International Study Tour, 2012 draft programme, Committee Report & Minutes adoption

Meeting report

Adoption of Minutes
Minutes of meetings on 7 and 14 September; and 11 and 12 October, were tabled,  and adopted.

Committee’s draft programme 2012
The Committee’s draft programme for 2012 was tabled. It was noted that this included oversight visits to St Albans, Mthatha, Durban-Westville, and possibly Ncome, Zonderwater and Brandvlei correctional centres.

It was further noted that there would be a review of the White Paper on Correctional Services, and an analysis of the State of the Nation Address by the Committee Researcher. Implementation of the Seven-Day establishment and the Occupational Specific Dispensation would be discussed, as would the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) Budget and Strategic Plan.

Mr J Selfe (DA) proposed that the Committee and the DCS meet with the Department of Public Works on site about the DCS building programme. There had been delays and cost overruns.

The Committee discussed ways and means to divide itself for the purpose of oversight visits in all provinces. It was resolved to hold more oversight visits to correctional centres in the Western Province.

Mr S Abram (ANC) referred to the lack of preventative maintenance in prisons. The DPW had declared that Reconstruction and Maintenance Programme (RAMP) had proved too expensive, and  had resorted to fixed term contracts with outside entities. He believed it was time for a change in mindset. The DCS had to look at how it could use inmates to do this work, particularly since it posed no dangers to their lives. He suggested that service providers were eating away at the DCS budget.

Mr Selfe added that Mr Abram and he had visited Helderstroom Correctional Centre, where inmates were involved in maintenance tasks. He wondered if it was poor management or budget constraints that prevented similar efforts elsewhere.

Mr Abram mentioned that a report in Beeld had related how a parolee had broken his parole regulations after 48 hours. The Portfolio Committee needed details on the matter. The circumstances surrounding his release had to be discussed.

The Chairperson remarked that the DCS would come up with a stock reply to the effect that he had reached the release date. The question was what the DCS had identified, and what lessons had been learnt.

Mr Abram said that the question must be asked how that particular parolee had done in inmate programmes. He had gone out and committed extreme violence, whereas it was to be expected that someone on parole should rather be expected to act well and do good. There had to be a sense of what kind of evaluation he had received. It was also possible that he simply wanted to return to the centre.

The Chairperson noted that the Parole Board in question and the person managing the case could be asked to visit the Committee.

Mr Abram noted that this was in Gauteng, in Centurion.

The Chairperson said that they could be summoned, and the PC could pay for their attendance.

Mr Selfe asked why the Committee had to pay. The DCS could do that.

The Chairperson said that the National Commissioner could be approached.

The Chairperson noted that the Minister had indicated that she wanted to introduce the new Inspecting Judge, but this could not be done the following week.

Ms Phaliso protested that the Minister had to come to the Committee, and the new Inspecting Judge had to be introduced.

The Chairperson noted that there were some logistical difficulties. It was not yet clear who would present the Annual Report of the Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services (JICS). The contract of Judge Van Zyl, Inspecting Judge had ended two days earlier and the Committee would need to talk to the judge.

Mr Selfe agreed that it was an awkward situation, but it was Judge Van Zyl’s report, and had to be explored with him.

Ms Phaliso noted that the JICS had other staff besides the Judge, who had inside information but she was in agreement with Mr Selfe, noting that Judge van Zyl had prepared and signed the report.

Mr Magagula suggested that the Annual Report presentation should wait until the new Judge had settled in to office.

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) opined that the new Judge would have his own oversight challenges. The Committee should try to arrange that contracts of Inspecting Judges should not be timed to end just before the Annual Report had to be presented.

The Chairperson noted that the Judge could not be called until the Report had been tabled, which would be on 12 November.

Mr Abram remarked that the document had been prepared by the Judicial Inspectorate as an office, in terms of their statute. It was irrelevant who presented it. He felt that the JICS had to present the Report. It was not the problem of the PC who presented, and pointed out that Mr Raga was still with the JICS.

Ms L Phaliso (ANC) felt that the PC should not be burdened by the availability of the Minister. She agreed that JICS did not consist of one man only.

Mr L Max (DA) reminded the Committee that new incumbents to positions had to assume all responsibilities directly when appointed.

The Chairperson said that the JICS did not have an accounting officer. The Committee had to know about the relationship between the Ministry and the JICS, and on this point only the Inspecting Judge could comment. He proposed that the JICS visit be postponed. The current arrangement was that the Committee would see the JICS on a quarterly basis. This meeting could be postponed until the first quarterly meeting.

The Chairperson noted that there was an invitation from the Portfolio Committee on Police to a joint meeting of the Justice Cluster.

Mr Selfe noted that there had been a similar meeting 5 or 6 years before. It was a waste of time to try to unpack the criminal justice system with three departments and committees present, in one morning.

The Chairperson agreed that the idea was good, but more time was needed.

Mr Abram agreed that there had to be structure, solid proposals and documents.

International Study Tour: Briefing by the Committee Researcher on focus areas for the
Mr Mpho Mathabathe, Committee Researcher, singled out Australia, England and Wales and New York as possible focus areas for the Committee’s international study tour.

In Australia, the province of Queensland was the focus area. There were 18 prisons (correctional centres), of which two were run privately. The offender population was stable, at around 5 500. Queensland had been the first state to contract out prison management to private contractors, since January 1990. The contract duration was three years, as compared to 25 years in South Africa. Parole was the only form of release. The parole date was supplied by the courts. Parole boards were independent and appointed by the governor. There was a victim register that enabled victims to be present at parole hearings. Female offenders were few, and were housed in four facilities. There were two prisons that accommodated mothers with babies. Babies were eventually placed in foster care.

In England and Wales, there were a total of 134 prisons. There was space for 87 000 offenders, with a current population of 85 000. There were seven centres for mothers with babies. Parole boards had first been appointed in 1968. Risk assessment was a priority. The boards could recommend transfers from maximum security to open prisons. There were 216 parole boards, with mostly part-time members. A panel of three was needed to make a decision. Members were appointed for three years, with a further three years extension possible, subject to appraisal. There was no appeal process, but the panel could be reconvened about a decision. In this country, there was an independent prison inspectorate that reported to the Justice Secretary and the Minister. Private prisons were introduced in the 1990s. There were 11 of those for 9 000 offenders. He compared this figure to South Africa, where there were two private centres, for 6 000 offenders. Populations were kept small and manageable. Nine had been built by government, and two by private contractors. One private facility catered only for women. The policy was geared to reducing repeat offending. There was education for inmates on health, drugs and alcohol, finance, family and attitudes.

In New York, a tradition had been founded in the early 19^th century to compel prisoners to work, to help pay for their keep. Because prisoners went out by day to work, they would only need smaller cells. In December 2010, there were 58 000 prisoners in New York. 95% were males. Babies could stay with mothers up to the age of one year. Psychiatric hospitals for the mentally ill had not expanded since 1980, although the number of mentally ill prisoners had increased by 71% since 1991. Such inmates were stigmatised and victimised. Full-time parole boards were established in 1930. There were 19 members, appointed by the governor for a six-year term. There was case by case screening, and conditions of release were uniquely tailored to the parolee.

Discussion
Mr Selfe commended the presentation. He thought that much could be gained by visiting any of the areas covered. He thought that another possible additional study topic was how alternative sentencing was dealt with, and strategies for reducing the prison population. In England and Wales there were a variety of alternative sentencing forms, which kept the right people out of prison. The Minister and management team had gone to New York the previous year to look at tracking devices. He asked if these were applicable to South African conditions.

Mr Magagula found the information relevant, and the comments on England especially interesting. He suggested that one week could be spent in England and one in the United States. It was not sufficient to concentrate on one area only, as there had to be comparison.

Ms Ngwenya remarked that learning about challenges elsewhere helped change locally. She referred to the fact that contracts for private prisons were for three years in Queensland, and 25 years locally. The 25 year contract was a challenge. Huge sums of money were involved. DCS oversight was compromised. She also commented that there were more female centres elsewhere.

The Chairperson suggested that other countries in the European Union could be visited, and possibly areas close to New York or Australia. Electronic monitoring and alternative sentencing had to be explored. He noted that application would be made for the whole Committee to attend the tour.

Mr Abram remarked on the high incidence of mental problems in New York. He said that it was possible to start engaging with matters arising from the presentation, like the various systems for parolees found in the focus areas. He was intrigued by the practice of having 216 people on a parole board. Locally, there were separate boards for every area. A complete overhaul of the local system was required. Local Parole Boards had failed to attract good human material. Members were often prejudiced. There were many complaints that applications were delayed for months and even years. This posed the risk that complainants could take the matter to the Constitutional Court. He was impressed by the fact that the New York parole boards established unique conditions tailored to individual needs. Locally, there was one size that had to fit all.

Mr Abram continued that the rehabilitation component was neglected locally. It was said that human resources were lacking, but it was a Constitutional imperative to ensure that this was done. In New York, inmates worked. The DCS had claimed that there was not enough staff to supervise inmate work. He was gladdened by the fact that the National Commissioner had announced the creation of a trading entity for inmate work. Inmates received a gratuity or a stipend for work, but it was not undertaken as a mission, rather as a duty. All the countries referred to were old and established democracies.

Mr Abram agreed that it could be worthwhile to look at Asian countries close to Australia. In the interim, local systems could be reviewed, especially with regard to women and children. It was essential to improve the quality of people on Parole Boards.

The meeting was adjourned.