Correctional Services Amendment Bill; Committee Programme 2001

Meeting report

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
27 March 2001
CORRECTIONAL SERVICES AMENDMENT BILL; COMMITTEE PROGRAMME 2001

 

Correctional Services Amendment Bill [B8-2001]
Draft Committee Programme (See Appendix)

SUMMARY
In discussing the Bill, some members were opposed to removing the power to investigate corruption away from the Inspecting Judge and placing it with the Commissioner. Members agreed that if the Commissioner and the Inspecting Judge are given powers to investigate corruption in the Department, the investigations and reports of the Commissioner should be completely independent to those of the Inspecting Judge. However, the Committee could not decide whether the powers of the Inspecting Judge are limited to administrative acts. The Law Advisor will therefore be invited to brief the Committee on the Bill.

Members criticised the Clerk for not following proper parliamentary procedure when informing the various stakeholders about the public hearings. The hearings on the Bill have been postponed until 4 April.

MINUTES
Correctional Services Amendment Bill
Ms S Seaton (IFP) expressed concern that the Bill removes the onus to conduct investigations into corrupt practices from the Inspecting Judge. She said that the Commissioner should not investigate corruption in his own department. The Inspecting Judge should be at least one of the people conducting such investigations.

Mr D Bloem agreed that these powers should not be taken away from the Inspecting Judge.

Dr S Mzimela said that there had been self-inspection by members of the Department of Correctional Services in the past. These investigations had served no purpose and corruption continued to prevail. He therefore suggested that it is the function of the Committee to strengthen the arm of the Inspecting Judge to enable it to be a 'proper watchdog' over the Department.

Ms Seaton felt that it was necessary to amend Clause 32 so as to remove these powers of investigation from the Commissioner.

The Chair disagreed, saying that conducting such investigations would not go beyond his duties as a Commissioner or as the head of a department.

Dr Mzimela said that the investigations and reports of the Commissioner should be completely separate and independent from those of the Inspecting Judge. There should be no consultation between the two as this gives rise to the possibility of collusion.

The Chair agreed that there is a need for independence especially when the Inspecting Judge is involved in the investigation of possible corruption on the part of the Commissioner himself.

Ms Seaton said that the fact that Clause 32 would not provide for this power by the Commissioner would not preclude him from conducting such investigations. She just felt that the Bill should not give the Commissioner specific authority to do so by removing such authority from the Inspecting Judge.

Ms B Dlamini (ANC) said that she had been under the impression that the Inspecting Judge's purpose was to deal with administrative matters. She said that the Committee was confusing issues. She suggested that the Committee invite the Law Advisor to explain Clause 30 to the Committee.

Ms Seaton said that the Committee had previously decided that the Inspecting Judge reports to the Minister and not to the Commissioner. She noted that this change had not been effected in the Bill.

Dr Mzimela said that in terms of the original idea behind the 1998 Act the Inspecting Judge would report to the President. He therefore agreed that the Inspecting Judge should rather report to the Minister instead of to the Commissioner.

Mr Bloem referred to Clause 30. If members of the Judicial Inspectorate are 'deemed for administrative purposes to be correctional officials' then they cannot be seconded to the Inspecting Judge as the clause suggests. In addition, if the Inspecting Judge has the same powers and duties as the Commissioner for administrative purposes, there is bound to be a clash between the two.

Dr Mzimela again suggested that it is important to return to the original idea behind having an Inspecting Judge. He said that when the first Inspecting Judge, Judge Trengrove had been appointed, he had been forced to obtain separate office space to the Department in the interests of independence. He said that there should be a return to the fundamental principles which should not be diluted.

The Chair disagreed with the fact that the Inspecting Judge can appoint persons from within the Department. He suggested that only persons from outside the Department be appointed to the Judicial Inspectorate.

Ms Dlamini said that 'for the purposes of administrative management' referred only to his administrative powers and did not affect the other powers of the Inspecting Judge. Ms Seaton agreed, saying that it had only been included as the Inspecting Judge had previously lacked the authority to deal with his own staff.

The Chair reiterated the need for the Law Advisor to address the Committee. In response to Ms Seaton suggestion that the Inspecting Judge should also brief them, the Chair said that the Inspecting Judge had indicated that he wished to address the Committee before he leaves the country in the near future.

Mr Smit (NNP) suggested that the Human Rights Commission should be consulted on the Bill.

An ACDP member suggested that the health status exam include the compulsory testing for HIV/AIDS. He said that excluding AIDS from the definition of 'contagious and communicable diseases' while being faced with an epidemic, made a mockery of the rationale for testing for the protection of the health of the general prison population. The fact that the Law Commission is investigating the compulsory AIDS testing of persons arrested for sexual offences indicates a move in that direction.

Mr M George (ANC) asked whether there would be public hearings on the Bill.

The Chair said that the Committee would first discuss the Bill exhaustively. Hearings were scheduled for Friday, 30 March.

Mr Bloem said that Clause 12(2)(a) contradicts Clause 12(3)(d). Clause 12(2)(a) suggests that disciplinary hearings be conducted informally and without representation. Clause 12(3)(d) states that the person may obtain legal representation.

The Chair suggested that the Law Advisor could deal with the issues raised by the Committee after the Public Hearings have been held. A clause by clause analysis could be done then.

Draft Committee Programme
The Chair said that the two visits scheduled for 26 March had been postponed until 7 May. There will also be visits to two provinces on 10/11 April. Members will be divided into two groups and each group will visit a province. The Chair noted that the Inspecting Judge would address the Committee on 3 April.

The Committee adopted the programme.

Hearings on Bill
Mr Smit asked for information as to who will present at the public hearings. He also asked for more information as to how the various role players had been informed of the hearings.

The Chair stated that the Clerk had written to various institutions but had not received any responses as yet.

Ms Dlamini asked whether advertisements had been issued and what other means had been used to ensure that they got the invitations.

The Chair said that the Clerk should respond. The Clerk said that he had written letters and placed an advertisement in the City Press over the weekend.

Mr George said that the Clerk had not looked at the rules of Parliament, which state that the public should be informed of hearings fourteen days in advance.

The Chair said that there had been some problems obtaining confirmation for the hearings. He suggested that the Clerk should telephone the organisations to confirm the invitations.

Mr Bloem said that the problem was that members plan activities well in advance and cannot wait until Thursday afternoon to be informed as to what was happening on Friday.

Mr Smit said that it was evident that the hearings should be postponed. If it was held on Friday it could reflect very negatively on the Committee as it would be impossible to organise the schedule for Friday effectively in such a short space of time.

An ANC member suggested that instead of holding the hearings on Friday, two days be made available for public hearings.

Mr G Oosthuizen (ANC) suggested that they be held on 4 April.

Mr George requested that presenters forward their written submissions well in advance to give members time to prepare.

The meeting was adjourned

Appendix
PROPOSED DRAFT PROGRAMME OF THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON CORRECTIONAL SERVICES - 2001
(14^th March 2001)

CHAIRPERSON: NB FIHLA, MP