Proclamation of Telecommunications and Postal Services Department: Department Public Services & Administration briefing; Communications Sector Analysis: Prof Jane Duncan briefing

Meeting report

Proclamation on new Department of Telecommunications and Postal Services and entities: Department of Public Service and Administration
The Chairperson noted the apologies of the Minister of Public Service and Administration. She reminded Members that the work previously handled by the former Department of Communications was henceforth to be divided between the Department of Communications (DoC) and the new Department of Telecommunications and Postal Services (DTPS). The Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) would brief the Committee on the respective roles of the two departments and their entities.

Mr Kenny Govender, Deputy Director General, DPSA, also noted the apologies of the Minister, who had other Ministerial commitments.

He noted that, following the appointment of the National Executive by the President on 26 May 2014 (President’s Act 135 and 136), various administrative and legal steps were taken to give effect to the new executive portfolios. The National Micro Organisation of State Project (NMOS) 2014 was established to provide, among others, for support, assistance, and provision of guidelines to new departments. The NMOS’s mandate was essentially to give effect to the Presidential proclamations on the establishment of new departments. He noted that designing of organisational structures implied a realignment, but not a total restructuring.

Mr Govender noted that there were several legal matters. He referred the Committee to Proclamations 43 and 47 of 2014, and the Appropriation Bill of 2014. Proclamation 43 permitted the transfer of functions and resources within a financial year during which existing departments were retained as holders of current votes. The Appropriation Bill of 2014 would allow the National Treasury to transfer funding between departments. Proclamation 47 permitted transfer of the administration of legislation and entities from one Minister to another, in terms of section 97 of the Constitution.

Mr Govender noted that the Department of Communications would deal with functions related to the Government Communication and Information System (GCIS) and it would have the following entities:
- Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA)
- South Africa Broadcasting Corporation (SABC)
- Brand SA
- Media Development and Diversity Agency (MDDA)
- Film and Publication Board (FPB)

The newly created Department of Telecommunications and Postal Services would deal with functions related to telecommunications, and would include the following entities:
- Broadband Infrastructure Company (Pty) Ltd
- South Africa Post Office Ltd
- Telkom SA Ltd
- National Electronic Media Institute of South Africa (NEMISA)
- State Information and Technology Agency (SITA)
- Universal Service and Access Agency of South Africa (USAASA)
- Universal Service and Access Fund (USAF)
- Sentech Limited

Mr Govender briefed the Committee on the progress of clusters as at 7 August 2014 (see attached document for full information)

Discussion
Mr G Davis (DA) indicated that people might be worried about divergence and overlaps stemming from the convergence of entities and suggested that clarity was needed on whether the executive was not taking a retrograde step. He said that the Committee had not received any explanation as to why it was necessary to have two departments, requested comment specifically on that, and also asked that any overlapping mandates should be pointed out to the Committee.

Mr Govender replied that he was not in a position to comment on political matters, and his duty was to implement the political decisions. Speaking to the question of possible overlaps, he pointed out that there was a 30-page document, which was currently with the legal team, identifying areas of potential overlaps and the NMOS was doing its best to solve the matter. To give but one example, he said that there was a Memorandum of Understanding that would be signed by ICASA and the new departments that would clarify their areas of operation.

Mr M Ndlozi (EFF) seconded Mr Davis’s questions, and asked whether Mr Govender could provide his opinion on the political decision to establish two departments. He also sought clarity on what was meant by the realignment of organisational structures of departments.

The Chairperson said that the Committee must acknowledge that it was burdened by political decisions, but reminded Members that Mr Govender, who was not a politician, should not be expected to answer questions that should rather be answered by the Minister, who was a politician.

Mr Govender replied that he could answer questions related to administration.

Mr Davis said that the message that he was getting from this engagement was that the separation of two departments was expedient, but unworkable. He remarked that it was difficult for administrative staff to implement the political decisions. He therefore asked that the Chairperson request the Minister to come and explain why the creation of two executive portfolios was deemed necessary.

Mr H Nkoana (ANC) said that the issue that needed clarifying related to the ANC’s decision to create the two departments, shortly after elections. He commented that there should be no problem if the government decide to rearrange a department, although he agreed that such political decision ought to be justified.  

The Chairperson agreed, and said the Committee needed time to engage with the presentation at a political level, and the opportunity would be created to do so.

Mr Ndlozi also sought clarity on the separation of the departments, asking how this would impact on the national resources. He stated that he wanted to test how the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) was rearranging the departments.

The Chairperson reiterated that the question being posed by Mr Ndlovu could not easily be answered by Mr Govender, and that this matter should rather be elevated to the political space, where there could be free engagement with the Committee. She stressed that she was not implying that Mr Ndlozi was raising an irrelevant issue.

Mr Govender reiterated that the DPSA had a mandate to ensure that all administrative aspects ran smoothly. The DPSA’s stance on the matter was that divergences or overlaps could be resolved through legislation. He said that a request could be made to the State Law Advisors to provide a legal opinion on ongoing matters, and this opinion would be shared with the Committee or released as a public document.

The Chairperson remarked that she believed that if the issues raised required the promulgation of legislation, the Committee would have time to look into this to check whether it would lead to the issues being resolved. She suggested that there was a need to convene a seminar in which the Committee could engage with the DPSA Ministry on the political issues that needed clarity.

Sector analysis (Government Communications, Broadcasting, Film and Publications and Community Media): Professor Jane Duncan briefing
Prof Jane Duncan stated that it was a honour for her to be asked to present to the Committee. She explained that she was based at the University of Johannesburg where she currently taught journalism, but had more of a background in civil society than in academia. She noted that her presentation was based on the “Media Policy and Democracy Project” research, a joint collaborative research project between the Department of Communication Science at the University of South Africa (UNISA), and the Department of Journalism, Film, and Television at the University of Johannesburg (UJ).

The purpose of her presentation was to:
- suggest a framework for the Committee’s oversight and legislative work, including evaluation of portfolio organisations.
- propose a normative framework for the South African media system.
- analyse strengths and weaknesses in the South African media system, based on a normative framework.
- give an analysis of particular sector and legislative issues
- flag specific areas that required attention.

She drew the Committee’s attention to the democratic media model proposed by James Curran and the conceptual definition of the term ‘media transformation’ (see attached document).

She explained to the Committee the reality of the South Africa’s media system, twenty years into democracy, highlighting areas of strengths and weaknesses, election-reporting trends, and youth and media performance.

She further provided her observations on the performance of sectors and portfolio organisations, focussing on SABC and public service broadcasting, community broadcasting, community print, the Media Development and Diversity Agency, government communications, Press Council of South Africa, ICASA, and regulations of films and publications (see attached document)

Discussion
The Chairperson thanked Prof Duncan and said that the presentation was more enlightening. She remarked that she noticed that the Committee had been doing its analysis from a critical standpoint, but Prof Duncan’s presentation shed more light on key points that would help the Committee to conduct its oversight. She said more presentations were needed to equip the Committee with communications knowledge, as this would help the Committee to engage with the departments and their entities.

Mr R Tseli (ANC) agreed with the Chairperson and thanked Prof Duncan. He sought clarification on resolving the complaints lodged with ICASA, and asked whether publications were conforming to publication ethics, and, if not, how the Committee could intervene.

Mr Davis also thanked Prof Duncan and sought clarification on how broadcasting and publication were evolving in South Africa, compared to the other countries she had referred to in the presentation. He wondered if broadcasting in South-Africa was short-lived. He commented that the presentation said nothing about people with disabilities.

Mr Ndlozi also thanked Prof Duncan and requested more clarification on the legal opinion that Prof Duncan obtained relating to regulation of films and publications. He sought Prof Duncan’s opinion and analysis on the New Age newspaper.

Mr Ndlozi asked that Prof Duncan expand on her comment that the youth lacked interest in the media He believed that the youth was interested in the media, as well as South African politics. They were much involved in the protests, and commented on day-to-day politics via Facebook and Whatsapp.

Mr Ndlozi asked why policy broadcasting was given so little time, and asked how ICASA allocated the time slots to air the political parties’ campaign adverts. He was of the view that the allocation of the time on the basis of a particular party’s seats in Parliament was unfair. He suggested that all parties should be permitted to have equal time to air their views and adverts.

The Chairperson interjected and requested that Members must stick to the agenda items, and leave the politics aside.

Mr Ndlozi responded that the Chairperson had fundamentally misinterpreted what he was saying, and that what he had been trying to seek clarity on was the allocation of time. He also wanted more clarification on censorship. He asked why 20% of publications were dedicated to policy while 80% of time was allocated to non-policy publications.

Mr Nkoana commented on Mr Ndlozi’s remarks about the youth and said that the reason for the gap was that the media spent more time on publicising news on personalities and sensitive issues, but the youth were “too lazy” to read newspapers. However, the youth was actively listening to community radio stations. He commented that Prof Duncan neglected to investigate the influence of social media.

Mr Nkoana sought clarification on the comment made by Prof Duncan that societies tended to regress after their revolution, citing France as an example. He asked how the state could be less active in media, and if this was to be done, then asked how the state would communicate its policies and programmes.

Mr Nkoana asked for comment on how independent ICASA was, and what redress was available in cases where complaints had been lodged with ICASA and the Press Council, but some damage might already have been done to some individuals.  

Mr Nkoana remarked that once a country censored its media, it would be moving towards dictatorship that would, in turn, lead to civil war. He asked for comment whether South Africa should censor artistic works, particularly given the diversity of cultures, and the need to take their views into consideration. He would object to his 16-year old child watching explicit publications, and wanted to guard children of this age from being exposed to sex images. In the European context, however, he accepted that there might not be concerns about a child of this age watching explicit TV programmes. He supported non-censorship of publications, but cautioned against the risk of compromising cultures. He finally asked if it would serve any good to monopolise the media.

Prof Duncan apologised to the Committee that she would neither be able to answer all questions nor clarify all issues raised at this meeting.

She noted that she had not made reference to people with disabilities in her presentation because research on them was still underway.

She confirmed that huge volumes of complaints were filed with the Press Council.

She also confirmed that there was tremendous pressure on journalists to report accurately on the news, and that this was a problem.

With reference to the allocation of time, she stated that most of communications entities’ budgets relied heavily on government advertising, and that the ICASA regulations were drafted in the light of the Constitutional requirements. She said that she actually was making out an argument that these regulations did not allow for fair competition among competitors, because allocation of time was based on a measurement of the political capacity of particular parties. There was a shift in election regression. In the 2009 elections, more time was opened up for new parties, as compared to what had been done for the 2014 elections.

With reference to policy and non-policy publications, she agreed that it was far easier for journalists to report on events than reporting on policies, because policies were perceived by many viewers as boring, whereas publication of anything that was not related to policy was more compelling to them.

Prof Duncan stated that she had, on several occasions, engaged with the Committee on legislative amendments. There had been consistent attempts to hold the public broadcasting service to account. She believed that, in a democratic society, it was not justified to exercise control over the media.

Prof Duncan said that she would find out if the legal opinion could be made available to the Committee.

Referring to the question of the New Age, Prof Duncan said that it contributed enormously to diverse printing media. Similar newspapers to the New Age, funded by the State, were found in the Scandinavian countries. There would be no problem with these newspapers, provided that they were not infringing any national publications ethics.

Prof Duncan said that she did not recall saying that the youth was not concerned with the media. However, she had expressed the view that the youth believed that the media did not cover the topics that would help the youth understand the world they lived in. She had remarked that the TV was the most favoured medium.

Clarifying her remark about the role of government and communications, she clarified that she ha said that government should maintain the professional communications that it had, but there needed to be evenness on the quality of communications.

She concluded that media transformation was a challenge for allowing more equitable and representative communications. Government newspapers were controversial, because they did not meet the benchmark model. The Press Council had good people in its office, and there was no indication of bias in its rulings. These rulings had been used to minimise damages. The Press Council had adopted international norms and practices that were identical to the British ones. She urged that the media should not be censored, particularly in light of the demands of the Constitution, but that publications ought to be culturally-oriented and sensitive. With regard to explicit publications, she believed that there should be a transformation in the arts. It was evident that the arts remained oriented to the middle class.

The Chairperson said that she believed that Members of the Committee needed to hear more from Prof Duncan, to enlighten them further on issues.

Committee Minutes of 25 July 2014.
Mr G Davis (DA) said that the minutes were lacking in detail. They did not make reference to a matter that he raised on the report of the Public Protector, and the inquiry into the qualifications of the Chairperson of the SABC board. These issues were raised in the meeting of the 29 July 2014 and thus should be reflected in the minutes. 

The Chairperson responded that she was aware of that. This, however, was not a matter that was listed in the agenda, and was looked at after the presentations. Normally, minutes reflected the items placed on agenda. However, she said that the matter raised by Mr Davis would be answered by the legal team at the end of the meeting. She noted that the minutes were a short document of two pages.

The Chairperson then asked that the meeting be closed to the public. She noted that the Parliamentary legal team was going to brief the Committee on issues concerning the Chairperson of the SABC board.

The meeting was adjourned.