Budgetary Review and Recommendations Report (BRRR): Adoption; Media Diversity and Development Agency (MDDA): short listing

Meeting report

Budgetary Review and Recommendations Report (BRRR)

The Chairperson asked Members to look for issues of importance in the report before finalising the recommendations. The Committee Researcher and the Content Adviser should summarise the introduction of the BRRR for Members to understand before dealing with recommendations.

Mr M Maleka, Content Adviser, said that if the Committee went back to the previous presentation made that led to the process of BRRR it would be too blurred. It was a review process and before recommending a particular budget to a Committee it must be understood how it had performed in the previous financial year. That justified the large component of documents looking at the review of what the Department had done and the recommendations to assist the Department going forward.

The BRRR looked at the mandate of the Committee, the policy documents that necessitated the department to function, the State of the Nation Address (SONA), and the Medium Term Budget Policy Statement (MTBPS) and other documents that were relevant to the process so that by the time it arrived at the recommendations it would be able to align the predetermined objectives to the budget and the expenditure, and also able to review the recommendations extensively from the Auditor-General (AG) and any other Committee of Parliament that assisted in the process of ensuring that departments received their allocated budgets.

Mr S Nene, Committee Researcher said in terms of recommendations, the Committee focused on recommendations to both the Minister of finance and the Department. Once the National Assembly (NA) adopted the report it became a report the Minister must act upon. When drafting the recommendations, the Committee also looked at issues the Minister had not yet responded to. In the previous financial year part of the analysis included the evaluation of the Committee’s previous BRRR and the Minister had also responded to some of the issues highlighted in the report. The department would look at the response from the Minister, as well as the Committee recommendations and matters arising from the BRRR would be addressed in the Department’s Strategic Plan. The recommendations became a key feature of the report in terms of what the Committee had seen over the past financial year, whether it was satisfied in terms of what had happened in the sector, and in terms of expenditure, e.g. the fruitless and wasteful expenditure of R3.3 billion at the SABC.

The Chairperson thanked both Mr Maleka and Mr Nene for their resourcefulness. Members should have been aware of that information but the briefing was necessary because it was a new Committee in its first term and in the next term they would be well vested in that regard.

Discussion
Mr G Davis (DA) was not clear with the words that the Minister must respond because the first bullet point on the report stated that the departments and all entities must respond to the previous BRRR, to which they had not responded. The seventh bullet point stated that the Minister must respond to the 2012/13 BRRR recommendations, and it was repeated on the last bullet point of the page. It was confusing that the Minister must respond but there had been no response to the previous BRRR.

The Chairperson explained that the recommendations became resolutions and were binding to be implemented, but along the way there were developments of dividing the department into two. Therefore, it meant that they would carry on board whatever was not done into the new term and make sure they were working towards implementation.

Mr R Tseli (ANC) said it was a challenge when they had to restrict themselves to the performance of the then department because it was up to the Committee as to what kind of a new Ministry they wanted to see going forward. There might be some recommendations they wanted to put forward that were not necessarily looking at the performance of the then department.

The Chairperson said it was a mixture of those things but they were reviewing the past budget in terms of what happened, so what became the recommendations was what was supposed to happen. But also they had to be cautious as to how that was balanced.

Mr Nene said when there was a SONA it should be analysed it and given to Members to prepare them for what lay ahead on the department’s strategic plan and the budget but some of the things were included in the report. Those things were tabled to the Committee and the Committee posed questions to the department. The most unfortunate part about this process was that none of the Members were part of that process because they were talking about the last part of the 4th Parliament, which was the 2013/14 financial year. Members also had to analyse the actual annual report that also dealt with the performance of the department so as to assess what had happened. He agreed with Mr Tseli that the issue became a difficulty to say during the oversight three issues were picked up, for example, that had not happened or been responded to. He could not respond to Mr Davis’s question but the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) prescribed that rules should be followed from 1 April to 31 March in terms of reviewing the financial year as to what had happened in SONA, the budget of the Minister of Finance, the tabling of the strategic plan of the department, the budget vote of the Committee and the annual reports that were tabled to the Committee.

The other difficulty was that some of those recommendations did not mean the Minister did not respond to everything that was put before him. They were saying for those not responded to the Minister must respond. The question from Mr Davis spoke to the kind of Ministry and it was difficult to respond to that because the GCIS was the previous department they were reviewing. Therefore, the new Ministry will be the new Ministry hopefully with certain components of the GCIS, but it would have changed drastically in terms of what it sought to achieve.

Mr Willie Madisha (COPE) said that on page 37, point 6.3.7 on the second paragraph said there were many problems and the Committee needed to deal with those particular problems. Page 48 point 8 said those were the problems that were there, but not what they were going to do to deal with that. On both page 37 and 48 problems were identified but there was no indication as to how those problems would be resolved. He asked how they would assess that the work had been done, not only in that section but also in other areas. When next year comes they will look at the proper implementation of the budget, etc. In terms of the work that had been done was it feasible for them to come up with a timeline that indicated how far they had gone?

The Chairperson said what Mr Madisha was raising still took them back to the question of what the BRRR was because in order to know what they were dealing with. All the processes they were embarking on had limitations because it reviewed the kind of work the Committee was doing. There will be a difference between the BRRR and the annual plan of action and the issues carried over from the past were consistent problems in terms of how it would be dealt with.

Mr Nene said that they needed to work on the timeframes because the recommendations came after reviewing the performance of the department. The Committee should list what they will recommend to the Minister, for instance, they tabled the status report on ICASA skills audit. It was then the Committee exercised its oversight over what it recommended. This was not a finished product because the recommendations were there so that when the Minister came the Committee would be able to engage the Minister further. The only thing that changed from the previous BRRR was the budget allocation because if they review the 2013/14 financial year GCIS was a department with one entity which was the MDDA.

The Chairperson said they would circulate all outstanding issues to Members and put them as an annexure, and would integrate them into the BRRR.

The Chairperson said that the next issue was to ensure that all staff members of the Department signed performance agreements and were assessed quarterly before payment of bonuses.

Mr Maleka said that there was an addition from Mr Madisha, that the Committee should talk about the consequences of non-performance, and was not sure how that document would be constituted as part of the BRRR.

The Chairperson said that before they got into that, they should think about the structure of the Department. The performance agreements were based on key indicators and how staff were going to achieve them, and they should be mindful of the fact that it was a new Department because it was still appointing staff. They needed to force the Department to become aligned as quickly as possible, and consequences should follow if that alignment was not possible.

The Chairperson said that the next point was to ensure that the Department had an existing recovery plan, as this was very important for the key department of ICT. They should also ensure that the Department and entities had realistic targets.

Mr Davis said that he was not sure that the word “realistic” was appropriate, but the word “measurable” would be correct.

The Chairperson agreed with Mr Davis.

The Chairperson said that the next point was to ensure that the Department expedited the implementation of the Government Communication qualifications. The next point was the status report dealing with the Public Protector Report.

Mr Davis asked what the status report was because they already had a status report on the Public Protector Report, because the Minister had told the Committee that everything was sub judice. The Minister had pretty much rejected everything in the Public Protector Report, because he did not agree it. The Chairperson said that this meant that they had a recommendation which still needed to come before the Committee as soon as it was out of court, because they surely did not want to trample on court processes. But the recommendation still remained, because they needed to deal with it.

The Chairperson said that the next point was the status report on the SABC. The Department of Telecommunications (DTT) state of readiness was also another major task for the Committee.

Mr Davis asked where the line of communication lay between the Department of Communications and the Department of Telecommunications, because it seemed both Ministers laid claim to that function.

The Chairperson said that Mr Davis’s question was relevant, but it was still in the process of being determined, and the Committee wanted the answer.

Mr Maleka said that that was a specific recommendation for the SABC and its entities, but was not the entire problem of the DTT.

The Chairperson said that the next recommendation was the status on communication with previously disadvantaged persons, especially those who had challenges with reading and writing.

Mr Davis said that the Auditor-General and the Public Protector had spoken about the leadership crisis, especially at the SABC. It was therefore clear that they could not carry on like that, and the suggestion that the Minister should get involved was wrong. The heart of the problem at the SABC was that people were elected and appointed on political grounds. They were not appointed because they could do the job, but were appointed through their loyalty to particular people in the governing party, particularly to factions of the governing party. This was the case with the current chairperson of the SABC Board, Ms Tshabalala, as well as Mr Hlaudi Moetseneng. Instead of giving the Minister more control over appointments, they needed to depoliticise the appointments. The suggestion was that they should depoliticise appointments of executive and non-executive members.

The Chairperson said that what Mr Davis was saying was a political issue, and if they opened it up, they would not finish the meeting. It was understood that there were problems with people that were appointed, but she did not agree with him. However, from the side of oversight, they agreed they needed to clean up the SABC and what Mr Tseli had said was that tight oversight should be overseen by the stakeholder.

Mr Davis said that they should not shy away from these discussions, because even if they had differences of opinion, the truth was that they should go into the problems of the SABC to fix what was wrong. The Members of the Committee should acknowledge that the policy of cadre deployment was not successful and was to everybody’s detriment, and the policy of cadre deployment had destroyed the capacity of the SABC in terms of its mandate.

Mr M Kekana (ANC) said that the 60% oversight and 40% meetings ratio was right for the Committee. He had not thoroughly heard the issue of the induction of the Committee, but proposed that they should have a date on which the Committee should be inducted so that they would know exactly what their role was.

Mr Kekana said that with regard to the issue of politicising the Portfolio Committee, it should come to an end. Whoever wanted to politicise an issue should raise a motion in the National Assembly so that he got what he wanted. What Mr Davis was saying it was totally politics within the Portfolio Committee, and it was not where the Committee wanted to go. Mr Davis wanted to tell them that who was failing in the country was an ANC member, and he should be stopped from the beginning.

The Chairperson said that as Members of the Committee, they should not go into politics but rather focus on the business of the Committee.   

The BRRR was adopted with amendments.

Mr Davis said that as the Democratic alliance they could not support the adoption of the report because its recommendations did not go far enough in solving the problems of the Department

The DA’s objection was noted.

Short-listing of Media Diversity and Development Agency (MDDA)

The Chairperson said that Members should look at all of the names of candidates they were going to short-list, so that they could agree to those they wished to interview.

The following 5 candidates were short listed:

1.        Ms Palesa Kadi
2.        Ms Crystal Ordeso
3.        Ms Louise Vale
4.        Adv. Lufuno Tokyo Nevondwe
5.        Mr Yengwayo Kutta

Adoption of minutes

The minutes of the Committee meeting held on 28 October 2014 were adopted.

The meeting was adjourned.