what was out there. Was what was out there, the intention? It was a simple question. Could the Minister answer this without a tone of belittling and arrogance? Members were here to do a job and had asked her very politely if she could answer the question.

The Minister said she would like to apologise to Ms Van Damme for feeling that she was belittling in her responses -- she was only seeking to provide clarity. She promised that she would learn from her on how to be polite. There was no intention to undermine constitutional rights, and she had said this from the very beginning.

Mr Mackenzie said on 1 September, the South African Post Office would be making a presentation to the Committee. He asked if they could get an undertaking from the Minister on whether the SAPO issues would be dealt with at this particular meeting. This would be very useful and progressive. It would meet the need for urgency on these issues.

The Minister said she wanted to apologise to Mr Mackenzie. It was processes that were not dependent on the DCDT alone. The Department would meet with the Social Development Department, the National Treasury and Cabinet, and she needed to depend on this. Once this was finalised, she would report to the Committee. If this matter was finalised before 1 September, the report would be there on 1 September.

The Chairperson thanked the Minister and asked the Department to make its presentation to the Committee.

DCDT: First quarter performance report

The Minister handed over to Ms Nomvuyiso Batyi, Acting Director-General (ADG). Mr Farhad Osman, Chief Director: Strategic Planning and Monitoring, DCDT, and Ms Joy Masemola, Chief Financial Officer (CFO), DCDT, were introduced to the Committee

Mr Mackenzie said the last time he had checked, Mr Oscar Shelembe had been appointed as ADG of the Department, and asked whether this had changed.

Ms Batyi said as from the beginning of August, she was the ADG.

The Chairperson asked the Department to proceed with the presentation.

Mr Osman said that from 1 April to 30 June, the Department had committed to achieving 31 Annual Performance Plan (APP) targets, and 14 had been fully achieved, four partially achieved, and 13 not achieved. The targets achieved were:

  • A workplace skills plan which had been approved and submitted to the Public Sector Education and Training Authority (PSETA) and the Media Information and Communications Technologies (MICT) SETA;
  • A draft Republic of SA position for the World Telecommunications Standardisation Assembly (WTSA);
  • The digital economy masterplan;
  • The ICT SMME strategy concept document for local intellectual property (IP) and innovation by SMMEs;
  • A feasibility study for Phase 2 funding and the establishment of the cybersecurity incident response team (CSIRT).

The national e-government strategy and roadmap, a draft digital and future skills implementation programme and integrated digital economy and society indicator model had been developed. [See slides for more details].

17 of the 31 targets had not been achieved. These included the organisation structure and service delivery model; the integrated DCDT digitisation strategy; the country’s position for the UPU; the South African Broadcasting Corporation SOC Ltd Bill, the data and cloud policy, implementation and the Presidential Commission on the Fourth Industrial Revolution (PC4IR) report; and the state-owned enterprise (SOE) oversight and performance management system for ICASA Councillors. [See table on slides for more details].

He explained why targets were not achieved, and said it was a new Department which was in the process of revising its organisational structure. It should have developed a draft service delivery model by Quarter 1, but it was now looking at consolidating an approach with other departments that were also affected. The Department had also had capacity issues, and had sought technical support through a contract appointment to speed up the process of reaching the targets. It was on track to have its implementation structure approved.

The integrated electronic communications digitisation strategy development had not been achieved. This involved a move towards a paperless organisation and digitising the DCDT’s processes. The Department needed to perform a business needs analysis towards the digitising of processes and an architectural report. The IT unit, and most of the Department, had been forced to work from home due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which was why it had been unable to do the business needs analysis. In this quarter, the Department had already commenced with several branch workshops.

The RSA position should have been developed, approved and advanced, but this was out of the Department’s control due to the impact of COVID-19. This would be done once the conference reconvened. Public consultation should have been done on the Research Bill, but many key officials had been drawn into supporting the COVID-19 directions issued by the Minister. Much effort had gone into this, and it had had a certain knock-on effect on the achievement of certain targets. Public consultation could not take place, because the Bill had not been submitted to Cabinet for public consultation and approval. The data and cloud Policy should also have been submitted for public consultation and approval. The Department had amended the policy, but the initial preliminary input from key stakeholders had not been timeously provided due to the COVID-19 lockdown, as it had affected accessibility to these stakeholders.

The Department had managed to fill only six positions at the 4IR Project Management Office (PMO), because of a lack of suitable candidates. These positions had been re-advertised to widen the search and fully achieve the target.

The ICT public entities had not achieved most of their targets, because the evidence submitted by the Department did not meet the requirements stipulated in the proposed portfolio of evidence for the Quarter 1 target, to qualify as fully achieved. This was due to a technicality, because evidence had not been provided in time, causing it to be marked as not achieved. Evidence and documents that required approval had had to be manually submitted.

The implementation of the performance management systems was not achieved because the performance agreements between the management systems for ICASA Councillors had not been approved.

The quarterly analysis of the SABC’s turnaround implementation plan was not achieved because the monitoring task team had been established only at the end of the quarter.

The first quarter analysis report could not be completed, and this was being expedited.

There should have been consultation on the Post Bank Bill. Cluster meetings had not taken place, which haddelayed the submission of the Bill to Cabinet and for public consultation.

The State ICT Infrastructure Company Bill, and the State IT Company Bill business cases, should have been submitted for approval. There had been delays because of capacity constraints. The business cases had been drafted, but not finalised. Due to COVID-19, the procurement process had been delayed to a certain extent. The Department was trying to get the necessary support to have both business cases finalised and approved by the end of the quarter.

The World Radio Conference (WRC) report was developed and submitted for approval and submission to ICASA. This was first submitted manually and then had to be resubmitted digitally. By the time the reporting process was complete, the digital submission could not be provided as proof.

Broadband services should have been monitored for connection to 850 sites, but the Department had managed to connect only 724 sites. Infrastructure had been completed, but services were not actuated because of power supply issues, technical challenges with the network, and accessibility due to the COVID-19 lockdown. All these services would be monitored.

The Digital Transformation Centre (DTC) agreement should have been finalised with the relevant stakeholders. Cabinet approval was not initially factored into this process. The agreements would be signed with the relevant stakeholders.

The 5G policy analysis report was submitted to ICASA, and the detailed analysis should be submitted early in Quarter 3.

The Department had incurred a budget cut of R111 million.

The Department’s revised 2020/21 APP would be tabled before the end of August, and would be presented to the Portfolio Committee. It hoped to re-table the budget by the end of this week. It had been able to reach the majority of its annual targets, and would catch up on the delays it had experienced in the quarter.

Financial information

Ms Masemola said the initial appropriations budget issued to the Department had been R3.4 billion. Special adjustment cuts were made for R111 million, and the adjusted appropriation had amounted to R3.3 billion. Budget cuts had occurred mainly in goods and services and the Broadcasting Digital Migration (BDM) project for R78 million.

The expenditure at the end of Quarter 1 amounted to 20.8% against the adjusted appropriation, and this was mainly for the cost of salaries and transfers to the entities. Most spending was affected by the lockdown, so many payments had not been processed.

Under capital assets, commitments from the previous financial year had come through. Transfers were also made to pre-approved entities through the National Treasury. [See presentation slides for table indicating transfers and subsidies]

International membership fees expenditure had exceeded the budget due to the unforeseen and significant depreciation of the rand against strong foreign currencies. R32 million was initially budgeted for membership fees, but the amount had increased to R37 million. Additional funds had been requested from the National Treasury to cover the shortfall. 24% of the transfers had been made, and three membership subscriptions still needed to be paid.

The Department had initially submitted the audit action plan, where findings from both Departments had been combined, but it was later decided that the progress of the different Departments should also be shown. [See presentation slides for the table indicating progress against the audit action plan for the 2019/20 financial year].

94% of the Communications Department’s findings had been addressed. The irregular expenditure found to be understated had been corrected.

There had been a finding that targets and measures in the performance report had not been well defined or specifically indicated. These had been corrected and resolved. Performance information in the management letter had been resolved.

Workshops had been attended by both Departments on broad-based black economic empowerment (BBBEE) findings, and regular consultations were made with the Department of Trade and industry (DTI) to ensure compliance. The common findings were related to matters on BBBEE verification, commitments, accruals and related parties.

Discussion

The Chairperson asked the Committee if they wanted to engage on the presentation.

Mr Mackenzie said the discussion of the Department’s targets had taken place before. The Department either achieved or did not achieve its targets, and in this case, they were not achieved. It had an opportunity to say in the comments section why it had not achieved the targets, but when it started to put in partial achievements, it kind of skewed the picture, because one needed to see an overview of what the Department had achieved and what it had not achieved. Going forward, this should be borne in mind.

How did the draft digital economy master plan fit into the 2016 ICT White Paper? What was the Department referencing there? What precepts were guiding that work? With SITA, a particular tender stood out, where digital devices had been delivered to schools in the Eastern Cape at hugely inflated prices through AYO Technology solutions. The presentation had referred to the tender and procurement portals at SITA, but why was all government procurement not being driven through SITA under the emergency regulations? Why were contracts being awarded outside of government when there was a very capable procurement office that was able to get these devices delivered at the lowest possible cost to the fiscus and taxpayer? What could be done to fix irregularly awarded tenders? When was the Department’s organisational structure going to be completed? They were almost halfway through the new term.

Ms Batyi said that it was not only the SABC that had not been recognised for targets being met. Other entities had also been affected and the challenges faced concerned timing, and when the report had been approved by the Office of the Director-General. This was why the Department had made references to partially achieved goals.

There were issues around the tender totals at SITA, and she did not want to pretend to be an expert on what had been reported in the newspapers. She undertook to follow up with SITA on what had happened. The Department had been in consultation with SITA over the various government departments that had faced issues with migration in MS Teams, and other matters. She did not want to speak off the cuff on this, when there might be a much more intelligent response to it from SITA.

On the draft digital master plan, there were various other departments that were required to develop a master plan to ensure the economy was stimulated. The Department set a deadline to finalise this by the end of July, but online meetings had not been aligned, and the proper consultative processes could not be arranged.

Ms Z Majozi (IFP) said most targets were not achieved because they involved consultation, and this took place during COVID-19. How many targets would the Department be able to achieve in the fourth term? Had it considered that the SABC might need a bigger budget going forward? If this budget was increased, could the Department indicate this? What had been the root cause of the audit findings?

Ms Batyi said she wanted to clarify that the work the SABC was doing for the purposes of COVID-19 was public service announcements -- it was supposed to ensure that the public was informed of what was happening during the COVID-19 period. The SABC was not alone in the media space, and the Department had received an application for a bailout from the SABC which was currently being analysed with the National Treasury. Other broadcasting stations had also lost revenue, given that minimal advertising had taken place during this period. The Department was in the process of amending its APP. All government department’s had been given this leeway because of the challenges it faced during COVID-19.

Bills had been approved as early as February, but they had not been prioritised because of the cluster briefings and Cabinet discussions. Everything was about COVID-19, and the Bills and targets had therefore not discussed, which was why there had been non-achievement.

Ms Kubheka asked about the targets showing that the Department’s issue was lack of public participation. Was there any other way around this, or did they need to wait for COVID-19 to pass?

The Chairperson asked the Department to give clarity on audit issues and sustainability. He asked whether the teams working on resolving this were affected by the reconfiguration, to establish whether the same people would be working on it. The SABC had been briefing the Department on a monthly basis, but the Department’s report said it was not in a position to analyse the reports in this quarter. There was a problem with this.

Ms Batyi said monthly reports and meetings with the SABC were two different things. The meetings offered feedback on the SABC, and were related to the R3.2 billion that had been given to it as a bailout. This was a three-way meeting between the Department, the National Treasury and the SABC, and everything was on track with this. If one talked to the Department of Public Service and Administrations (DPSA) right now, the DCDT was one of the leading departments in finalising the process. There were certain steps that needed to be taken with the organisational structure, and the presentation addressed the step that was not completed during Quarter 1. The Department had up until March 2021 to finalise its organisational structure. She pointed out that the Department had established its own time frames for meetings and consultations.

The only thing guiding the audit team in correcting the audit plan was to put in place gatekeepers to ensure the same mistakes were not repeated, but although these controls would be put in place, as could be seen over the past few months, issues in supply chain management were constantly recurring in organisations. The Department was tracking this, and making sure policies were updated. The last policies had been signed in March, but with COVID-19, these policies had had to be aligned with the pandemic and be digitally based, not paper based.

Mr Jabu Radebe, General Manager: Department of Communications, added to Ms Batyi’s comments, saying that the digital economy master plan addressed aspects of the ICT White Paper, and referred to issues of industry growth. It needed to address the promotion of SMME development, skills in the sector, research and development, and the coordination of state institutions and the private sector to deliver on industry growth.

Ms Batyi said she had received a letter from the Committee, and the Department was looking into the possibility of meeting with it. Depending on its own internal processes, it would respond not later than next Friday.

Ms Majozi said that when it came to COVID-19, the SABC had not asked for this -- just like any other department had not. Hours had been taken from the SABC when Ministers had to respond. It seemed as if this was not being considered, which meant the Department did not have good relations with the SABC. What was being considered for the SABC to be able to manage and sustain themselves?

Ms Batyi said the Department had received an application by the SABC due to the unforeseen circumstances around COVID-19. Other people in the media space had also been affected. Other broadcasters had also sought a relief fund and had put forward their proposals. The SABC had made a proposal to receive R1.5 billion.

Mr Mackenzie asked Ms Batyi when a report could be presented to the committee on SITA and the issues around the Eastern Cape. He complimented Ms Batyi on her confidence in addressing the Committee’s questions, and said it seemed as if she had been in her role as Acting DG for years.

Ms Batyi thanked Mr Mackenzie for his compliment, and said that the Department would write to SITA for a response. The Department would respond to the Committee by next Friday.

Ms Kubheka said the Department should play its role and take accountability. There should be a follow-up meeting with the SABC.

The Chairperson asked for clarity on the two applications of R140 million, which was said to be for the Government Communication and Information Service (GCIS), the DCDT and the SABC. There was a point made on the losses the SABC had experienced due to COVID-19, and it would be difficult to apply for a bailout. Almost all sectors were applying for relief from the COVID-19 Fund. Was there consideration of this? The Committee had said it did not want the SABC to ask for a bailout again.

Ms Batyi said the Department received the application for R1.5 billion from the SABC only for the COVID-19 pandemic. The question on advertising was better placed to be addressed by the GCIS.

Ms Van Damme said she could not recall the Department ever having a permanent DG, and asked if this position had been advertised and if not, when it would be advertised. If it had not been advertised, why not?

Ms Batyi responded that the permanent DG position had been advertised from the previous Sunday. The deadline for applications was 21 August.

The Chairperson summarised the meeting’s discussions, and said the Committee would wait for the outstanding reports from the Department. Even if the Committee did not receive a report from SAPO, it would still want the Minister to brief the Committee.

The Chairperson made brief closing remarks, saying that the Committee had a responsibility to perform oversight and governance.

The meeting was adjourned.

 

Download as PDF

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

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: