Licensing regime for minerals and energy: DMRE briefing

This premium content has been made freely available

Mineral Resources and Energy

03 March 2021
Chairperson: Mr S Luzipo (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

24 Feb 2021

Impact of SONA; Licensing regimes for both minerals and energy: briefing by Department of Mineral Resources and Energy

The Committee convened in a virtual meeting to be briefed by the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE) regarding the updated licensing regime for minerals and energy, and to address some of the issues raised at its meeting held a week ago.

The Department took the Committee through the reworked presentation on the petroleum licensing process. It described the issues surrounding the petroleum products analysis licensing system in terms of transformation, which indicated that the benefits of transformation efforts were skewed towards Indians.

In the follow-up presentation on the mineral licensing process, the data showed that the DMRE was faced with an urgent backlog problem, with the Mpumalanga regional office at the epicentre.

The Department also responded to questions raised by the Committee during the previous week’s meeting, where the main points of contention involved the issues of vacant posts, leadership, the sterilisation of rights, the South African Mineral Resources Administration (SAMRAD) system and the tools of trade.

During discussion, a Member said the Department had a credibility problem as a result of the backlog, and believed that this problem could not solved while the SAMRAD system was still in place. He supplemented his criticism of the system with extracts from minutes of previous Committee meetings, and wondered why the offer made by the mining industry to pay for an entirely new cadastral system had not yet been accepted. Members suggested improvements to the manner in which the data reflecting the participation of white women in the industry was displayed. They also expressed concern at the delay in purchasing the requisite tools of trade to help eliminate the delays which were giving rise to complaints directed to Parliament.

 

Meeting report

Opening remarks

The Chairperson welcomed Members and the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE), and said the meeting would serve as a continuation of its discussion on 24 February on the features of the licensing regimes for minerals and petroleum. The Department had been given time to rework its presentations following the issues raised in that meeting.

Responses to questions raised on 24 February 2021

Adv Thabo Mokoena, Director-General (DG), DMRE, said that the presentations were indeed reworked and responses to the critical questions asked in the above meeting had been prepared. The issue surrounding the letters written to the Office of the Speaker would also be dealt with at the end of the meeting.

The Department was dealing with historical issues, but this did not mean the problems could be ignored. The issue of consequence management was made apparent in the Energy Service Company (ESCO) meetings, which showed an intent to implement solutions to this issue.

Regarding the backlogs, officials had to bear the majority of the blame as they were not doing their jobs, which was most evident in the Mpumalanga regional office. The Department took full responsibility and accountability for this, and had to be very decisive in taking the necessary countermeasures.

Mr Tseliso Maqubela, Deputy Director General: Petroleum and Petroleum Products Regulation, DMRE, acknowledged the request by Members for more detail in the presentation on the processes followed by the Department, as well as the accompanying timelines. He also highlighted the issue of transformation in terms of the petroleum licensing process, and said that enough data had been discovered to reveal the challenges, especially those faced by the retail sector.

Petroleum Licensing Process

Mr Teboho Sethosa, Chief Director, DMRE, took the Committee through the reworked presentation on the petroleum licensing process.

Transformation percentage

The petroleum products analysis licensing system (PPALS) did not capture applicants’ race or gender – it had a historically disadvantaged South Africans (HDSA) calculation screen, which recorded the applicants’ names, surnames, percentage of ownership and control. An analyst manually records percentages into two editable columns separating ‘HDSA’ and ‘other’ (meaning white males). The PPALS would automatically determine the HDSA percentage to determine compliance with the Mining Charter. Where the HDSA percentage fell below the 25% threshold, the application was refused.

Mr Sethosa explained that these were the limitations of the PPALS, with the system designed in terms of Petroleum Products Amendment Act regulations.

Breakdown of HDSA per province (2012 to 2020)

Where there were two numbers, the first number depicted whether an HDSA was participating in the province, with the number after the slash representing the number of non-HDSAs participating in the province. The two numbers together formed a fraction. If the only number was a zero, nothing had occurred in the province.

  • Gauteng obtained the highest HDSA percentage in the manufacturing sector; with 80%.
  • North West obtained the highest HDSA percentage in the wholesale sector; with 96.55%.
  • KwaZulu-Natal obtained the highest HDSA percentage in the newly-licensed retail sector; with 92.43%.

Mr Sethosa alluded again to the limitations of the PPALS’s design in terms of how it required the Department to manually review each application under the categories of black African, black Indian and black Coloured. The Department acknowledged this limitation specifically, and was aiming to rectify it in the near future.

Petroleum retail sector B-BBEE audit report

In the petroleum retail sector B-BBEE audit report for 2018, conducted by Moloto Solutions,

Africans form the majority of economically active persons (EAP), with 78.50%. The seventh slide of the presentation gave a complete breakdown of ownership by race, under the categories “Retailer Owned and Retailer Operated (RORO) and “Company Owned” (see attached presentation). The “Company Owned” column referred to sites owned by the major oil companies which were then leased to retailers to operate from the sites. This column showed the growth in the number of Africans entering the industry due to a number of oil companies embarking on transformation processes. The row representing “Black females” was depicted in terms of the total definition of “black”, which included Africans, Coloureds and Indians. Mr Sethosa indicated that the Department intended to break down this definition to show clearly the different races.

Licence category per province

“Conversion” referred to the number of manufacturing sites that were present at the time of the commencement of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA). The “New to Industry” column showed the phenomenal growth since the inception of the Act in the number of people entering the manufacturing, site and retail and the wholesale industry sectors – with the reason being the high number of people discovering opportunities in other economic activities, such as mining or transportation.

Mr Maqubela concluded that by breaking down the benefits of transformation in this sector, the biggest beneficiaries of transformation efforts had been Indians, showing that transformation had been skewed towards one demographic of the AIC (Africans, Indians, Coloureds) definition of “black.” The number of women in the sector had also not seen the desired improvement. The Department had told companies to rectify these issues, and companies had shown a commitment to move towards numbers which reflected the EAP by means of a five-year plan.

(View presentation for further detail.)

Mineral licensing process

Ms Connie Kobe, Chief Director: Mineral Regulation, DMRE, took the Committee through the follow-up presentation to the 24 February 2021 meeting.

Application Process

All applications were received by various regional offices through the South African Mineral Resources Administration System (SAMRAD). National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) and Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) applications were lodged simultaneously.

When the application file was received by the Assistant Director, they would examine the polygons on SAMRAD for inaccuracies, clashes with possible pending applications or existing rights. In some instances, the section 10 notices would also be sent to tribal offices and clinics, where the public would be more likely to see them.

Depending on the nature of their application, applicants were directed to conduct scoping and submit a basic assessment report (BAR) or environmental impact assessment (EIA).

Applications backlog per province

Mpumalanga was the most challenging province in terms of backlog applications, with 1 001 prospecting right and 551 mining permit applications. A trend could be seen when viewing “Accepted Under Evaluation” and ‘”Received Applications Outside 14 Days Decided,” with Mpumalanga showing the highest numbers.

Limpopo was the second most challenging, with 536 prospecting right and 474 mining permit applications.

Ms Kobe stressed the importance of eradicating the backlog applications. The team under the Branch Head were dealing with the plans already implemented and augmenting them to ensure a timeous eradication.

(View presentation for further detail.)

Mr Maqubela concluded by highlighting the existence of the main challenge – the backlog. He was confident that the Department had a plan to deal with the backlog and that this plan was being implemented, starting in Mpumalanga. Last week, 23 submissions had been concluded for decision making, with 16 concluded this week. Limpopo was the next province to be focused on, following Mpumalanga, without completely neglecting the other provinces.

He said the Department had internalised the responses made by the Committee in the 24 February meeting, with the departmental team receptive – especially in Mpumalanga – to the effort required from the Director-General as leader to change the current situation.

The Director-General then responded to questions raised by the Committee in the 24 February meeting.

Vacant posts

Adv Mokoena said there were no remaining vacant posts at the Deputy Director Generals’ level – which was the commitment made by the Minister when he joined the Department. All Chief Director posts had also been filled.

Efforts had been made to advertise a substantial number of vacant posts which the Department tried to fill last year, but were unable to do so due to the ongoing process, which was concluded around September.

18 posts were advertised in November 2020, and 38 advertised in December. From the 18 posts advertised, officials had started working on 1 March, with more due to start on 15 March. From the 38 posts advertised, many people would start working from 1 April. Short-listing and interviews were currently under way.

Leadership

-There were only two regions where there were acting officials – KwaZulu Natal and Mpumalanga.

In KwaZulu Natal, the former regional manager (RM) had been appointed as Chief Director. In Mpumalanga, the current RM was on suspension.

The question of consequence management had been raised, which was why the Mpumalanga RM was on suspension. The Director-General emphasised the importance of decisiveness when dealing with issues of consequence management.

There were currently five disciplinary cases at the Department.

Boshmanspoort

The Director-General had been engaging with the regional office. Applications had been received for the same area. Due to protocol, the Department had not wanted to contact Mr J Lorimer (DA) directly. The farms had similar names, which must reflect on SAMRAD.

A proper investigation would be conducted as to how the prospecting permit was issued without following due process.

Sterilisation of mining rights

In a session with junior miners held yesterday, the sterilisation of mining rights was raised quite strongly.

The Department was working with the relevant stakeholders, including mining companies that were members of the Minerals Council, and mining companies that were not.

Mining and prospecting rights should be relinquished by those without a desire to make use of those rights, in favour of those with a keen interest in using them.

Security of tenure

While companies’ mining or prospecting rights were relatively secure once they were obtained, it was important that these companies actually make use of the rights granted to them.

Information on DMRE website

When the Mining Charter was established, there was an issue regarding Social and Labour Plans (SLPs) that were not being made available. Members had raised the issue of transparency in the 24 February meeting.

Turnaround time

The Department had begun the implementation of an improved turnaround time, with the turnaround time of the economic reconstruction and recovery plan evidence of this. The Minister had been vocal since his arrival in the Department on the importance of an improved turnaround time. 50% was the desired turnaround time for the Department to spend on processing applications, with there being a focus on prospecting rights.

Exploration

The Department was currently working on a plan with the Minerals Council, which would then be made public for further comments.

The Department had had a very constructive meeting with the Minerals Council on Monday, where the Council indicated that there was an opportunity of unlocking close to R20 billion in exploration. There were a number of companies which had declared an interest in investing in the country, such as Harmony.

SAMRAD

-Yesterday evening, the Department had had a session with the Minister on this issue. It was committed to resolving the matter, and had established a deadline of six months to produce proper feedback on improvements that had been made.

A study would be required to determine whether to continue using SAMRAD.

Tools of trade

Ms Yvonne Chetty, Chief Financial Officer (CFO), DMRE, said the lockdown had provided the Department with an opportunity to assess their tools of trade, as officials were expected to work remotely.

From the budget side, the Department had set aside funding to replace all laptops that needed replacement and to purchase additional laptops where required. Regarding printing, at regional offices in particular, the Department had participated in transversal contracts at National Treasury to ensure that printers were readily available to all regional offices. For cell phones, data had become an additional requirement due to the implementation of virtual meetings. Treasury had embarked on a contract – a competitive bidding process – to make available a new contract for cell phones from 1 April 2021. The Department would conduct a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether it should participate in Treasury’s contract, or enter into a different one. The solution for ensuring business continuity would be taken.

The Chairperson indicated that there were two further issues – the Makua matter, which required a written response from the Department, and the letter of complaint which had been sent to the Speaker’s office.

Discussion

Mr J Lorimer (DA) said that he was readily available to provide information on the Boshmanspoort matter, as he was eager to handle this situation.

He stressed that the Department had a credibility problem, and he did not regard the way it was addressing the problem as sufficient. He calculated that it would spend over four years clearing the backlog, which would not solve the problem. The huge prospecting rights backlog was a deterrent to those wanting to participate in mineral exploration. He requested a firm date from the Director-General as to when the backlog would be cleared.

He deemed slide 11 of the presentation on the mineral licensing process to be confusing. The process – which stated that if an applicant was a non-historically disadvantaged person for prospecting rights, black economic empowerment (BEE) applied – was in contravention of the Mining Charter, which did not say that prospective applicants had to be BEE compliant. The Minister had said on several occasions that one did not have to be BEE compliant to obtain prospecting rights. Who was right, the Minister or the Department? It seemed as if the Department had not been giving any prospecting rights to non-BEE compliant prospectors. Who was reading the Mining Charter wrongly? Who was making policy, the Department or the Minister?

How did the step of checking spatial conflicts and drafting spatial reports (mentioned in slide 22) take place, especially in the context of an inefficient SAMRAD system? How did the Department do the check to see if the proposed exploration works programme made technical and scientific sense? Who decided that it made sense, and was there a check to ensure that the applicant had access to technical and financial expertise to conduct the exploration works programme?

Why -- as mentioned in slide 23 -- was the DMRE going through the trouble of faxing the magistrate’s office for the magistrate to put the notice on its notice board, but not putting the same document on the Department’s own website?

He highlighted the importance of knowing the difference between a granted and an executed permit – explaining that some permits were granted but never executed. When would the problem of sterilising rights be fixed? What was the numerical difference between the rights which had been granted and those which had been executed?

He declared his scepticism regarding SAMRAD, and read to the Department minutes from previous Committee meetings:

15 April 2015

“A detailed action plan was in place and already been presented to members. There were challenges when the system was being implemented. The system had come a long way and improved considerably. A major improvement was in February 2015, which had changed the face of SAMRAD from what it was as users had struggled to use this system along with a number of other things. The system was upgraded and was working.”

21 November 2018

“Members were concerned with regards to SAMRAD that the Department cannot give an indication of the compliance of the mining companies with the conditions of their rights. Excuses ring hollow, and it appears that the DMR is deliberately withholding compliance data. SAMRAD is clearly not providing the information needed by the DDA for its monitoring of environmental issues … The problem is, it [SAMRAD] cannot give integrated and summarised information that is reliable yet.”

Regarding the Canadian platform for potential mining investors, Mr Lorimer cited the Director-General’s sentiment that there was a need for improvement or enhancement in terms of SAMRAD. The Director-General had acknowledged the Department’s responsibility to have an efficient system, and yet one was not in place.

Mr Lorimer said that it was nine years since SAMRAD had been formed, and the system had never worked properly once during this time. This was a sentiment shared by Department officials. Why persist with SAMRAD when it clearly did not work?

Given the offer made by the mining industry to pay for an entirely new cadastral system, could the Department comment on this and explain, if the offer had been made, why it had not yet been accepted? The best-case scenario for SAMRAD was that it would be fixed in two to three years, which was two to three years without a credible cadastral system. It was currently very difficult to enter the mining industry if one was a small entrant.

Mr Lorimer cited a case study of a young man from North West province to show the difficulties faced by small miners, with one of the main reasons being the extremely slow and sometimes non-existent responses from the Department. He did not trust the solutions offered by the Director-General, and asked what was going to be different this time around.

Mr M Mahlaule (ANC) asked whether the system used to categorise black females entering the petroleum sector could be used to categorise white males and females participating in the petroleum sector. Because of the HDSA requirement, when the Department declined white males, there was a tendency to put white females into the system. This information was important.

It was also important to break down the AIC definition into its respective sub-demographics. The request by the Director-General for three months to deal with these issues was reasonable. The Committee did not expect the Department to solve 1 000 backlog cases -- it simply wanted to understand the magnitude of the problem. He appreciated that work had begun in the Mpumalanga office.

Mr K Mileham (DA) said that he had regularly received reports of lengthy delays in various steps of the petroleum licensing process. Why was there a delay in getting applications on to the system? Applicants were sent an SMS notification of their application outcome, but when they went to the office to get the paperwork, there was nothing on the system. Why was there no automated email process whereby applicants got notified that paperwork was available to them as soon as their application was approved?

Regarding mining rights, he asked what the age of the backlog was. How old were the oldest applications, and why were the oldest ones not being prioritised? He believed that the Department was dealing with the issue of backlogs with a piecemeal approach, and argued that the matter needed to be dealt with across the board, with every province receiving the necessary attention.

Regarding SAMRAD, he reaffirmed his position that SAMRAD should be scrapped and replaced. He asked why it had taken so long for the Department to realise that the continued use of SAMRAD should be evaluated.

He expressed his approval of Mr Lorimer’s proposal that mining rights be publicised on the departmental website. He explained that, because of an application becoming a public document once accepted by the Department, it should be publicised for public consultation regardless. It was a dereliction of duty not to publicise the application from the moment it was accepted in the regional office.

Despite being taken through the various cost savings when the Committee looked at the budgetary amendments, he was concerned at the delay in ensuring that people were able to do their jobs by not purchasing the necessary equipment to do so. Why the hold-up?

Ms V Malinga (ANC) acknowledged that the Department had taken the questions raised by the Committee in the 24 February 2021 meeting seriously. She said that the Director-General must ensure the timeous implementation of the departmental website in order for the community to be informed and updated regarding permits.

She was pleased that the Department had informed the Committee that SAMRAD was not working, but requested that it inform the Committee as to when the system would be fixed. If it did not have information communication technology (ICT), it should look externally for assistance to fix SAMRAD and bring it into line with how it should ideally function.

She would have preferred the Department to have said that it was not able to purchase the tools of trade given the implications of COVID-19 on its budget, instead of simply delaying these purchases. She was concerned at the double standards relating to the approval or rejection of an application – in both instances the outcome should be in writing, and calls should not be used. She was grateful that the issue of the backlog in Mpumalanga had been raised, and stressed that further efforts were required in this province.

Regarding the ongoing disciplinary cases in the Department, she requested an update on the case in which a staff member had spent around R700 000 in travelling allowances. She also welcomed the three-month timeline to implement the backlog turnaround plan established by the Department, and said that the Committee would hold them accountable to it.

Mr S Kula (ANC) was encouraged to hear that the Department would no longer tolerate a lack of consequence management. He agreed with Mr Mahlaule that the number of white males and females should be indicate in the same way as black females, in order to paint the actual picture of who was in control. The Department must go a step further and also categorise in terms of age – the majority of the players in this space were old white males, and it was crucial that many young people were introduced.

He believed that the audit conducted by Moloto Solutions gave a clear indication of the status quo, and asked when the next audit was going to be held. He was worried by the relatively small number of Africans and Coloureds who played a meaningful role in the petroleum sector. What was the Department going to do about that?

He did not have any problem in trusting the Department to deal with the backlogs using the interventions that were already in place, and believed the three-month timeline to report back was reasonable. The Department simply required the Committee’s support.

He raised the issue of fronting in the mining sector, and asked how the Department intended to deal with non-HDSA entities forming false partnerships with BEE entities during the application process.

The Chairperson thanked the Director-General for the presentations. He raised the issue of the letter written to the Committee that had to be referred back to the Speaker. It was important that the written response from the Department to that letter be presented to this Committee, as this Committee was now involved in the matter.

Was work being done by the team a replacement of the work that was supposed to be happening in other provinces? He did not want a situation where the Committee approved something that turned out to function differently from how it was portrayed. He requested clarification regarding what the Department meant when it indicated its intention to focus on Mpumalanga, and requested that it act in a way which made the public feel confident in the abilities of the DMRE and the Committee.

The Committee always navigated between the actions of the Executive and its responsibilities of accountability and oversight. The public did not distinguish between the two, leading to the assumption that Parliament could interfere with operational issues and challenges. Why would the Committee want to represent commercial interests when it was under a duty to advance the developmental agenda?

The Chairperson asked the Department to indicate which processes might frustrate the work being done in Mpumalanga, acknowledging that COVID-19 had had an impact, but also that the problem had started long before COVID-19. He also asked for clarification regarding the deliberations which occur once applications were received, and what some of the reasons for rejecting an application may be. If an application was rejected, did it still reflect as there being a pending application in the area when it came to double granting? Who was at fault for this type of situation?

He requested that, when compiling the report of the intervention in Mpumalanga regarding the backlog, the Department indicate what they discovered during the initial phase of the intervention in terms of the specific type of applications, what year they were submitted and what action was taken against the applicant in response. He emphasised that this must be the point where the situation changed, and excuses stopped being made.

Mr T Langa (EFF) asked whether the Department had deliberately used the 2018 B-BBEE audit report, as it was currently 2021 and many changes could have taken place between 2018 and now. What was being done regarding consequence management, and what were the related timelines? When timelines were not adhered to, what recourse did applicants have, given that sending emails to the Department did not work? He also requested a breakdown of the cases implicating the Department on licensing, including the status of the cases and whether there were any financial implications for taxpayers.

DMRE’s response

Mr Maqubela emphasised that, on the mineral regulation side, the team was very committed, but the culture needed changing. The team had asked for support and the removal of obstacles, and said that they would do the rest. The template in place in Mpumalanga was yielding results and the number of applications being finalised was ramping up, with 83 records of decisions finalised in Mpumalanga last week. He believed that the policy position was the correct one.

In response to the issue raised by Mr Mahluale regarding the categorisation of white females, the Department would definitely implement his recommendation. Surprisingly, there had not been a shift to white females in the retail sector, but there was a lot of movement in the wholesale sector. In terms of the Charter, however, white males continued to be rejected.

Intervention had started in Mpumalanga and had advanced to all other regions, with there being three chief directors – each responsible for three regions. They were all under an obligation to think of a plan to clear the backlog. Applications were dealt with in chronological order, with the team instructed to finish applications from 2013, before proceeding to 2014 applications and so forth.

Regarding the issue of delays in licences reaching the offices, the Department had fallen behind in terms of technological advancements, as the SMS reached the applicant faster than the document could be generated by the regional office. Last year, the Department had implemented security features in all of their certificates, making them difficult to duplicate. Every certificate was printed at the State Information Technology Agency (SITA), which was a long process.

In terms of transparency, the Department was definitely looking into publishing all the documents on its website.

SAMRAD was being evaluated, with other options also being considered. If the Department was given the six months, they would be able to return with a system that was both transparent and accessible by the workers.

He thanked Ms Malinga for her confidence in the Department and its team, and said that this confidence encouraged the team to do more.

Regarding the issue of the age of applicants, particularly in the retail space, he conceded that Mr Kula was correct in his assessment that the majority of the applicants and players were over 50 years old. There were also hardly any applicants from the youth category. Oil companies were committed to changing this situation.

The use of the 2018 audit report had been a deliberate effort at initiating a conversation with oil companies, and had been successful in doing so, with the companies acknowledging the results and drawing up five-year plans to change the status quo. Companies had also committed to the EAP statistics as a yardstick. The result was an increased number of applications from African women and youth.

On the issue raised by the Chairperson regarding inconsistencies in granting rights, the Department had added in their letters to applicants the option of appealing the decision. In a number of instances, the Department’s independent legal services had reported back to the Department, showing where it had erred regarding licensing.

Regarding consequence management, the Department was committed to ensuring that wrongdoers were made to account. Overhauling the culture in the organisation was the most effective way in ensuring that wrongful acts no longer happened.

Ms Kobe referred to the method of conducting the spatial checks and compiling the spatial reports – bearing in mind the challenges posed by SAMRAD – and said what the Department normally did was to check through the system, as well as conduct manual checks. She suggested that spreadsheets could be used in the future, in which all the properties could be captured by name and registration number. SAMRAD assisted in capturing information about accepted applications and assisted through its polygons. She highlighted connectivity challenges as a major cause of problems during the process – especially in Limpopo, where there was interference from the military base. However, the system could adequately respond to instances of double granting.

The Department possessed the technical and financial ability to assess instances of mining work problems – geologists and people with a financial background were employed by the Department for this purpose.

In most applications, companies would supply a curriculum vitae (CV) of people under their employment with mining and financial backgrounds, in order to prove the technical ability of the company. The Department also relied on audited financial statements from companies in order to prove their financial competency. These documents were read in conjunction with the prospecting plans of the company in order to reach a conclusion as to whether the applicant would make optimal use of the mineral resources.

Regarding granted versus executed rights, Ms Kobe conceded that there were a number of rights which had been granted but not executed. This was mainly due to applicants ignoring invitations made by the Department.

Adv Mokoena appreciated the way in which Members had engaged with the Department and demonstrated that they were fulfilling their duties as public representatives. He acknowledged that the requirements of the MPRDA were quite cumbersome for small players, with the Minister directing the Department to establish an additional small-scale mining policy.

The Department was committed to the six-month period, after which it was required to account to the Committee. He emphasised that the Department was not married to SAMRAD, and other options were being explored. He acknowledged the figures provided by Members.

In response to the issue raised by Ms Malinga regarding the official, the Department would provide clarity in due course. The Department also appreciated the comment made on the progress shown in dealing with disciplinary cases. He stressed that no one was exempt from doing their work and that there were consequences for failing to do so. However, officials would not be chased without sufficient reason for them to be chased.

Regarding the backlog, in all provinces except Mpumalanga, the backlog had started in 2016. Mpumalanga was clearly the main challenge.

In response to the comments made by Mr Langa, the Department did visit the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee (PPC) to appraise Members, and was in possession of the progress of the cases in question, although this was not a matter which the Department was required to deal with specifically. It was not possible to give a specific amount in terms of legal fees, as this could be determined only after the cases had been concluded.

A fundamental issue raised by Members and the Chairperson was the fact that people were writing to Parliament to raise their concerns. He clarified that these people did not suddenly wake up and decide to write to Parliament – the process began in the Department. When issues that were raised in the Department did not result in feedback being given, the ones who raised those issues looked to other institutions, such as Chapter 9 institutions and Parliament. The Department had had a session with the Minister a week ago regarding this matter, where a commitment was made by the Department to be responsive. Feedback must be given, whether satisfactory or not. People and companies were making use of the toll-free number linked to the Presidency when they could not get a satisfactory response from the Department.

The DMRE had made a commitment to monitor this process to ensure that Parliament was not directly communicated with. Where the Department failed to do so, those responsible had to face consequences, especially since the option of taking the Department to court was available only to those with the financial capability to do so.

The Director-General highlighted that he would be sticking to protocol in response to the comments made by Mr Lorimer, and that the Committee would receive updates on this matter. He also said that the Department had taken note of the points raised by the Committee regarding the tools of trade, and admitted that the Department could have done better.

He made the Committee aware of the letter written in response to an ongoing application and appeal, and said that the Department was committed to expediting the appeal and ensuring that it was finalised. It had also prepared a comprehensive response in relation to the Makua matter.

The Chairperson said that the Committee would be looking at, amongst other things, the budgetary proposals and annual targets of the Department. He set a deadline for the Department to hold a session with the Committee to discuss the extent of work which had been done in terms of improving the licensing regime, specifically requesting that the Department try to identify areas which required improvement.

He reiterated that the Department should not be married to SAMRAD, but needed to be aware that implementing an entirely new system might initiate public unrest.

He acknowledged the difficulties associated with managing a team, and did not want the team in question to be demoralised following some of the comments made by the Committee. He acknowledged the positive direction in which the team was headed, but hoped for consistency and commitment.

The issue of double granting was one which the Department must not try to cover up, and instead concede that it was a reality, and take steps to ensure that it did not happen in the future. The Committee did not want to sound like it was operating the Department, but when there were complaints against the DMRE, the Committee must ensure that these complaints were addressed.

The meeting was adjourned.

Share this page: