Chairperson, the advantage of being the last speaker is that I can answer my colleagues from the opposition and they have no right to answer or reply. [Interjections.]
I am very grateful to the ANC for the opportunity to participate in this Budget Vote debate, when members who are more experienced in this area of work could have been chosen. This debate takes place against the backdrop of a new political leadership at the helm of the department. Therefore, issues raised as matters of concern are not - I repeat, are not - a reflection yet of dereliction of duty by the Minister or her deputy, but are directed mainly at the leadership or the administration at head office and regional levels.
We are impressed that the Minister and her deputy have so quickly grasped the issues that are pertinent in this department, and have indicated their desire and commitment to change them. The question to the administration is: If things are so good, why are they so bad?
My contribution will focus on security issues in the department. I believe that we need to approach security from the broad meaning of the word, that is: the security of centres in relation to access by the public and the easiness to escape; the safety of the public when dangerous prisoners have escaped; the safety of the public when dangerous prisoners have been released back into society without being properly rehabilitated, as required by policy; the safety of the public from prisoners who have been improperly released, that is, prematurely released in society because of corruption in the system of parole; the safety of inmates from injury or assault by warders or fellow inmates on one another; and lastly and importantly, an issue that we sometimes omit, the security of the state when this core business of safety and custody of dangerous inmates is delegated to private firms instead of residing with the state.
From the ANC perspective the issue of safety goes far beyond the matter of the state's duty to protect its citizens and their property from criminals, as important as this is. The ANC believes that there is nexus between peace, security and development, while not exonerating individuals from personal responsibility.
The ANC has long been saying, in domestic and international fora, that no proper development can take place in an atmosphere of violence and criminality. This is a matter that President Zuma yesterday emphasised in Uganda when he further committed South Africa to the resolution of conflicts on the continent. Therefore, for the ANC, peace and security is a sine qua non for proper development.
It is in this context that the ANC advocates a system of correcting behaviour, where possible, instead of a purely retributive system of justice.
The ANC also links fighting crime to the fight of want, to go to the Minister of Police. We recognise that, although not in all cases, the immense socioeconomic problems that have resulted in poverty and the crisis of unemployment are the root causes of crime. Therefore, we have to deal holistically with the issue of crime by attending to the matter of a better life for all.
We in the ANC also believe that the issue of correction and social integration of prisoners into society is a matter for the whole administration of justice in our country, and not just this department. Therefore, policy and planning within the cluster of Peace and Security must be effective. Without seamless co-operation in the Peace and Security cluster, that is, the Departments of Police, Justice and Correctional Services, the parole system, for example, cannot work properly. We need these sister departments to play their part in ensuring that, for example, judges write sentences and judgments properly, in a way that will enable sentence planning within the Department of Correctional Services. The Department of Police, for example, has a role to play in the parole board. They need to send their senior people who can then take reports back to the Department of Police and inform them about what is happening with paroles.
Also important is that we must analyse the budget through the lens of the ruling party's priorities, as articulated by the President from time to time, namely crime, education, poverty, health and corruption, and see if this department has properly attended to these concerns and promises. These five priorities must be read together and not separately, so that each department is required to address all of them, quickly, urgently and effectively.
The Department of Correctional Services, if properly managed, has opportunities within the current budget to contribute to the government's better performance in respect of all these five priorities.
Turning to the budget itself, there has been a common chorus of concern, from the committee, across parties, to civil society organisations, that the budget allocation of the department is in contrast with the policy as reflected in the White Paper. The Minister has acknowledged this today. Therefore, there is common cause on this issue.
The irony is that even if, hypothetically, we were to endorse this skewed allocation of budget to security, available facts demonstrate that there is in fact a lack of sufficient security at our centres. Gangsterism and sodomising of inmates are still rife; escapes are still happening, in dramatic fashion when they do; reports of dysfunctional security gadgets at centres are still rife; assaults of inmates by inmates and of inmates by warders are still rife; and incidents of unnatural deaths and questionable natural deaths are still unacceptably high.
We therefore call on the department to ensure that urgent, measurable, quick and timebound measures, in line with the President's call, are implemented. We believe that sufficient funds have been allocated in this regard to security, if security is understood in its broad sense.
The Office of the Inspecting Judge is crucial in this regard to prevent the abuse of human rights.
Furthermore, we call on the department to ensure that classification of dangerous inmates is done accurately and that such persons are securely looked after by the state, not private firms, as I indicated earlier. The system must ensure that no undeserving parolees are released. Escapes must be kept to zero, in the light of the budget that is skewed towards security. Quick, effective and strict disciplinary measures must be taken against corrupt officials in the department.
We believe that if a strategy of self-sufficiency is devised and adhered to by the department, as so many have indicated, poverty of neighbouring communities could be reduced. Also, in collaboration with sister departments, the approximately 50 000 youths that are in our centres can be given, as the Minister has said, some form of education as a behavioural corrective measure.
I want to turn to an issue that was raised by the opposition, but before I come to that, there is the issue of the unions. The unions have made a submission during our hearings - a disappointing submission, I must say. When we raised the issue with them as to their responsibility to partner with the administration for good governance, they indicated that it was not their role to manage; managers must manage. I want to submit to them that this is actually a dereliction of the old political tradition of the unions, that they are not only involved in bargaining issues, but in political issues as well. Making the government governable is part of that political responsibility, more so when they are a partner to the ruling party.
Coming to the issue raised by the DA and other opposition parties, I want to say that it is the aim of the ANC, as reflected in its constitution, to unite South Africans towards a national democratic society. In this regard it is important that we mobilise all South Africans towards the vision of a national democratic society.
I want members in this House to be aware that we have made great strides in this regard. This is one committee, apart from defence, that I have experience of that has shown consensus and a sameness of approach towards this national security issue of crime. Therefore, I want to say to the members on the opposite side, our colleagues, that we appreciate the role that they are playing, even if we differ ideologically. I've listened to them carefully and we have the same approach. This is very rare. I think sometimes we don't appreciate areas of consensus in the system of Parliament. We are always fighting, but the truth of the matter is that in this area of corrections, even ideologically, we seem to be in the same direction, on the same wave length. We commend that and we need to build on that.
Of course, we will differ in terms of strategies, emphasis and tone, as you have heard. While we on this side are constructively critical, we have an additional responsibility of governing. That is where the difference lies, without condemning the other side, to make sure that they do not replace us. Our responsibility is to make sure that we have proper governance. I want to say today that I am a little disappointed. I know we engaged on this issue of approving the budget in the committee. We were more or less in agreement, but of course, again, there are issues of strategy. We agree the leadership is new, enthusiastic, committed and they want to change things. If we don't give this new leadership this money, we would be like people who are chasing with the dogs and running with the hares. On the one hand we say these things are wrong, but on the other hand we deprive the leadership of the budget. I think, in a last-ditch attempt, maybe the DA should rethink and approve the budget. Let's together evaluate these people and see if they are going to do what we want them to do. Let us give them a chance. I think we should do that. [Applause.]
I include the FF Plus - they are not here - and the IFP when I talk about the opposition seeming to be moving in the same direction. But with those two, I must say, the difficulty we have is that, yes, they are speaking, but we never see them in the committee. [Interjections.] They have a constitutional right to express themselves, whether they attend or not attend committee meetings. But the problem with that is that we don't know where they derive their facts from. [Interjections.] The things we debate, we get them from the department and in briefings to the committee. We analyse and evaluate them. Then they come during debates and go on and on, and we don't know where they get their information. Do they have people in the department who are working for them? [Interjections.] That is dangerous. We urge you, within your time constraints and the limitation of numbers, to attend so that you can express informed criticism.
Having said all these things, I leave the rest of the time to the Minister. I thank you. [Applause.]