Department of Correctional Services Budget hearings
NCOP Security and Justice
09 May 2007
Meeting Summary
A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.
Meeting report
SECURITY AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS SELECT COMMITTEE
9 May 2007
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES BUDGET HEARINGS
Chairperson: Kgoshi L Mokoena (ANC Limpopo)
Documents handed out:
Public Service
Association presentation
NICRO to NCOP on
Correctional Services submission
Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons submission
Audio Recording of the Meeting Part1 & Part2
SUMMARY
During the morning session the Committee received presentations from the
Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons and the Public Service Association. While the
former focused on the impact of prison conditions in offenders, the latter
addressed labour related issues. Members interrogated both reports vigorously
and were particularly interested in issues related to offender discipline, the
proposed housing policy for officials, the impact too harsh sentencing had on
overcrowding, judicial reform and the Department’s shifting from the General
Public Sector Bargaining Council to the Safety and Security Sectoral Bargaining
Council.
NICRO stated that its main concern was that neither civil society nor
government had been able to achieve successful reintegration of ex-prisoners
into society, as evidenced by high rates of recidivism. Although the objectives
of the Department of Correctional Services included promoting social
reintegration, NICRO believed that insufficient budget was applied to this,
despite the emphasis on this in the White Paper. Rehabilitation had to begin
right at the start of custodial sentences. Risk profiling was lagging behind,
and this adversely affected the judiciary’s confidence in non-custodial
sentencing, which had to be supported by risk assessments and proper
monitoring.
NICRO believed that there should be a new model of reintegration, involving all
stakeholders with the family playing a stronger role. Programmes offered in
correctional centres must be appropriate and ensure that offenders could be
gainfully employed on release from prison. There should be a review of the
payment system for work done in prison, with a portion of the payment going to
the family, and some to be saved for the future release. Overcrowding remained
a problem and NICRO proposed appropriate alternative sentencing. NICRO noted
that its status as an unofficial partner in social reintegration with the
Department was not substantially recognised.
Questions asked by members dealt with employment of ex-prisoners, the need to
mobilise communities as well as families and staffing problems at prisons.
Clarity was sought as to who would qualify for alternative sentencing, the
methods that would be applied, assessment of risk to society, risk profiling,
training and the need to change businesses’ perceptions about the risk of
employing ex-offenders, the shortage of skills in the Department, involvement
of NICRO in the rural areas and the fact that alternative sentencing was often
not used in these areas. Both NICRO and the Department conceded that their
differing viewpoints were healthy and pleaded that there be better dialogue
with each other and with this Committee.
MINUTES
Opening Remarks by newly appointed Commissioner of Correctional Services
Commissioner Vernie Petersen quipped that a week after being appointed he was
still standing! He thanked the Chairperson for his words of encouragement and
solidarity. He said that when he addressed the Department’s staff that Monday
he had said that he “experienced a sense that all the forces of nature were
conspiring to make sure that the Department succeeded”. He was humbled by the
messages of support he had so far received and his appointment felt like an
affirmation of what the Department’s current leadership was capable of turning
the tide to make Corrections what it should be in terms of the White Paper.
An object was made up of many constituent parts and that object could not be
defined by one part only. DCS often felt that giving the nature of its work it
was easily defined by individual incidents. He felt that the White Paper should
in fact be their guide as they defined where they were headed.
He thought it appropriate to share the five principles that he would like his
tenure to be characterised by - building strong partnerships with all
stakeholders, firm choices based on the values of the White Paper, the
Constitution and social context, orientation towards results rather than
process only, and good governance.
Mr S Shiceka (ANC Gauteng) welcomed the newly appointed commissioner and
recalled that as the Gauteng Commissioner he could always be relied upon. He
commented that the success of the new Commissioner’s working relationship with
the Committee would depend upon his being open and frank about the challenges
facing the Department. Should he not view the Committee as a partner with which
to face challenges their relationship would be acrimonious.
Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons presentation
Inspecting Judge Nathan Erasmus of the Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons (JIOP)
made a presentation that detailed the major challenges the JIOP thought the
Department of Correctional Services (DCS) should address. The JIOP supported
the budget allocation but felt that great care should be given on ensuring
major areas of concern were adequately funded. The presentation raised concerns
issues related to offender rehabilitation, the condition of correctional
facilities and how it impacted in rehabilitation and the need for work
activities that skilled offenders so that they could contribute to society in a
meaningful manner upon their release.
Discussion
The Chairperson thanked the JIOP for a presentation that was powerful
and identified the key points that needed the Committee’s attention.
Mr A Manyosi (ANC Eastern Cape) thought that the JIOP report provided fertile
ground for discussing issues and coming up with better solutions.
Mr Shiceka was convinced that the Committee would need to have a relaxed
discussion involving all stakeholders, about where the Department was headed.
They would have to be open about the corrections related challenges the
Department and the Government faced. The criminal justice cluster needed such a
discussion particularly because it was not functioning in the same way across
all the provinces. Many issues including the imprisonment of those low risk
offenders who could not afford to pay their low fines, and magistrates’
apparent unwillingness to change their sentencing would have to be discussed. A
team to plan and structure such discussion should be put together.
Eastern Cape Regional Commissioner, Ms Nontsikelelo Jolingana welcomed the
presentation on behalf of the Department and said that it raised pertinent
issues that could be taken forward at another forum.
The Department had made a commitment to a tracksuit-engagement where they would
try to engage with the Committee outside of the formal presentations at
Parliament. The longer such engagements were postponed the more their agenda
grew. She reiterated the Department’s commitment to such engagements and
thought that it would have to take the initiative in their organisation because
there was a need to create better channels of communication.
Ms Jabu Sishuba, (Chief Deputy Commissioner: Care and Development) agreed that
many of the issues needed workshopping. The Department still maintained that
corrections was a societal responsibility and invited all stakeholders to take
part in the process. Scare skills were a problem and the DCS was trying to
devise a strategy to address that would address it.
Ms Jolingwana added that the recruitment and retention of scare skills was not
only a departmental challenge but was one that the entire country was faced
with.
Mr M Mzizi (IFP Gauteng) welcomed the new commissioner who he thought was
suitable to work with human beings and who had met on a golf course in KwaZulu
Natal! He commented that the presentation by the JIOP had left him with many
questions. The Department and the Committee should not shelve the document but should
engage with it. He suggested that a workshop be held so that the Committee
could more closely interrogate its content and the issues it raised.
Judge Erasmus informed Members that in his office the words ‘workshop’ and
‘unpack’ were banned because he felt that such expressions and activities were
over-used and generally ineffective. Addressing the challenges affecting the
correctional system would require action that, echoing the Commissioner’s
earlier remarks, should be results driven. He agreed that engagement,
interaction and understanding were necessary, but emphasised that should be
accompanied by action because they could not address matters with principles
only. In his view the Constitution required with the protection and restoration
of the human dignity of both victims and offenders, and this could not be
achieved in principle only.
Mr Shiceka wondered why Judge Erasmus had started his presentation that his
appearance before the Committee was his first and possibly his last.
Judge Erasmus explained that his term of office ended at the end of June
“whereupon decisions would have to be made”.
Mr Shiceka said that all agreed that the living conditions in correctional
facilities were unacceptable and wondered whether a study had ever been conducted
to determine how much it would cost to improve correctional facilities and how
that cost compared to building new ones. He thought it necessary that judges
and magistrates who sentenced offenders be exposed to these horrific
conditions, and sought Judge Erasmus’ thoughts on the possibility of reviewing
the in which sentencing was done.
Judge Erasmus did not know whether any feasibility studies had been done on the
facilities and thought that the Department would be better able to respond to
the question.
Mr Teboho Motseki (Chief Deputy Commissioner: Corrections)) assured Members
that the Department took the question around facilities very seriously but
added that the DCS was not the only role player in the mater. The facilities
were very old and posed a risk. Some were being turned into museums and
national monuments. The facilities of the State were the property of the
Department of Public Works (DPW) and their upgrading rested with that
department. The DPW was developing a plan aimed at the improvement of
facilities across all the departments. The DCS had done feasibility studies
around which of the facilities needed improvement and where new facilities
needed to be built. This report was still being considered and he did not want
to comment on it further.
Mr Shiceka thought it necessary that “we became responsive to the society we
lived in”. There were many reports of high profile prisoners such as Mr Schabir
Schaik and Mr Tony Yengeni, receiving preferential treatment. The Department
responded to these claims but the public rejected their explanations. It was
important that bodies of oversight such as Parliament and the JIOP pronounced
themselves on these matters so that public perception of the Department could
be changed. The public might be more inclined to believe Parliament or the
JIOP.
Judge Erasmus responded that the reasons for the criticisms and
misunderstanding could be found in the fact that the policies and the content
of the Correctional Services Act (2004) were not well known to the public. In
terms of the legislative framework a prisoner was entitled to health care of a
certain level, and if the State could not provide it or she was entitled to, on
medical advice, get it at an outside hospital.
The JIOP was merely involved in one part of an investigation of the allegations
of preferential treatment Mr Yengeni’s had apparently enjoyed. That
investigation had found that the allegations were untrue. Now that Mr Yengeni
had been released on parole the JIOP was no longer involved and it was up to
the Department to determine what the true facts were and to then take the
appropriate action. He added that they had to be “intolerant of certain things
and act as a matter of principle.” The entire society should be governed by the
same discipline. He emphasised that one could not expect an offender to
understand what the human dignity that all South Africans held dear, if the
Government did not show it. A reformed offender could only be expected to
respect human dignity if it had been shown him.
Mr Mzizi thought that the statement that South Africa’s prisons had been
created to warehouse people was a big one and not at all appealing. It was a
matter of concern and he felt that the JIOP should elaborate on it.
Judge Erasmus asked whether having seen facilities such as Pollsmoor, Durban
Westville and Krugersdorp Members could honestly say that these facilities were
anything other than places where one “held people until a later date”. These
facilities functioned on the concept of a warehouse. He realised that complying
with the White Paper would take time and resources b ut pointed out that in the
meantime offenders were being warehoused. This was neither constructive nor
cost effective.
Mr L Fielding (DA Northern Cape) agreed that prisons had become warehouses but
pointed out that when one stored something in a warehouse it was with the
intention to use it again. The correctional service however threw people away
completely. All relevant departments had to work together to keep people out of
prison.
Mr Mzizi was concerned about the statement that inmates should be expected to
work during their incarceration. Having visited prison he realized that inmates
being idle might be a problem but he cautioned against reverting to the old
system whereby inmates were expected to perform hard labour. This statement
should be elaborated on to prevent misinterpretation.
Mr Manyosi commented that there was a feeling among the public that hard labour
could act as a deterrent. Government policy however said that one should strive
to reform rather than punish offenders. He asked whether Judge Erasmus could
comment on these conflicting debates.
Judge Erasmus set emphatically declared that he did not hard labour. The act in
Section 40 described the standard minimum rule clearly. All he was emphasising
was that if one kept someone busy and taught them skills that would contribute
to society once they were reintegrated everyone would benefit. He did not
necessarily hold the department responsible for idleness among inmates.
Correctional facilities in South Africa had not been built to teach people
skills that would make then contributors to their societies.
Mr Mzizi thought that greater clarity was needed on the statement that the
backlog created by the recently introduced sentencing scheme should be
addressed. He wondered whether that was a reference to minimum sentencing.
Mr Manyosi suggested that stakeholders should come with strategies for how to
deal with overcrowding and should consider whether in fact the minimum sentencing
was not a contributing factor.
Mr Mack wondered to what extent other members of the judiciary interacted with
the information contained in the JIOP document and other similar ones. Risking
unpopularity with the judiciary, he added that perhaps a reformative process
within that system was also necessary particularly in the area of sentencing.
He was alarmed that in some rural areas sentencing sometimes occurred without
adequate translation services being available.
Mr D Worth (DA Free State) commented that the Department if Correctional
Services was a very large one comprising many facets – safety and security,
health, building etc. Admitting that he had not studied the budget he said that
he was concerned about the rehabilitation of inmates, which was a central
concern. He wondered whether the JIOP felt that enough money had been allocate
to such programmes. The National Institute for Crime Prevention (NICRO) in
their letter to the Committee raised concern about the fact that risk profile
assessments had been postponed to 2007/8. He would have thought that risk
profiling was of central importance in determining whether they could be
rehabilitated and what their rehabilitation programme should entail. On an
study visit to Canada the Committee had found that the correctional centres
there compiled entire dossiers on each inmate to assist in the development of
appropriate rehabilitation programmes. He realised that the success of
rehabilitation programmes would require the involvement of all stakeholders,
possibly in fact the entire society.
Judge Erasmus explained that he had his own views as far as sentencing was
concerned and that those views were not necessarily popular. He felt that the
minimum sentencing legislation had been a contributing factor but not the cause
of overcrowding in prisons. Much research had been done and the findings were
that inmate numbers had been rising well before the impact of the
above-mentioned legislation could have been felt. Minimum sentencing had its
own problems and he was not of the opinion that the judiciary had been
sufficiently transformed to accommodate those. Perhaps additional guidelines,
maybe not along the limes of minimum sentencing, were needed.
When he spoke of the backlog he was not only referring to the courts but
specifically to the assessment and sentence plans that had recently been
introduced and involved a lot of work. In practice the department tied t deal
with the people who were closer to being released and in the meantime the
backlog was growing. Addressing this challenge would take sufficient funds and
innovative strategising and would take a while. In the meantime a number of
people would be released without having the opportunity to change the criminal
behaviour. Overcrowding and insufficient reformation programmes further
complicated this situation.
Judge Erasmus explained that there were many strategies for dealing with
overcrowding and that those strategies should be strengthened and stakeholders
would have to work together. The Department of Justice was working in such
strategies. The JIOP would the following day, under the auspices of that
Department, be launching an initiative in Gauteng that was aimed at awaiting
trial children.
He added that it was difficult to address all the issues especially in the
development and care of inmates when one had to contend with challenges such as
staff shortages. The forty-hour week might work well but placed unreasonable
expectations on social workers for example who over weekends were expected to
be tough while on weekdays they had to play the role of carers. He felt that
there was a need to rethink strategies. He supported the increase in the budget
but was concerned about how it would be allocated.
Mr Fielding recalled that on an oversight visit to Durban a magistrate had
reported that an unusually large numbers of people always pleaded guilty and it
appeared as though their legal representatives coerced them into doing so.
Pleading guilty might lead to a lesser sentence. He sought the JIOP’s thoughts
on that.
Mr Mzizi wondered how the disparity between the cost of incarceration and the
economy could be addressed.
Judge Erasmus responded that if one did not address offending behaviour, the
offender would keep committing the crime and would return to the system. This
costed additional money and did a lot of damage to society. He suggested that
money be spent on preventative measures. It was necessary to try and change
people’s lives even in the face of all the scepticism.
Mr Mzizi agreed that all stakeholders including DCS staff needed to be educated
around the social context in which the criminal justice system operated.
Mr Manyosi said that the Committee often received complaints from correctional
staff about offenders undermining their authority and claiming that they were
merely acting within the human rights afforded them b the Constitution. He
wondered how one could combat this “half knowledge of human rights” and ensure
that all stakeholders, including the inmates, were made aware that rights went
with responsibility.
Judge Erasmus responded that all South Africans needed to be constantly
reminded of the human rights values governing the country and needed to be
aware that there were minimum standards to which one was expected to perform.
This applied to the offender as much as it did to everyone else. This concept
was still new and people had to be constantly reminded of these values. One
should not use human rights as protection from facing the consequences of
criminal action, nor should a skewed understanding of these rights be used as
an excuse for not performing ones duty as a correctional officer. There were
enough policies and regulations to deal with offender and official
relationships.
Mr Mzizi realised that accommodating children in cells with adult inmates was
very problematic but doubted whether it would be possible to remove the large
numbers of children in correctional facilities and place them in the very few
existing secure care centres.
Mr Manyosi suggested that the JIOP be more precise in its claim that government
departments were not eager to assist.
Mr Manyosi wondered, depending on how decentralised it was, how open the JIOP
was to engaging with civil society around the realities of prison conditions.
People still believed that rather than being hotels, correctional centres
should be places where offenders were taught lessons through hard labour. He
admitted that such thinking needed to be eradicated and wondered how
capacitated the JIOP was to provide public education on the matter.
Judge Erasmus explained that the JIOP had started to involve civil society
organisations. Section 94 of the Act made provisions for visitors committees.
They decentralised most of their operations away from Pretoria and Cape Town
and tried to spread them across the 42 regions. All the staff had been
appointed and they engaged all stakeholders at local level. He admitted that a
lot more could be done.
He emphasised that because it was not part of the JIOP’s core business when it
was established, the organisation did not have the capacity to fully engage
civil society. Their prime mandate was in the prisons and it was only in the
last year that they had tried to change it.
Dr F van Heerden (FFP Free State) requested the JIOP to elaborate on the statement
that in order to strive towards effective corrections an integrated system
where crime prevention, prosecution, judicial independence and corrections got
moulded into one system was needed.
Judge Erasmus thought that the justice system faced a number of crises. There
was not always an understanding of the context in which justice was being
dispensed. Take the example of a person in the Limpopo province who was about
to be released on parole but did not qualify because he or she did not have a
family structure in which to be released. The person came from a village in
Limpopo but the law was not interpreted to accommodate the extended family, or
the structure the village might have provided.
It was necessary to consider whether one was imposing prison sentences on
offenders whose communities might be able to provide alternatives. He was not
talking about what the academics termed ‘restorative justice’ but about the
principles governing such justice. He did not think that the criminal justice
system made provision for a holistic approach to sentencing.
Judge Erasmus stated that there might be a need for discussion around the type
of sentencing regime South Africa required. Roman Dutch Law required that
certain non-mathematical, and immeasurable principles be taken into account
when determining sentences and these sentences often appear as though they have
been magically conjured up rather than logically arrived at by taking a whole
range of factors into consideration.
He was not implying that there should be one criminal justice department. He
felt that the Integrated Justice System (IJS) was not working due to lack of
coordination and finger pointing. The DCS for example had a unit that focussed
on overcrowding and awaiting trial detainees on which they had spent a lot of
money. The Department of justice now had plans to d exactly the same thing. The
National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) set up stakeholder fora across the country
despite there being a national protocol within the Department already. This illustrated
the lack of communication and coordination. He added that the number of people
who were held in police holding cells across the country was shocking and he
did not know who was responsible for monitoring it.
Dr van Heerden said that in his experience the police seldom made use of the
provision in the Criminal Procedures Act that allowed them to grant bail in
certain minor cases. This failure had the unfortunate result that, particularly
over weekends, people were unnecessarily incarcerated. Bail applications were,
for all practical reasons, no longer in existence. He wondered whether bail
conditions and procedures fell within the JIOP’s ambit.
Judge Erasmus responded that there was no cooperation between the prosecutor
and the police. The police were scared to act before he had seen the prosecutor
while the prosecutor did not want to come out after hours because they did not
get paid after hours. The fact was that people thought about their pockets and
had lost their commitment and passion for where the country wanted to go.
The Chairperson added that offenders felt that their own legal aid
representatives forced them to plead guilty for minor offences without arguing
their case in the hope that such a plea would get them a lesser sentence.
Mr N Mack (ANC Western Cape) congratulated Commissioner Petersen and expressed
the hope that he would remain as accessible as he was in the past.
Mr Mack thought the JIOP’s document was of such value that asking a few
questions related to it actually was an injustice. He therefore echoed other
Members’ calls for greater engagement with it. The difference between a
reformative and a rehabilitative programme was of particular interest to him.
The word ‘reform’ for him was reminiscent of the reform schools of a bygone
era: during their weekends off the ‘form boys’ from these schools wreaked havoc
in their respective hometowns. Many of the reform schools were nothing more
than breeding grounds for increased criminality. He sought the JIOP’s assurance
that there was not going to be a return to this form of ‘reform’.
Judge Erasmus explained that lawyers were trained to be conservative in the way
they used terminology and as a lawyer he was expected to do the same. He had
however decided to, as a matter of principle, not go that route. From a
philosophical point of view the word ‘rehabilitation’ meant to restore
something to the state it had been before. The correctional system however
wanted offenders to, upon their release, be good citizens who would not return
to the system. They did not want to warehouse offenders in little shacks
referred to as cells only to return them to a society in which they still posed
a threat. One rehabilitated the environment but not people. He did not believe
that anyone was born bad and reformation was aimed at restoring what was good.
Mr Motseki thought that the difference between reformation and rehabilitation
was not so much one of principle but rather semantic in nature.
Ms Sishuba added that if one argued from the basis that everyone was born good,
then perhaps rehabilitation should be seen as returning to the good. After a
long process the Department had decided that it would define rehabilitation
within the South African context. They tried their utmost to have a holistic
approach to the work correctional services were supposed to do.
Mr Mzizi wondered what the statement that only a small percentage of inmates
had access to rehabilitation programmes meant.
Mr Mack said that public perception was that correctional centres were places
of leisure. The Committee had visited a correctional centre where there was a
case where eight women were back within the facility within a week of their
release. Rehabilitation appeared to have failed because many people
reintegrating into their communities and felt that being in prison was better
than being outside of it. He asked how the JIOP assisted in changing such
perceptions.
In conclusion Judge Erasmus pointed out that the report was not meant to be an
exhaustive document and that it may contain ambiguities. He was mindful of the
fact that much of the information and pints raised formed part of the annual
report, which was still to be presented to the President. He was more than
prepared t share with Parliament whatever he could to assist in reaching their
goals.
Judge Erasmus said that the JIOP had been in existence for 8 years. Many
lessons had been learnt at that time. One of them was that unlike other
jurisdictions where one had to monitor inn order to get rights in place, the
correctional services had the framework in place and merely had to work a
complying with it. The Department presented the new Act and the White Paper
within that framework and thus opened the window of opportunity for the whole
society to collectively try and manage all the obstacles that were placed in
their way.
Mr Mack agreed that South Africa and Africa were governed by a different
set of rules than the ones that governed Europe and western countries. Any
efforts that South Africa put in place to address its challenges should thus be
in line with its values and principles. The report had raised interesting
issues that the Committee would like to engage with. Hearing that his term of
office would be ending soon, one wondered how one would retain people who
evoked debate and discussion around topical issues. He thanked the Judge for
his input and said that the Committee would like for him to stay on in the
position as inspecting judge of prisons.
Public Service Association presentation
Mr Joseph Marks, Chief Labour Relations Officer (Parliamentary Services)
represented the Public Service Association (PSA). The presentation touched on
issues related to the relationship between the Department and the union and how
that impacted on collective bargaining as well as on the morale of officials
and how that was impacted upon by negative reporting in then media.
Discussion
Mr Worth asked whether the DCS staff housing issues had now been resolved and
whether staff were still only allowed to stay in the houses for three years or
less.
Mr Shiceka added that many officials had to travel long distances to get to get
to DCS facilities and much of their already meagre salaries went into traveling
costs.
Mr Marks responded that members could currently stay in DCS housing. So far there
had been no negotiations in terms of the housing policy that the DCS had
alluded to in November. The Minister’s statement that officials would only be
allowed to stay in DCS housing for up to three years had also created a lot of
problems as the union was inundated with questions from their membership. The
union would still like to negotiate the matter.
The PSA felt that because housing had for many years been part of officials’
benefits. Members would for instance not be able to afford housing in the areas
where many of the prisons were situated and would be forced to acquire housing
in areas further from centres which would of course mean more time commuting to
and from work. He added that it was better for officials to live closer to the
facility.
Commissioner Petersen had been part of the discussions around the issue housing
and thought it important that he gave some perspective on the matter. The
disagreement with the PSA had arisen after the DCS had initiated a process of
formalising the current housing arrangement, which lacked any administrative
control. Did not view the introduction of the contract as a matter for
negotiation although they had been willing to consult the unions. He hoped that
in the interest of good governance the PSA would understand the importance of
introducing such a contractual agreement.
The Minister had opened the housing debate and had clarified the decision to
the labour unions at the ministerial labour forum that was held from time to
time. Addressing the housing issue differently was a policy intention. In the
light of the fact that housing was not a condition of service but a work
facility, the unions would be consulted and the mater would be fast tracked.
He said that the issues within DCS were often related to each other. The Office
of the Auditor General had the year before undertaken an audit f housing
related matters within the DCS. The findings were quite insightful and focused
on the insufficiency of housing delivery. Treasury too had for a number of
years been saying that the model of housing attached to facilities was not only
unsustainable but was also not the Department’s core business.
The current policy also contributed to serious inequity and unfairness. A work
facility benefited a small group of people and excluded others. Those who had
access to official housing had more income power. The Auditor General had found
that in most instances less than 35% of the Department’s need was provided for.
Matters such as equity, access and location of the facilities in the context of
the historical legacy in which they had been built would need to be debated.
Corrections as a societal responsibility forming part of a fully integrated
society were what the Department was striving for. He added that there were
also consequences to working as well as living within a correctional centre. He
welcomed the PSA’s comment that they wished that the process would be speedy
and hoped that they would not too serious disagreements.
Mr Alfred Tsetsane (Chief Deputy Commissioner: Corporate Affairs) added that if
the situation was allowed to continue it would create a problem as far as
dependency. If members failed to acquire homes while they were still
economically active they ran the risk of being stranded upon retirement for
example. He felt that a responsible Government had to encourage people to
acquire their won houses. Assistance in the form of housing allowances and
subsidies have been put in place. The proposed lease agreement was part of a
resolution that was passed in 2004.
Mr Fielding said that he “had been serving government” since 1983 and the
problems faced by DCS and SAPS appeared to have remained the same. Drawing the
comparison between a DCS village and a mining town, he agreed that encouraging
to members to acquire their own property was a much better option.
Mr Marks responded that the housing policy was something that that had been in
the DCS for a very long time. He hoped that the unions and the Department would
be able to discuss the matter and reach an amicable solution.
Mr Manyosi wondered to what extent the PSA would be able to contribute
to the public sector.
Mr Marks said that the PSA subscribed to the principles embodied in the
Constitution. The also subscribed to the principles within the labour law and wanted
to [romote labour peace within the labour market. They supported all other
legislation that promoted affirmative action and employment equity and had to
balance that with what was in the best interest of its membership.
Mr Shiceka wondered at what level the PSA’s membership was.
Mr Marks replied that the PSA aimed to be the union of choice. At present they
had 200 000 from all the different ranks of the public service and from a whole
range of different communities. They encouraged members to be involved in
initiatives that would improve their communities.
Mr Shiceka wondered what the PSA’s relationship with other unions was.
Mr Marks explained that the PSA was part of the bargaining council and had very
good relationships with the other trade unions. They had come to common
agreements on issues that were of interest to all their members. They had no
averse relationship with any union.
Mr Shiceka recalled that the Jali Commission had raised many problems related
to the unions’ apparent expectations that inappropriately skilled candidates
lacking proper qualifications be employed. He wondered what the PSA’s stance
was on the matter.
Mr Marks responded that the PSA always endeavored to be part of the selection
process. This ensured that the process was transparent and that the best
candidate was selected for the job.
Mr Shiceka agreed with the presentation’s assertion that the
Department’s image needed to be transformed. He felt that the negative
publicity the Department received subjected members to much harassment within
their communities.
Mr Marks thought that it was necessary to improve morale. One way of doing so
was for the service to distance itself from members found guilty of involvement
in inappropriate or illegal activity. The PSA would soon be completing their
code of conduct to which members would have to apply. They would not enjoy the
PSA’s support should they be involved in activities that contravened the code.
Ms Jolingana agreed that the turning around of the DCS image was very important.
It was however also important for labour and the unions to define their own
role in that context. She did not think that the manner in which the unions
advocated the Batho Pele principles were adequate. The turning around of the
DCS’s image would require a partnership between the DCS and the labour unions.
Mr Moseki said that unions dealt with the bread and butter issues of workers.
Judge Erasmus had earlier expressed the concern that staff were not committed
to the Batho Pele principles. The PSA was concerned about staff morale and
appeared to be sharing the Judge’s concern.
Mr Marks was of the opinion that that the members were generally hard working
and compliant as far as the Batho Pele principles were concerned. Of course
here would be exceptions but these were dealt with through the appropriate
disciplinary procedures.
The Chairperson wondered what the PSA’s relationship with the DCS was? He asked
in what areas they thought the Department was not moving fast enough.
Mr Marks responded that the housing issue was still the major concerns because
it raised much uncertainty among members. They hoped to achieve an amicable
solution.
The Chairperson said that the JIOP had made proposals about overcrowding. He
wondered whether the PSA had any suggestions on how to deal with the matter?
Mr Marks responded that the problem was systemic rather than labour related.
More and better facilities should be built so that they would function not as
warehouses but as centers aimed at rehabilitation. This would require more
funding.
The Chairperson noted that there were those unions who were comfortable with
belonging to the General Bargaining Council, while others felt that the
Department should be under the Security Bargaining Council. He wondered what
the PSA’s stance was.
Mr Marks responded that these matters were not regulated by the unions but by
the law and could thus only be changed through legislative change. Most of
their members were in the General Public Sector Bargaining Council (GPSSBC).
This did not mean that the PSA was in a comfort zone with no interest in
addressing the needs of their other members. The Security Bargaining Council
looked after the interest in the security industry. The PSA had members across
he board and they tried to pursue the best interest of all their members.
Commissioner Petersen thought it important that unions realised the importance
of the DCS shifting to the Safety And Security Sectoral Bargaining Council
(SSSBC) as was reflected in their integrated human resource strategy that they
had just adopted. The DCS being part of the General Public Sector Bargaining
Council meant that issues peculiar to the security and correctional system were
not being taken into account. The South African Police Service (SAPS) was the
only entity in the SSSBC and he believed that the DCS belonged there too. He
pointed out that it would be in the best interest of labour if the DCS moved to
the SSSBC but some unions opposed this move because being part of the GPSBC
their membership was larger. PSA was interested in staying in the GPSBC for
precisely that reason. He hoped that the PSA could be persuaded to join the
SSSBC as that would be in the best interest of their members.
The Chairperson said that wherever the Committee went officials expressed their
desire to be within the SSSBC, where they felt they belonged. He thought it
painful that a DCS official at the level of regional commissioner received a
smaller salary and fewer benefits than a similarly ranked official in other
departments. This was largely due because they could bargain for these
benefits. He said that the Minister of Public Service and Administration had
acknowledged that the DCS belonged within the SSSBC.
Mr Shiceka still had no clear understanding of how PSA contributed to the
transformation of the country. The union’s primary responsibility should be to
their members even if they were wrong. The unions were the backbone of an
organisation because their members ensured that services were provided. The
presentation did not give any indication of how it reacted to misdemeanors and
how they worked with the management of the DCS to achieve that end.
Mr Marks responded that the PSA could never condone inappropriate behaviour
that would harm the image and integrity of the public service. They were 100%
behind Batho Pele and for them the public service came “first, last and all the
time”. The PSA was confident that they were the union of choice and they did
everything that was in the best interest of their members, but could not condone
any wrongdoing. He felt that the DCS also had a role to play in ensuring that
officials did not take part in any wrongdoing.
Ms Nyanda wondered whether the unnecessary friction had existed between
labour and DCS had been resolved.
Mr Marks assured the member that the friction was healthy because both fought
for the best interest of the public as well as their members. The PSA had
always had a good relationship with the Department and he believed that this
relationship would only be strengthened under the leadership of Commissioner
Petersen.
The Chairperson pointed out that there was a debate around some concerns. The
Minister of Safety and Security had indicated that everyone would have to play
a role in the fight against crime. POPCRU objected to then inclusion of private
security firms in this effort since they felt that that would like the DCS
admitting that they had fail felt that they had failed. He wondered whether the
PSA had an opinion in this regard. He added that the matter could also be discussed
off the record over lunch. Mr Marks accepted the offer to perhaps rather
discuss this matter over lunch.
Dr van Heerden thanked the PSA for their presentation. The PSA had a great task
on their hands and he was aware that it was not easy.
Mr Marks thanked the Committee for their time and said that he hoped that the
PSA’s relationship with Parliament would grow from strength to strength.
Afternoon session
National Institute for Crime Prevention and the Rehabilitation of Offenders
(NICRO)
Ms Soraya Solomon, Executive Director, NICRO, stated that a main concern was
that neither civil society nor government had effectively been able to achieve
reintegration of ex-prisoners back into society with proven success, as
evidenced by high rates of recidivism.
The objectives of the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) were the
implementation of sentences imposed by courts, detaining persons under humane
conditions and promoting the social reintegration of offenders. NICRO was
concerned that the budget of DCS still did not put enough resources to this
kind of work into social reintegration. In 2005/6 it was 6,5%, in 2006/7 it was
8%, and for 2007/8 it was about 11% of total budget. However, seen as a
percentage of Estimates of National Expenditure, social reintegration in 2007
amounted to only 3.51%.
NICRO welcomed the critical attention placed on rehabilitation and social
reintegration in the White Paper. The core purpose of custodial sentencing was
rehabilitation, and there had been some realignment of services and practices
in the Department. However, rehabilitation still posed a critical challenge.
Far more resources needed to be allocated to social reintegration and
development. DCS had planned in 2005/06 to have 23% of all offenders assessed
in respect of the risk profile in order to be able to develop a sentence plan
that would assist their rehabilitation. This target was not met but risk
profiling was now due to begin in 2007/08. DCS indicated that it would be
aiming to trade only 36% of community corrections in 2007/08, increasing to 42%
by 2011/12. This would affect NICRO’s attempts in regard to having alternative
non custodial sentencing approved, as the judiciary would have to be satisfied,
before agreeing to this sentencing, that the programme of community corrections
and sentence was likely to be properly monitored and to succeed. There had been
too small an increase to the Development Programme budget which would provide
skills and education to offenders.
NICRO believed that there must be a new model of reintegration, and all
stakeholders must be involved. Addressing the concerns needed partnerships with
civil society. Far more effort must be put into social reintegration
programmes, both within the prisons, and on release. Support was needed from
government.
The organisation strongly believed in the role of the family of the ex-prisoner
when reintegrating them intro society. NICRO has been redesigning its model,
focusing on employment of ex-prisoners, so that they meet their basic needs,
which will prevent them from going back to crime. However, it wished to stress
that reintegration should begin at the start of the custodial sentence. This
would require strong partnerships with NGOs and civil society. Families of
prisoners must have social service attention as part of the rehabilitation
programme, so that the offender was not released to a home that was
contributory to his problems A similar process already applied to removal of
children from homes. This would require dedicated resources and staffing but it
would result in value-add to the rehabilitation programmes and bring in core
components of family and community.
NICRO stated that the focus on rehabilitation also assumed that programmes
offered in correctional centres must be appropriate to the tasks in hand. This
would also require a refocus on relationships with agencies. The challenge was
to ensure that prisoners be gainfully employed on release from prison. IN
addition payment of prisoners and employment of prisoners needed to be reviewed.
NICRO suggested that part of the payment for work by prisoners should go the
family to enable it to at least meet basic needs, and that some should be saved
in preparation for the prisoner’s release.
Overcrowding of jails remained a problem, and although NICRO acknowledged that
DCS was at the receiving end of the legal system’s imposition of sentences by
the courts, the high levels threatened to overrun capacity. NICRO strongly
proposed alternative non-custodial sentencing. This was not necessarily in
response to overcrowding alone, but was in recognition of the fact that some
individuals could best be rehabilitated within the family. Overcrowding would
reduce the effectiveness of rehabilitation.
NICRO concluded that its status as an unofficial partner in social
reintegration with the Department was not recognised and requested that DCS
give more substance to the concept of partnership. It was committed to working
towards a safer South Africa.
DIscussion
Mr A Moseki (ANC, North West) asked if NICRO had ever had an interaction
with the Department. He wanted to know what the status of this relationship
was. He asked Ms Solomons to clarify her statement that the Department had
failed on its assessment objectives, and asked the department to respond. Lastly,
he enquired about the assertion that ex-prisoners should be employed soon after
serving their sentences so they do not go back to the ways of crime. He wanted
to know who would employ them, because private companies were not willing to do
so. He believed that NICRO was strategically placed to deal with this issue and
wanted to know what it had done.
Ms Solomons responded that the Department’s own Assessment Objectives report
had said the department had failed, and this statement had not come from NICRO.
She conceded that there was a problem around employment of ex-prisoners, and as
an organisation, NICRO did understand that DCS was at the receiving end of all
the disquiet. NICRO believed DCS should run a campaign to teach society about
how to treat people who had been in prison. There needed to be a change of
mindset in South Africa, and ‘out-of-the-box’ thinking should be encouraged.
Mr S Shiceka (ANC, Gauteng) felt it was a bit strong for NICRO to say that the
Department had failed on rehabilitation. The numbers showed the contrary. He
asked whether NICRO had imagined themselves in the shoes of government,
especially the executive, who were often criticised. He agreed about the
importance of family in the process of reintegration. In addition the community
must be mobilised to prepare for the arrival and reintegration of a person who
had been incarcerated. He said NGOs were useful because they had a different
perspective, and he hoped the relationship between the organisation and the
committee would be a lasting, fruitful one. He enquired what ideas NICRO had
when they spoke of ‘alternative sentencing’.
Ms Solomons said that she had not said that government failed with
rehabilitation. She confirmed she had used ‘we’, which included the view of all
stakeholders, being government, civil society and all others involved. Everyone
was working towards making life in South Africa better. As an NGO, it was
trying to get citizens to think what role they could play in these kind of
these situations.
Mr M Mzizi (IFP, Gauteng) commented that the presentation reflected the changes
that most people would like to see in the system. However, he had questions
around some of the statements that NICRO had made on the budget, especially the
statement that “The substantive support is given to improving security hardware
and employing more staff”. He had visited the Krugersdorp prison, where there
were about 400 prisoners. He had been surprised however, that on a Saturday,
there were only 6 warders at the facilities. The security needed to be improved
as well. He was concerned that some of the ideas given for rehabilitation and
reintegration were not realistic. He wanted to know what more the department
could do in many situations where families and communities rejected ex-prisoners
and did not want to be associated with them. Finally, NICRO had spoken of
overcrowding and alternative sentences, and he wondered if those sentenced to
alternative sentenced would be rehabilitated, as they would require
supervision. Prisoners preferred prison because it provided them with
everything. They would recommit crime again to ensure that they could stay in
prison.
Ms Solomons responded that not all prisoners wanted to stay in jail. Many did
look forward to a life outside, and all they needed was the assistance with
that transition. Ideas should be share because if these were dealt with
strategically, a solution could be found.
Ms Celia Dawson, Deputy Director, NICRO, added that the perceptions were wrong.
Often people forgot that the idea of prison was rehabilitation. Many years ago
the concept of community service was introduced by NICRO, but now there was the
correctional system because of the growing levels of crime, and the change of
society’s fibre. NICRO believed that prison should be the last resort, and not
an answer to criminal activities.
On the issue of the number of staff on duty in Krugersdorp, this was indeed a
concern, and should be a budgetary priority, just like social reintegration.
Ms Dawson explained what NICRO meant by alternative sentencing. It supported
sentencing that did not involve prison, or alternatively very short sentences
in appropriate cases. There was already provision for this in the legislation.
There was no formal scientific research that had given NICRO the actual
recidivism rate, but anecdotally it knew that it was higher than 50%, so that
around half of those released would at some stage be re-imprisoned.
Dr van Heerden (DA, Northern Cape) enquired whether NICRO had made any
submissions to the South African Law Reform Commission to investigate the
matter of legislative amendment and when it was expecting a response. He also
asked about the proposed ‘alternative sentencing’ and wanted to know who would
qualify for this. He asked if this type of sentencing would apply to people who
had committed petty crimes.
Ms Dawson responded that NICRO had not yet approached the Law Reform
Commission, but would do so soon. She conceded that some of NICRO’s ideas were
revolutionary, but had been applied elsewhere. In Canada, the law insisted that
work be done by officials and families to assist the ex-prisoner reintegrate
into society.
Ms Dawson explained that NICRO believed that there were many people who were in
jails but should not be there, because they could do far better being sentenced
to stay within communities, working with people, as they did not present a
threat to safety. That would leave prisons with scope and space to rehabilitate
those who were a danger to society. As to who would qualify, that was difficult
to say, as each person would be evaluated individually. There might be people
who might be charged and convicted of theft, who might well need to be
sentenced to prison. In general, NICRO believed young people, mothers, people
charged with petty crimes, some women and perhaps first time offenders, should
all be considered. She said the country could not afford to keep on building
prisons all the time, so this should be considered to save resources and at the
same time this might contribute to reducing overcrowding.
Mr D Worth (DA, Free State) asked Ms Solomons asked what risk profiling was
done in prisons as part of the assessment of the sentence plan. This was really
a question for the Department but since NICRO had raised the matter he had
asked them for an explanation. He also enquired about work opportunities inside
prisons, asking for NICRO’s suggestions in terms of what could be done to offer
more opportunities on a larger scale, because the current system was limited,
and did not cater for all prisoners. In terms of reintegration to society, Mr
Worth said approximately 2 500 more social workers and psychiatrists would be
needed to be part of the process of reintegrating ex-prisoners into society. He
enquired if NICRO thought this was possible.
Mr A Manyosi (ANC, Eastern Cape) asked about NICRO’s statement that it did not
have a model with a proven success rate for offender reintegration. He asked
NICRO to elaborate on the other models it had tried. He also enquired whether
it had made a representation to government, as the Committee would like to see
collective effort and support. He commented that the skills that were given to
prisoners through training, were designed to give them a chance to be employed.
He felt there was confusion between the training NICRO spoke of, as it sounded
as if this was training for self-employment, whereas the DCS intended for them
to be formally employed by others upon release.
Ms Solomons said that NICRO had had a long relationship with the Department of
Social Development (DSD) and this was continuing. This was why she mentioned
that there was a need to form strong relations with other departments. NICRO
would like to have something like a Memorandum of Understanding with government
on some of these issues, and to have stronger relationships to improve the
whole system.
Ms Solomons then responded to Mr Manyosi’s question, stating that there was no
confusion about the training of inmates. NICRO would like prisoners to be given
as many skills as possible so that when they were released they could either be
employed or self-employed. NICRO would be presenting a model to the Portfolio
Committee on Correctional Services next month, and self-employment skills were
part of this. NICRO would like to see an opportunity in the future to own a
factory or company and employ ex-prisoners and their families.
The Chairperson asked why there is no formal structured partnership with NICRO.
Ms E Mabe (ANC, Free State) agreed there was indeed a need to form stronger
relationships. There was a serious shortage of skills in the Department, and
the discussions were giving Members the opportunity to reflect on where these
could be found.
A representative of the Department of Correctional Services noted that a
quality assurance process had been introduced to ensure that the Department
moved away from the situation where service providers would come and go. An
audit was done, and the first issue raised was that of family. NICRO was
correct that DCS used to work with families more than it did now. There was
already a serious problem with shortage of social workers. Families must be
engaged whilst the person was serving the sentence. She noted that different
countries had different definitions of recidivism. Families could also assist officials
in understanding the prisoner well, and circumvent recidivism.
Ms Nandi Mareka, Deputy Commissioner, Finance, DCS answered Mr Worth’s question
on the profiling of offenders. She said that the DCS did have a profiling
system, but was currently discussing a new system that emanated from the White
Paper’s section dealing with Offender Rehabilitation. This would involve
orientation of the offender, risk and assessment. All offenders would have
different profiles.
Mr Teboho Motseki, CDC Central Services, DCS, reminded members of the Committee
that they had deliberated on the issue of reintegration, and he was glad that
NICRO had come for the first time to present a different perspective.
The system did not anticipate that it should release people to go out and work
on the street with no supervision or control. The Minister had been initiating
a number of initiatives regarding employment of ex-prisoners. These projects
involved ex-prisoners contributing to the community in the Western Cape. He
agreed that not everyone belonged in a correctional system, but the system must
be set up and run properly for it to have credibility. That is why the
Committee must continue to hold dialogue with NICRO so that these ideas and
programmes could run in parallel. The Department was becoming increasingly
weary of the changing profile of new prisoners. The security systems were
crucial to rehabilitation.
Comm. Vernon Petersen, National Commissioner DCS, was happy to hear that NICRO
was grappling with certain issues within the sector. He reminded the Committee
of two important principles. Firstly, South Africa was a developmental state,
and secondly it wished to apply the principle of integrated governance. Hence
it was very important to have dialogues about issues for the system to grow.
Comm. Petersen added that the DCS needed to make deliberate choices. There
needed to be changes in the way children and women in conflict with the system
were dealt with. Fewer people had access to community service as part of
sentencing; so that it was tending to become a middle class option, whereas the
poor in rural areas continued to be sentenced. That is why the system had been
altered to reflect the change to the emphasis on correctional services. He
added that there was a draft policy being driven by the Department of Social
Development on these issues. NICRO and DCS would do well to engage with DSD on
this policy.
Mr N Mack (ANC, Western Cape) asked NICRO about its involvement in the rural
areas, and how effective that involvement was. He said that reintegration was a
difficult issue, because there were many cases where families and communities
rejected ex-prisoners, especially in small towns and farms He expressed his
concern that more young people were being imprisoned. He wanted to know to what
extent NICRO promoted crime prevention. Mr Mack commented that in Cape Town,
there is a major problem with gangsterism, and in the townships the young
people regarded these gangsters as role models. This created a culture of crime
and respecting offenders. He also felt that big business should come on board,
and not be too quick to turn away young people with bad records. They must
assist by teaching the young responsibility, because they are the future of the
country. He commended NICRO for the good work it was doing, and believed the
Committee must pledge its full support.
The Chairperson sought clarity on the inside employment of prisoners, where
they would be paid, but the money would go to the families. He wanted to know
how this would be possible.
Ms Solomons said there was currently no synergy between the Department and
NICRO. Both institutions looked at matters differently, although they had the
same objective to reduce crime. This diversity was good for the system. She
made a plea that there should be consistent dialogue. There were no easy
answers.
Ms Solomons said the points raised by Mr Mack essentially highlighted what
South Africa was grappling with. Crime prevention for example, was a difficult
concept, which perhaps should be defined, as there was no one cause of crime.
Family support was very important, especially for the adolescents and younger
offenders. She appreciated the support of the Committee and said that critical
feedback was very important.
Commissioner Petersen said the work NICRO was doing is very important. A
partnership should be formed between the committee, DCS and NICRO. He
congratulated them on doing a good job.
Mr A Manyosi (ANC) said the interaction between the Committee and the other
role players had reached a mature stage, with a pleasing element of openness on
issues that hindered service delivery.
The meeting was adjourned.
Audio
No related
Documents
No related documents
Present
- We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting
Download as PDF
You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.
See detailed instructions for your browser here.