House Chair, hon Minister, hon Deputy Minister, National Commissioner, members of the Department of Correctional Services, hon members, let me also thank our dedicated, wonderful, beautiful and dynamic chairperson of the select committee.
This Bill draws its strength from the Constitution. There was a need to amend the Correctional Services Act, Act No 111 of 1998, to be aligned with the 2005 White Paper on Correctional Services.
The philosophy behind this Bill is rehabilitation, community correction and rights-based notions. The Bill also carries political implications such as the developmental state's role to regulate and administer corrections in a manner that is interventionist.
Such a developmental state should have the capacity to organise and use resources appropriately to ensure that effective rehabilitation occurs. It is noticeable that the Bill shifts from an emphasis on penal philosophy to one on corrections. The emphasis on rehabilitative philosophy is where the whole movement of prisoner reforms meets the human rights notion. This emphasis is evident and particular in the first part of the Bill dealing with the change in terminology. Part of the emphasis on rehabilitation converges with the ANC's position on corrections.
The select committee made technical and terminological amendments to reformulate clause 56 which deals with the incarceration framework. The clause as it stands now provides discretion to the National Commissioner to determine the period of incarceration for the qualification of parole. The earlier formulation seems to have problems regarding interpretation. The Bill amends sections 74, 75 and 76 on correctional supervision and parole board powers, the function and the role of correctional supervision and parole boards. It impacts on correctional supervision and the parole review board.
The reasoning behind these sections is that the Bill seeks to promote community participation and that of victims in parole decisions and in accordance with rehabilitation. This is in line with section 83 of the principal Act whereby members of parliamentary committees serving on correctional boards can be part of the National Council on Corrections and recommend to the Minister early release decisions.
Powers to grant such early release are vested in the parole board and the National Council on Corrections. These decisions are taken in consultation with the Minister. The Bill appears to draw a distinction between parole roles, court functions and the Minister on the executive which has been the tradition in South Africa and in societies with the parole system. There is no contradiction in these roles and functions but there is a significant overlap. For example, courts adjudicate cases and take sentencing decisions. In the context of parole approaches, court powers are subjected to the powers of the parole board. In terms of this Bill, an early release is in the domain of the parole board and promotes legislation that places the powers in the correctional system rather than in an individual judge or Minister. In radical politics, power should be vested in the collective rather than in the individual. This reasoning resembles the decisions of the ANC.
This approach on parole seeks to promote greater independence and fairness. Otherwise, once it appears as if it is an individual Minister's responsibilities, then allegations of biased practices and favouritism are bound to be made. Indeed, this approach seeks to promote community participation in rehabilitation and social reintegration of offenders. It seeks to promote a balanced parole system.
This is due to the fact that parole practices should consider the interests of the offender, the gravity of crime sentenced for, the victim and the community. It should consider resources available to effect community correction and social reintegration. In this regard members of the parole board should actively participate in anticrime structures such as community safety forums and community corrections. This is to promote our holistic approach against crime and to ensure that parolees are successfully reintegrated into society.
On the Office of the Inspecting Judge, I would like to see that the inspecting judge visits the correctional centres more often and that we have some or other way of seeing that it is done regularly. Clause 70 is centred on discretionary powers of the Office of the Inspecting Judge and the select committee had to insert the formulation in subsection 4 that ensures that the appointment of the CEO is regulated by the Public Service Act.
This seeks to permit the Office of the Inspecting Judge to recommend a person of his or her choice to the National Commissioner in accordance with the Public Service Act criteria. It appears that this reformulation of clause 70 should be in accordance with the meaning of subsection 1 as contemplated. Clauses 68 and 76 appear to streamline the function of the judicial inspector. The function of the inspecting judge has been redefined in line with the 2001 Heath Decision.
According to this decision the judge should perform judicial functions and not executive or administrative duties, but this appears not to be a general principle applicable in all circumstances. It must be noted that, broadly, the amendment did not go to the extent of the recommendations of the Jali Commission of Enquiry. It has also not curtailed all the powers and the functions of the Office of the Inspecting Judge. By and large it has upheld the principle Act in as far as the substantive role and functions of the judicial inspectorate to report and monitor needs, rights and conditions of incarceration are concerned.
But the work of the Office of the Inspecting Judge is not without the requirements of good accountability and the Constitution. They have to discharge good working relations with Parliament in line with their mandate. Most importantly, its function is to promote a correctional system that is accountable and fair to inmates and society in order to promote rehabilitation. It is important to note that correctional sentences and their conditions, from time to time, will need some kind of ombudsman to ensure checks and balances.
This is due to the fact that the needs and rights of inmates have to be adhered to. This Bill needs to be supported. I thank you.