Thank you very much, hon Smuts. I must start by mentioning that the question refers to an opinion piece which was written by Adv Ramatlhodi. I want to say that in that opinion piece the Deputy Minister expressed his political views. And, of course, he was exercising his right to freedom of expression and speech in this country - as a political leader.
I would like to request the Speaker - if he agrees - that Deputy Minister Ramatlhodi responds to the question that has been raised, because it really has nothing to do with the work that we do in the Department of Correctional Services. Thank you.
Thank you, hon Minister. We will not ask the hon Ramatlhodi to answer because the question was not directed at him. It is directed to Correctional Services. Hon member?
Sir, may I just place on record that I had, in fact, put this question, in the first place, to the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development, and it is as a result of the intercession of the Questions Office that it went to this hon Minister. I personally would be delighted to debate this matter with my very good friend, the hon Ngoako Ramatlhodi.
It is not enough, hon Minister, to say that he was exercising his rights to free speech and giving his own political view. He is, as all of us are, sworn to uphold the Constitution of this country. He is, moreover, under section 92 - as are you, hon Minister - under an obligation to act in terms of the Constitution.
The question therefore is whether the hon Minister is harbouring an anti- constitutionalist in her Ministry. This is a very serious matter, because what the hon Ramatlhodi argues is that our Constitution, as negotiated, emigrates power away from the executive and the legislature, and towards the courts, and that the old order has built a fortified line in the courts.
Hon Speaker, I wonder whether we want to use this afternoon to deal with things that are irrelevant ... [Interjections.] ... because the Minister ... [Interjections.]
Order! Order, hon members! Order! Hon member, finish your point of order.
Speaker, the Minister has responded, and the matter must rest there. [Interjections.]
Order, hon members! Order!
Hon Speaker, the hon Chief Whip of the ANC, as it happens of course, holds views distinctly similar to those of the hon Ramatlhodi in as much as he has told people inside and outside this House that they may not say that they can take the Secrecy Bill to the Constitutional Court if it does not comply with the Constitution.
Your mistake is exactly the same as that of the hon Ngoako. Ma'am, the question is: Are you harbouring an anti-constitutionalist in your Ministry? Do you accept or does he accept the separation of powers? If not, he is a democratic centralist. [Applause.]
Thank you very much, hon Speaker and hon Smuts. In my view, there is not a single member of the ANC, the ruling party, who would not be loyal to the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. We all are. [Interjections.] Not only have we pledged our loyalty to this Constitution, but, in fact, we actually are architects, together with you, of this very Constitution.
The fact that Comrade Ngoako has expressed his views about some elements or an aspect of this Constitution, does not mean that he must be construed as a person who is not loyal to the Constitution of the Republic. He is. However, I think that all of us have a right at one point or another to begin to engage, to examine, to assess, and to analyse the situation around us.
In fact, remember, by the way, that the Constitution was drafted in 1996 and it was a Constitution in which all of us were prepared to give and take - to give and take if only to heal the nation, if only to build the nation, and that is exactly what happened.
Therefore, if one of us today, together with you, identifies some elements of the Constitution to be problematic, there is nothing wrong with that. It is important to continue to examine, to continue to assess our surroundings and make sure that at some point we are in line with our needs in this country. [Applause.]
Thank you, Speaker. Following your initial response, Minister, are you genuinely standing in this House and saying that there are times when you speak as a Minister and there are times when you do not speak as a Minister on the same issues which affect your own department? [Interjections.]
Thank you very much, hon member. The two of us come from here. [Interjections.] No, don't say, so what? You don't do that. [Laughter.] I need to remind you about something: yes, I am a Minister, and yes, I am a Member of Parliament. But remember that I am, first and foremost, an activist of the ANC and it is my struggle credentials that have put me where I am today. That is why I am in this Parliament together with you, by the way. [Applause.]
Speaker, it is very important that all of us remember that we took the oath of office to uphold the Constitution, so we are here on those grounds. Now, for a Minister to assert that the Constitution is tilted in favour of the enemies of this country is also an assertion that those of us who not only participated in its construction, but who also swore allegiance to it, are working with the enemies of this country. [Interjections.]
It is important that a department of government led by a Minister cannot be led by someone who believes that we are working with the enemies of this country - under this Constitution. We are here to defend this Constitution, negotiations on which were led by the icon of this nation, Nelson Mandela.
This Constitution is not a sell-out Constitution. [Interjections.] Therefore, we need to know that those ...
Hon member, your time has expired.
We want to know that those who are leading government hold it ... [Interjections.]
Your time has expired, hon member. Hon member, take your seat! Your time has expired. Don't you understand simple English? [Applause.] [Interjections.] Order, hon members! Order! Order! Order! [Interjections.] Order, hon members!
What is it that I must explain? Speaker ... [Interjections.]
In case you did not hear ... [Interjections.]
Hon member, please take your seat!
The point is that I will not repudiate what Adv Ngoako Ramatlhodi wrote in that opinion piece. For all I care to know, you, Terror, sitting there, you may probably agree ... [Interjections.]
He is called "honourable". [Interjections.]
Hon Terror Lekota ...
Please take your seat, hon member. Thank you very much. That brings us to the end of questions.
Sorry, on a point of order, Mr Speaker: There is one more question to be asked. We have only had three follow-ups at this point in time.
Hon Minister, it is true that we all gave and took whilst we negotiated, but there are some things that are utterly fundamental to this Constitution. And it is news to me what the hon Ngoako says, that it was a substantive and fundamental concession on the part of the ANC to accept the separation of powers. Is that your position? Is that the position of the Cabinet?
Moreover, later in the same piece he describes as a fatal concession the desire of the liberation movement to create a society bereft of any form of discrimination, that is, the right to equality. Was the Bill of Rights therefore also a concession? Is that the position of the Ministry and of the Cabinet? [Applause.]
Thank you very much, hon Dene Smuts. I think that in my culture where I am, and where I come from, we all have a right to engage and debate issues. And we actually have a right to differ at times. I am sure this also applies to the DA. When you debate, you do not expect that you will all agree on a matter.
We all hold different views about different matters, but the most important thing is that Comrade Ngoako sitting there has pledged his allegiance and loyalty to the Constitution of the Republic. The fact that he is able to be introspective about some of the processes that we have gone through in this country, and the fact that he is able to be critical of some of the elements in the Constitution is his right - as it is yours. [Interjections.]
He is violating the Constitution.
So is your right to express this ... [Interjections.]
Hon member, please! Order!
Could the hon Terror ... hon Lekota ...
[Inaudible.]
Hon member, you are out of order. Please stop heckling!
If you are not a good listener, you will never learn. I listen to you because I want to learn from you, and I think it is important that you listen so that you can begin to appreciate other people's points of view. Thank you. [Applause.]
Steps to entrench victim-oriented emphasis in criminal justice system
184. Mr J B Sibanyoni (ANC) asked the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development:
(1) What steps has he taken to entrench a victim-oriented emphasis in the criminal justice system to ensure an equitable balance between the rights of the accused or convicted persons and the rights of victims (details furnished);
(2) whether he has taken any steps to ensure compensation of victims; if not, why not; if so, what steps? NO3702E
Speaker, in answer to the first part of the question, government has adopted a victim-oriented approach in the criminal justice system. The department has led the development of the Service Charter for Victims of Crime and the Minimum Service Standards for Victims of Crime within the Justice, Crime Prevention and Security cluster, JCPS.
The Minimum Standards were developed as a guideline for the implementation of the Victims Charter and therefore set the framework within which the various departments implement the Victims Charter. Led by the Department of Social Development, this Victims Charter is implemented as part of the Victims Empowerment Programme of the JCPS.
In answer to the second part of the question, I wish to point out that the department is still investigating the viability of the proposed victims' compensation in the more general sense. In this regard, the SA Law Commission did an investigation and made a report on a possible compensation fund for victims of crime. In terms of the legislation, the commission makes recommendations to the Minister of Justice for consideration on investigations it has carried out in terms of a programme approved by the Minister.
After studying the report under discussion and after obtaining advice, my predecessor was of the view that a number of critical aspects needed further investigation. I endorsed this approach, as did Cabinet. On that basis, I requested the commission to consider investigating the aspects in question and possibly to address them by means of a supplementary report. The commission has informed me that my request in this regard would indeed be considered by it in terms of their criteria for the inclusion of the new programmes. Thank you very much.
Ngiyabonga, Bhungane, for the response that you have given. All I need to ask as a follow-up question is this: Although there is section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Act in terms of which the court can order a convicted person to pay compensation, it is very rare that one finds the courts doing this. What can be done to encourage the courts at the moment, while we are still busy with the Victims Charter, to make use of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act? Is it possible that perhaps either the government or Parliament could have dialogue with the judiciary, while respecting their independence? Thank you.
I think the hon Sibanyoni has already alluded to a possible approach to this matter. As we know, our courts are independent and subject to the Constitution and the law. So, when people make representations in courts, I am sure the courts will consider that, but their decisions are independent. Perhaps Parliament may consider making legislation to make it more direct as to what is intended to be done. Thank you.
Speaker, the hon Minister just said that he is still investigating, and is going to ask the commission for this and for that. But the fact of the matter is that the first thing a criminal does when he or she is caught, is to call on his or her constitutional rights. In South Africa today, we get more and more situations where victims of criminals are becoming the criminals, and I will give you an example. You are asleep in your house at one o'clock in the morning and criminals come into your house trying to kill you. You close your bedroom door, they start breaking down the door, you shoot with your firearm through the door and you kill one criminal. You are then arrested because you tried to defend yourself! And the example I gave you is a real one.
We do not have the balance between the interests of victims and those of criminals and I want to ask you this: How quickly are you going to speed up the process, because it must also go further in looking into this matter?
Dit is onaanvaarbaar dat 'n slagoffer van misdadigers die misdadiger word omdat hy of sy homself of haarself beskerm het. Dit kan nie so aangaan nie. Dankie. [It is unacceptable that a victim of criminals is regarded as a criminal due to the fact that he or she protected himself or herself. It is an untenable situation. Thank you.]
Speaker, as I have indicated, the matter is before the SA Law Commission, and as soon as they give me a supplementary report, I will gladly report to Parliament, but I think we need to exercise patience. We have to go in accordance with the Constitution that all of us in the previous debate solemnly declared that we abide by. That is the Constitution of the land, so I will wait for the commission's report in this regard.
Mr Speaker, I would like to ask the hon Minister Radebe the following: Regarding victims who are being considered, such as Bishop Jack Tolo and the 70 SA Police Service members who have already been murdered this year, what is the Minister applying his mind to in terms of dealing with this problem, because they cannot speak for themselves?
Well, Speaker, I have already answered that question. I cannot add more to what I have said than to wait for the supplementary report of the commission which we have appointed.
Mr Speaker, could the Minister please explain to Parliament why the report of the SA Law Reform Commission was buried in his department for seven years before being released in May this year, and whether we can expect the same kind of delay when he receives the updated report; and secondly, can he advise whether the Law Reform Commission has given him any indication of when they will be ready with their updated report, as requested by him? Thank you.
Speaker, I cannot answer to what happened previously, but I think the report is a matter of public information at the present moment in time and we are dealing with it. When the supplementary report comes, we will further advise on what needs to be done. So, I have no idea what happened previously, but the important thing is that the information is in the public domain.
Steps to improve conditions at 1 Military Hospital
164. Mr A M Maziya (ANC) asked the Minister of Defence and Military Veterans:
With reference to the concerns raised by the Interim National Defence Force Service Commission regarding 1 Military Hospital (details furnished), when does she intend to take steps to improve the conditions at the hospital? NO2970E
Speaker, the hon Maziya wants to know what I am doing about the condition of 1 Military Hospital. He furnished me with the details, about which concerns were also raised by the Interim National Defence Force Service Commission. Hon Maziya, the condition of 1 Military Hospital is as much a concern to me as it is to the interim commission, as it is to you. The 1 Military Hospital was actually given a prohibition notice as far back as 2002, by former Minister Lekota. It has taken us this long to ensure that we can correct that situation.
We have started some work. [Interjections.] Do you want to say something?
Continue, hon Minister. I haven't stopped you from speaking.
Thank you. We have finished the first part of our repairs to 1 Military Hospital. Unfortunately, the work was not done to the satisfaction of the department. We have since been in discussion with the national Department of Public Works, and they have agreed to come back and conclude the work. We hope that perhaps the work will be completed by the end of the 2011-12 financial year. From our side, what we have done is to reprioritise R40 million to make sure that this work is done.
To the hon Maziya, the problem that we have with the decaying infrastructure of Defence is that it is, indeed, not in our hands. It is in the hands of the national Department of Public Works. This is something that we have said over and over that we would like to take over. This is because we have the competence to do so; we have the engineers; we have the energy. We would like to take over this responsibility. We have been in discussion with the former Minister to ensure that this responsibility is handed over to us legally, so that we are able to repair our own infrastructure. This has not as yet happened. What I would like to request of the hon Maziya and the committee is perhaps to have discussions with the Portfolio Committee on Public Works to see whether we can't fast-track this process, because I am certain that if this was in the hands of the Defence Force, we would be able to look after our infrastructure better. Thank you.
Ngiyabonga, Ngqongqoshe, kuyajabulisa impela uma ufika esibhedlela e-1 Military uyabona impela ukuthi uma ungena ngamasango aso uyaphola ngendlela esisihle ngayo. Nempendulo yakho iyajabulisa, Ngqongqoshe, noma-nje sewubeka enye ingqinamba le esizoyifeza thina singamalungu eqembu elifundisanayo nekomidi lezokuvikela. Umbuzo olandelayo yilona othi uma sithatha imali le obufuna ukwenza izinto ezithile ngayo bese uzama ukuqedelela umsebenzi osele ngabe akuzukuba yinkinga lokho na? Futhi, akuzukukubangela yini ezinye ezinkinga ngokohlelo lwezimali na? Ngiyabonga. (Translation of isiZulu paragraph follows.)
[Mr A M MAZIYA: Thank you, hon Minister. It is very satisfying to enter the gates of 1 Military Hospital because you are really instantly healed because of its beauty. And your response is also satisfactory, hon Minister, although you have tabled another challenge that we are going to tackle as the members of the education team and the committee on defence. The follow-up question is: If you use the funds that were meant for other things to finish this project, wouldn't that be a problem? And wouldn't this cause other problems as far as the financial programme is concerned? Thank you.]
Thank you very much for your follow-up question, hon Maziya. By the time you meet with the Portfolio Committee on Public Works, you will understand that we actually hope to save money by taking over the responsibilities of Public Works and doing the repair work ourselves. Of course, we are going to have to reprioritise, which means that we are sacrificing R40 million from something else to put into the work that has not been done properly by the Department of Public Works.
However, this is a priority, because 1 Military Hospital is a flagship hospital for us. It is a place where we treat our Presidents, should they need any treatment, and it is a place where a lot of our people work under the section of military health services. So, we are willing to sacrifice the R40 million and reprioritise it to ensure that we are putting it in the right place.
Yes, I am putting a challenge to you, because, hon Maziya, making sure that we make the lives of our people a little better is not only my responsibility, but yours as a Member of Parliament as well. So, in this case, I am asking you to help me make sure that we can make it better in the shortest time possible. Thank you. [Applause.]
Speaker, we compliment the Minister on the intervention at 1 Military Hospital, which is in a state of collapse. However, the fact is that the entire SA Military Health Service appears to be in a state of collapse. This year's annual report tells us that the SA Military Health Service cannot even maintain a combat-ready conventional medical battalion. Minister, you may have a plan to save 1 Military Hospital, but the question is, since there are so many of them, whether you have a plan to save some of the SA Military Health Service. Thank you.
Hon member, there are two things that you are putting together: one is the military infrastructure, the hospitals themselves; and the other one is the capability of the SA Military Health Service, the SAMHS.
Well, I would like to take you on a tour of 2 Military Hospital, because we actually have managed to revamp that. It is looking very good right now, and we are hoping to keep it in that shape. However, we are running short of resources for the SAMHS, and this is a matter, again, that is in your hands, hon member. I am certain that you know, as we have said over and over again, that our biggest problem and biggest challenge is the budget. If we are able to overcome that, nothing is beyond us, and we would be able to make sure that we do what is necessary. Thank you.
Thank you, hon Speaker. Hon Minister, I accept your assertion that 1 Military Hospital is our flagship hospital. That is true, but to me, secondly, it is closest to my heart, because 1 Military Hospital, with the help of the hon Mluleki George, treated my late king, King Sandile of the amaRharhabe in the Eastern Cape. For that, as an amaRharhabe, I will be forever grateful to your Ministry.
Secondly, hon Minister, with all the good work that you have already done in refurbishing 1 Military Hospital, could you provide us with details of the current cost of the refurbishment and confirm whether the amount spent to refurbish it to date is in line with the original tender budgeted for? Thirdly, this could be a side question, and feel free not to answer it, if you like: What is the current state of the seven-star wing, which was envisaged in 2002 at a cost of R6 million? Thank you.
Hon Speaker, I did not realise that the hon member would use this opportunity to try to ramp up the flagging reputation of Cope. [Interjections.] However, yes, 1 Military Hospital is a flagship hospital and, indeed, it has saved the lives of many of our upstanding citizens and amongst them is the late king of the amaRharhabe, King Sandile. Perhaps, yes, at that time it was due to the support of the hon Mluleki George here, but it is a government policy as it stands.
I am not able to give you the breakdown of the details that you are asking for because, as I indicated, the support of the infrastructure of the Defence Force is entirely in the hands of the national Department of Public Works. What I could do is ask for the breakdown and provide it to the portfolio committee. Thank you.
Particulars of circumstances surrounding visa application for Dalai Lama
192. Mr S Mokgalapa (DA) asked the Minister of International Relations and Co-operation:
(1) Whether she had received any notification from the People's Republic of China not to grant a visa to His Holiness the Dalai Lama of Tibet; if so, (a) when and (b) what are the further relevant details;
(2) whether she had any discussions with the government of the People's Republic of China regarding the visa application; if so, (a) when, (b) with whom and (c) what was the outcome of the discussion;
(3) whether she had received any other notifications from any other government regarding the visa application for His Holiness the Dalai Lama; if so, (a) when and (b) what are the further relevant details? NO3776E
Mr Speaker, the matter pertaining to the visa application of His Holiness the Dalai Lama is sub judice ... [Interjections.]
Order, hon members!
... after the IFP and Cope instituted a court proceeding in the Cape High Court on Monday, 18 October 2011. Therefore, the Minister is, regrettably, not in a position to reply until the pending court proceedings are concluded. Thank you.
Sorry, on a point of order, Mr Speaker ...
Please take your seat. I haven't given you the floor. Hon Deputy Minister, just to seek clarity: Is the specific matter raised in the question what is before the court? If so, which court is it before?
Mr Speaker, it's before the Cape High Court and it is the matter concerning the visa application of the Dalai Lama. So, it does relate to this question.
Thank you for the clarity.
Mr Speaker, my knowledge as a lawyer of the sub judice rule is that it can only be of effect if the proceedings in this House have a direct effect on the proceedings of that court. Now, quite rightly, the proceedings in this House cannot have an effect on the court, which is an independent institution, and we ourselves are an independent institution. So, it cannot be sub judice in that context.
Thank you very much, hon member. We have an undertaking by the Deputy Minister that the question is, indeed, before a court - the Cape High Court.
Now, according to the Rules, and in view of the undertaking given by the Deputy Minister, I am obliged to rule that the question cannot be proceeded with. This is in terms of Rules that this House has imposed upon itself. Rule 67 clearly states that no member shall refer to any matter on which a judicial decision is pending.
May I also say, Deputy Minister, before I move on, that should we be given the wrong information or should you give the wrong information to this House, you may be acting in contempt of Parliament - if it is the wrong information. This is just to advise you. But I would like to proceed.
Mr Speaker, this is very much in line with the context which you have just indicated, and I would like you to actually find out whether, in fact, papers have been served in this context, because judicial proceedings only take place once papers are served ... [Interjections.]
Order, hon members! Order!
... and prior to papers being served, the matter is not before a court. And I do not believe the papers have been served in this context.
Hon Speaker, I wonder whether it is the duty of this Parliament to find out which papers were served when and where. [Interjections.]
Order! Order, hon members!
I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is absolutely necessary, because the Deputy Minister may be misleading the House, and we have a duty to find out whether or not the Deputy Minister is misleading the House.
I have already made a ruling on the matter in terms of Rule 67. I have also indicated to the Deputy Minister that, should we have been given the wrong information, then that certainly would be contempt of this House. I would like to move on.
Particulars regarding provision of services by, and alleged tender irregularities involving, a certain company
182. Mr L Ramatlakane (Cope) asked the Minister of Correctional Services:
(1) Whether a certain company (name furnished) is the service provider for most generic services at correctional centres; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details;
(2) whether the previous alleged tender irregularities involving the said company have been resolved; if so, (a) which services are being provided by this company and (b) what is the cost thereof;
(3) whether any money have been recovered in respect of the irregularly awarded tenders; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NO3697E
Thank you very much, hon Speaker, and thank you to hon member Ramatlakane. The answer to this question is no, Bosasa is not rendering most generic services at most correctional centres. But they are rendering full food provisioning services, full maintenance of food services unit equipment, cleaning services of the food service units and training of offenders at eight management areas, namely Pretoria, Krugersdorp, Pollsmoor, St Albans, Durban Westville, Modderbee, Johannesburg and the Waterval management area.
Yes, we have a contract: HK14/2007-8, which commenced on 1 February 2009, and will expire on 31 January 2012. The estimated value at the time of awarding this contract was R839 million. The second one in this area is contract: HK5/2006, which commenced on 16 February 2007 and will expire on 15 February 2012.
With reference to the second aspect of your question, we are awaiting a court decision, hon Ramatlakane, on this matter. Of course, part three of the question will then depend on the outcome of that court process. Thank you.
Thank you, hon House Chair, and thank you to the Minister for the response. Minister, I am sure that you must be concerned, as much as we are concerned, particularly about the money which you say you are awaiting a decision on. I just want to find out what the monthly payment to Bosasa is with regard to these contracts that you are talking about.
Secondly, we all know that the late Director-General Petersen was fired from the department as a result of the particular tender. After he was fired, the tender was then awarded to him in that he should continue. Bosasa then received that contract. You should be very worried about the linkages and the connectivity of the people who are directors of Bosasa. I am worried about the slowness and the continuation of this long relationship with Bosasa and, of course, the connection of the directors like Njenje and Watson, who were part of that. Aren't you going to consider taking other steps to make sure that the relationship with Bosasa is terminated?
Thank you very much, hon member. I have just reported to Parliament now - just informed you - that, in fact, the first contract commenced on 1 February and is due to expire on 31 January 2012. Secondly, I cannot say that I want to terminate the contract before the court processes have been completed. The courts will decide on this matter, and once they have decided we will then comply. Thank you.
Thank you, Chairperson, and I thank the Minister for the reply. Minister, you know very well that these are highly controversial awarding of contracts. The contracts and the awarding of the contracts have been the subject of an investigation by the Special Investigating Unit, the SIU. We have had a report from the SIU. I am also aware that your department got a legal opinion that said it should not oppose the review proceedings that were launched in the North Gauteng High Court into the awarding of this contract.
I would really like to know from the Minister why the department ignored that legal advice to go along with the review proceedings. Secondly, because this doesn't only concern the late Vernie Petersen's role, I would like to know whether she is prepared to investigate the role played by the former Minister of Correctional Services in the awarding of these contracts, and if not, why not.
Hon Selfe, you are aware that indeed you have just made reference to the SIU report, and you know exactly where that process is. So, it's not as if we are keeping the SIU report under wraps. There is a process under way which seeks to unpack and investigate each one of the allegations which is mentioned in the SIU report. That process is not with us in the Department of Correctional Services.
Obviously, if a need arises for further investigations to be conducted into people who are in the department, the police will have to do that and not the Minister of Correctional Services.
Lastly, I should say that yes, you are saying the contracts were awarded in a very suspicious or controversial manner, but that is your opinion and it is a view that is expressed in the SIU report as well. One of the reasons why that matter is currently under investigation is precisely because of the allegations contained in the SIU report. Beyond what we have done - the work that we have done with the SIU - I don't think, personally, at a departmental level, that we have the capacity to conduct that kind of investigation, including an investigation into the former Minister.
Hon Minister, has the department received any value for money for this contract? Have any skills been transferred as a result of the outsourcing of the nutrition services? I thank you, hon Chair.
Madam Chair, my sincere apologies, but could the hon member repeat the question, please?
Hon Minister, has the department received any value for money for this contract? The second supplementary question is, have any skills been transferred as a result of the outsourcing of the nutrition services? Those are the two questions.
Thank you very much, hon Phaliso. The answer is yes, we have received value for the money that has been spent on these contracts, in that if you look at the number of people who have acquired skills from the training that has been provided by Bosasa in the various centres, they suggest that indeed it was worthwhile.
I think we should separate these issues. How it was acquired should be one matter, and it should be treated differently from the benefits of this project for the department. I think that a number of inmates have benefited from the training that was granted by Bosasa. [Applause.]
Thank you, Madam Speaker. May I first of all congratulate the Minister on her frank and open response to questions, particularly her first reply. We have three months, according to what the Minister says, until the one contract expires at the end of January 2012. What I'm interested in is: What process is in place to invite new tenders, and when will they be awarded?
Thank you very much, Chairperson. Hon McIntosh, I'm surprised that you are even mentioning the awarding of a new tender for this kind of work. I'm sure you heard me before calling on the department to take responsibility for its catering services. So, what is currently going on in the department is that we are doing an assessment to determine how many centres are ready to have their own catering services. If they are not ready, how much time are we giving to those centres? Is it going to be months or a year? That will assist us in preparing our inmates to do their own cooking. After all, these are things which were done in the past.
I must also say that we are actually in a similar position as the Department of Defence and Military Veterans. Portfolio committee members have made an observation that most of our kitchens are in a state of dilapidation. Therefore, we require the Department of Public Works to come in and do some renovations. So, to a certain extent, having these people on site doing the catering for us has been very useful. Thank you.
Steps taken to implement recommendations of NA Budgetary Review and Recommendation Report 2010 and to ensure implementation of JICS
26. Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) asked the Minister of Correctional Services: [Question standing over from Wednesday, 23 March 2011 in accordance with National Assembly Rule 115(1)(a)]
(1) a) What progress has she made with regard to implementing the recommendations of the National Assembly's Budgetary Review and Recommendation Report 2010 (details furnished) of 17 November 2010 and (b) what steps has she taken to ensure that the recommendations of the Judicial Inspectorate of Correctional Services (JICS) are implemented;
(2) whether she intends allocating a fixed percentage of her department's budget to JICS in the event of JICS not being able to secure their own independent budget; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NO995E
Thank you very much, hon Chairperson and hon Ngwenya. The department is currently engaging National Treasury with regard to a separate allocation of budget for the Judicial Inspectorate of Correctional Services.
The Judicial Inspectorate of Correctional Services is not a department or constitutional institution, or listed as a public entity in terms of the Public Finance Management Act. So, the Auditor-General of South Africa audits it as part of the Department of Correctional Services, and it follows all the Department of Correctional Services' policies and procedures for administration.
The office of the inspecting judge is treated like other branches within the Department of Correctional Services. When funds are allocated, the available budget for programme administration is considered and any adjustments for inflation, as indicated by the National Treasury, are taken into account.
I should say that during any financial year internal budgetary processes are followed to allow cost-centre managers to register their budget shortfalls or surpluses. And within available funds, any request for additional funding will be considered.
In 2008-09, for instance, this office reported a shortfall of R800 000 on goods and services; and R233 000 on capital and additional funds, as requested, and these were allocated. This past year, 2010-11, a shortfall of R850 000 on capital works was reported and additional funds, as requested, were allocated.
So, it should be noted that we depend on the consultations between ourselves and National Treasury to determine the processes of budgeting for the office of the Inspecting Judge. Thank you.
Thank you, Chairperson. Minister, when is the term of office of the current Inspecting Judge coming to an end, and are there plans to extend his term of office? If yes, why; and if no, why not? Thank you.
Thank you very much, hon member. The term of office of the current Inspecting Judge ends on 31 October 2011, in a week's time actually. There are no plans to extend his contract. There has been a process in place to appoint a new Inspecting Judge, and the President has since appointed Judge Tshabalala as the new Inspecting Judge. Thank you. [Applause.]
Chairperson, thank you very much, and I thank the Minister. The Minister would be aware that this report contains a number of recommendations also about the judge. Amongst those was the filling of vacancies, the alignment of the budget, the long periods of suspension of officials, and so on and so forth.
One of the strategic objectives or priorities contained in that report was to produce a White Paper on Remand Detention. Now in this year's annual report, it is reported that the actual performance of the department includes the widely consulted White Paper on Remand Detention, and widely consulted with the Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services. In point of fact, the portfolio committee has never been consulted about the White Paper on Remand Detention. I would like to know from the Minister why it was not consulted; and whether this does not, in fact, constitute contempt of Parliament? Thank you.
Hon Selfe, my sincere apologies, but I seem to remember - and if I am wrong, please correct me - that I led a team that briefed the portfolio committee, on, one, the amendments to the Act; and, two, that there was indeed a White Paper on Remand Detention which was in the process of being drafted at the time by an interdepartmental task team. I seem to remember that very well. I may not remember the dates now, but I seem to remember that I am the one, in fact, who appeared before the portfolio committee to report on that matter. Thank you.
Hon Chair, somebody pressed my button by mistake. I don't have a follow-up question. [Laughter.]
There seems to be a lot of mischief going around. Thank you. The next question has been asked by the hon M S Motimele to the Minister of Defence ...
Hang on, Chairperson, I don't believe that we have exhausted all the supplementary questions yet.
I think we have. You had your turn.
Yes, but I am asking for another turn.
Alright, you may have another turn seeing that Mr Sulliman hasn't pressed his button.
I did press my button.
No, he hasn't ...
Oh, alright. That's fine.
... but his name appears here.
Chairperson, through you, thank you very much indeed to the Minister for that reply. It is indeed so that the Minister appeared before the portfolio committee to brief it on the amending Bill. But the annual report talks about a "widely consulted White Paper on Remand Detention". I have never seen the widely consulted White Paper on Remand Detention and, as far as I know, neither have any of my colleagues in the portfolio committee.
Please, there is a White Paper on Remand Detention. Could I just say, as you are aware, hon Selfe, we set up a team; that team produced the White Paper; that White Paper on Remand Detention went through a Cabinet process; and that paper was referred to Parliament. That White Paper was referred to Parliament along with the amendments to the Act.
Now, I would have expected - and I am sure you can check this matter with your team when you are at your portfolio committee meeting - that there would have been a process of consultation from the side of the portfolio committee. But from our side, you know very well that on the day - in fact, that day we came from Cabinet - I came here and presented to you the fact that the Act was now ready for you to process and that the White Paper was also ready, which was of course as a result of broad consultation amongst government departments at the time.
So, regarding that process of consultation with civil society, I would have expected that it would have been a process that would have been undertaken by the portfolio committee. [Interjections.] I hear somebody saying study group. Of course things go to the study group, but I know that I appeared before the portfolio committee. Thank you.
Plans for revitalisation of ageing SANDF materiel and car fleet
168. Mr M S Motimele (ANC) asked the Minister of Defence and Military Veterans:
Whether there are any plans in place regarding the revitalisation of the ageing SA National Defence Force materiel and car fleet in order to ensure efficiency and effectiveness of defence operations; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?