POPCRU’S INPUT TO THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE

ON CORRECTIONS’ BUDGET PROPOSAL FOR

THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL

SERVICES

Chairperson,

Honourable Members of the Portfolio Committee

Leadership for Department of Correctional Services

Leaders of organised labour

Ladies and gentlemen.

We are grateful to this esteemed Institution for having invited us here to come and give our input. In our view, any talk of participatory democracy would not be a fluke if it shall keep relevant stakeholders out of these types of Forums. In the same breath, our attendance to this very important meeting is not just for the sake of it but because we are convinced that we have a moral obligation and a social responsibility to contribute to the shaping of this budget. To that end we are determined to make our contribution.

Honourable Chairperson, the department of Correctional Services forms a critical part of the backbone of the society we seek to build.

I need not remind anyone amongst us that we are collectively charged with a responsibility that affords law-abiding citizens with their sense of security whilst ensuring that those who are seen to have acted outside the confines of the law are given attention that will make them fit to live in an open society.

We wish to submit to you, Honourable members, that what matters to us is not much about figures. Instead the way in which the rands and cents are broken down is the determinant factor that shall determine the department’s levels of success. For this reason, our submission seeks to deal with issues on the basis of principle such that discussions would not be about how much we have but on how the department have allocated funds to various components with the view of ensuring effective and efficient service delivery. Thus pointing areas that we believe needs additional resources.

Program Director, it is no secret that as an organisation we have been very vocal on issues that relate to sufficient staffing at the correctional centres.

We think it would be more prudent to look into this matter so that the department can then be able to respond to the challenge of overcrowding that has a direct consequence of making rehabilitation almost impossible.

During the department’s Budget Vote in 2006 we have said the following:

“It is our contention that the structure of the department is top heavy. This top-heavy structure impedes the necessary service delivery as required by the Correctional Services Act”.

We have related to the top-heavy structure as follows in terms of break down:

· Eleven [11] Chief Deputy Commissioners [Deputy Director Generals];

Ø Previously they were only three.

· Twenty seven [27] Deputy Commissioners [Chief Directors]

Ø Previously they were only seven.

· One Hundred and forty six [146] Directors.

Ø Previously they were less than twenty.

“The translation of the current positions into monetary value at the time, amounted to ninety one million three hundred and sixty thousand four hundred and twenty nine rand [R91 360 429]. Clearly the expenditure for the previous incumbents was far too low”. This was our presentation to this committee twelve months ago.

We further said: “The increase on positions at the top echelon has not brought about change in service delivery on the ground [where it’s needed most]. It is our further contention that due to the many positions at national level, there is duplication of functions. This area needs to be critically looked at”.

We are today in 2007 saying to this committee the structure of the department is top-heavy with what we can correctly refer to as a bloated beaurocracy. This structure, which is crowded at the top, has only served to create a long red tape that does not translate to meaningful programs that the department is supposed to implement. Duplication of functions, as previously indicated in 2006 has doubled. Conversely, we think that the department would do much better with a lean and mean Head OFfice with bigger personnel where the actual work takes place so that it can be able to deliver its mandate. The Head Office of the department should be a policy making body. And such body does not require this bloated structure, which consumes bigger chunk of the budget.

The manpower is highly needed at the institutions [Correctional Centres] where one member sometimes has to face almost five hundred inmates in a section. As a matter of fact, the budget has to address this aspect – of which it’s not the case at this stage.

Linked to this aspect of a staff compliment that is commensurate with the number of inmates is the question of training. The DCS cannot continue to have correctional officers who would act in a manner that is incompatible with the ethos of the department due to their insufficient training.

It is our view that the leadership of the DCS has to make sure that sufficient funds are invested in the field of training at all levels, including those in senior management. We need to have sufficiently skilled and properly trained people to be entrusted with the responsibility of making sure that the inmates are taken care of within the prescripts of law and  labour relations unit, which is part of the Human Resource component functions as expected.

This measure can spare all of us the trouble of having to act as fire extinguishers that shall have to be called in from time to time because of the periodic industrial tension that raises its head from time to time. We hope that the budget will be adjusted to look into this aspect so that we can focus on more productive activities that exclude having to attend endless meetings aimed at quelling revolt at our institutions.

While we acknowledge the remarkably significant progress that has been made in relation to transformation issues, we feel strong that the budget proposal has to be rather more vocal in terms of the principles that guide our policies. A transformed department of Correctional Services will be judged by one criterion above all, its effectiveness in delivering services which meets the basic needs of all citizens. For this to happen, there should be budget provided specifically to tackle transformations aspects as outlined in the White Paper on Transformation of the Public Service. This White Paper provided a policy framework and a practical implementation strategy for the transformation of the entire public service, DCS included.

We realise that the department has made remarkable strides in terms of Affirmative Action. There are other areas of transformation that need attention, for example, the Institution Building, Labour Relations, etc. The challenge that is facing the department on the area of AA is capacity building to enhance the required service delivery. The absence of creating such capacity to those in positions of authority does not only reduce them to pot-plants but even worse, this tends to compromise our collective endeavour to build a more responsive department in line with its mandate.

It will further defeat the objectives of the good intended legislative framework that was fashioned by this Government to address the injustices and inequalities of the previous system, which regarded one population group as first-class citizens of South Africa.

Honourable members, one other matter that cannot escape mention during this budget vote is the issue of the construction of more correctional facilities. Once again during his opening of the National Assembly, the President of the Republic indicated the plans for the construction of correctional facilities.

This has obviously created legitimate expectations on the part of our members and we hope that we would not hear expositions about funds allocated to this project getting channelled to some other unplanned processes. We also wish to emphasise the need for the department not only to budget sufficiently for this project but to also make sure that there are no insidious deviations from it. Equally important is the need to stress the point that the department must not volunteer the allocated funds to private institutions [when they demand more] that are currently consuming too much of our budget.

The approach at this stage should be to look at all possible ways and means to make sure that this arrangement becomes the public facility. In this regard we shall resist the temptation to even speak of the private prisons that have evidently turned the Department into a milking cow. 

It is important therefore, that, we realise the need to establish more effective financial procedures that will make sure that the standards of financial accountability in the department do not leave us found wanting.

All said and done, we must make sure that the department carries out its business in a manner that displays a sense of responsibility within the allocated budget. Moving for the adoption of a sound budget proposal is not enough. Let us ensure that there is proper adherence to the said budget lest all of us hang our heads in shame each time the financial records make us hang our heads in shame each time the Auditor General speaks.

May I say, in conclusion, that we have no doubt whatsoever in our minds that as an organisation our revolutionary obligation and social responsibility is not limited to only representing our members. Therefore, be rest assured that as an organisation we shall throw our weight behind all the responsible actions of the Department but shall never hesitate to raise a quarrel each time there are deviations from the budget that has been tabled and adopted.

I thank you.

Delivered by : Nathi Theledi

                  Deputy General Secretary of POPCRU