Departmental Budget and Public Hearings: briefing

Meeting report

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

Department's MTEF presentation

SUMMARY
The Department of Correctional Services presented their Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) budget for the next three years. Committee and Treasury Members raised concerns about various programmes and the allocation of funds, as well as the cost-effectiveness of the prisons tendering system. The Chairperson suggested that Members focus on campaigning and recommended that all other matters be left for the newly elected Committee.

MINUTES
Chairperson Mashimbye noted that as the President had recently announced the election date, Parliament was officially dissolved so the Committee was acting on an ad hoc basis. He summarised the Public Hearings on 3-4 February and then moved on to the departmental budget.

Department MTEF 2004 - 2007: Briefing

Commissioner Mti presented the first half of the MTEF Presentation and Mr N Tshiuhase (Chief Financial Officer) presented the second half. The National Treasury budget cycle and the Department's financial year plan were outlined by Commissioner Mti. The responsibilities of the Budget Committee, the Finance Branch, and Activity Managers were discussed. A schedule of the Department's meetings and the key medium-term objectives and programmes were provided. The report ended with a lengthy breakdown of the Department's budgetary requirements and the amount of funds Treasury had allocated to each of the Department's objectives. The Department had outlined their financial needs for ¨gearing for rehabilitation,¨ which necessitated hiring more personnel to meet the demands of an increasing offender population. Treasury had refused to provide the Department with any funding for this option so perhaps they should have presented their case differently.

Chairperson Mashimbye said that that as some of the Department's objectives were not compatible with the funding provided, he suggested Treasury change paradigms and accept that some policies were necessities. He felt it was impossible to adequately provide for offenders without the personnel needed for rehabilitation.

Mr S Mlombile (Department of Correctional Services) argued that the Department needed to effectively outline the strategies for implementing the new programmes within the next twelve months. He thought Government was irresponsible for not funding the Department's new programmes.

Discussion
Chairperson Mashimbye asked Mr Tshiuhase if the new prisons were much more expensive than the old prisons.

Mr Tshiuhase said that he was unable to provide an answer at present. The Department would have cost estimates by June, assuming the plans with Public Works finished according to schedule.

In answer to the Chairperson's question, Commissioner Mti assured that the Department was trying to make the new prisons both as cost-effective and as ¨corrections-friendly¨ as possible. Many felt the private sector had lower construction costs than the public sector, yet argued that keeping building costs within budget was more a matter of completing the construction on time than of who was responsible.

Chairperson Mashimbye mentioned that several Departments had had difficulty implementing programmes with the funds they originally allocated for such purposes, as matters were often not considered in the planning stages.

Mr Mlombile asserted that the same issue had been raised on many platforms: It was often argued that the Government's tender system was inherently ineffective, thus making the private sector a more viable option. Still, he felt costs were virtually the same. Past inefficiencies had resulted from the way in which Public Works had addressed matters, their relationship with client departments' oversight of the process. The tendering system was based on provisional quantities. Therefore, tenders were offered contracts because their prices were much lower than those of competitors. However, tenders would make changes once the process began, doubling the original quantities and thus, the original price. He claimed that the Department and Public Works were finally coming to an understanding of the most appropriate kind of contract.

Chairperson Mashimbye noted that Mr Mlombile had identified the ¨essence of the uphill.¨, and it was necessary to deal with such issues.

Mr Mbethe argued that funding should be determined only after the White Paper was ¨costed¨ and a clear definition of ¨overcrowding¨ was necessary.

Mr Tshiuhase explained that the last three unauthorised expenditures dating back to 1999. In each case, the Department had determined that no-one benefited from the error and that no disciplinary actions were necessary. To prevent such unauthorised expenditures, the Department had implemented a new system of contract management which did not allow contracts to exceed their allotted materials and/or time. Parliament had reviewed and approved the Department's report and there were no outstanding cases.

Chairperson Mashimbye was glad that no one benefited from the errors, although he thought it was odd that those responsible for the errors left the Department shortly thereafter. He thanked the Department for responding to the recommendations of the Inspector General. He reiterated that members of the Legislature should be focusing on campaigning and thus, recommended that all other matters be left for the new Committee.

The meeting was adjourned.