Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Amendment Bill: deliberations and clause by clause adoption, in presence of Deputy Minister

This premium content has been made freely available

Mineral Resources and Energy

06 March 2014
Chairperson: Ms F Bikani (ANC) (Acting)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Committee firstly started to go through the new A-list for the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Amendment Bill, dated 6 March 2014. The DA members raised objections that certain recommendations that they had made, specifically for amended definitions, were not included.  They also objected to the Chairperson’s summary that there had been essentially three matters flagged for further debate during this meeting, but it was pointed out that those items were agreed upon after the DA Members had left the meeting on the previous evening. After hearing opinions from some Members that they would prefer to go through the A-list, and objections from others who wanted to go through the Bill, and who asked why a new version was not before Members, the Chairperson called a short recess, to allow all advisers to agree on the way to proceed. The Committee then proceeded to go through the Bill, clause by clause, noting whether, for every clause, there were amendments proposed on the A-list.

When taking the votes, it was consistently recorded that the majority decision was taken by eight ANC members, with the dissent being recorded by the two DA Members. Other parties were not in the meeting. Dissent was recorded by the DA on clause 1 (definitions of designated minerals, free carried interest, mine gate price and reference to national priorities, production right, security of supply and State participation. It also recorded dissent to clauses 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21, 27, 30, 36, 39, 41, 46, 47, 48, the clause incorrectly numbered dealing with the amendment of section 74, 49, 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 61 the new clause inserting a new section 86A in the Act, in respect of State participation on exploration and production rights, 62, 63, 64 ,66, 68, 70, 71, and also to the Memorandum on the Objects, insofar as it dealt with the principles to which the DA was opposed. The main reasons for dissent included an objection to wide Ministerial discretion, an opposition to the principles of free carried interest, the objection to Petroleum Agency South Africa no longer having powers as these were being moved to Regional Managers, the DA’s view that the Bill should have been split to deal with minerals and with oil and gas separately. All Members agreed to reject clause 67, and agreed to the new clause to follow clause 79, amending item 9 of Schedule II to Act 28 of 2002. The remaining clauses were agreed to by all Members. The majority voted to accept the Bill, with the DA recording its opposition. The Committee Report, which would reflect the minority views, would be discussed on the following day.

Members agreed to the draft of the letter to the Speaker requesting permission from the House to insert clauses into the Bill dealing with amendments that would clarify that an environmental authorisation must have been issued before the granting of such right, provide for the execution of the granting of a right in terms of the MPRDA would be suspended until an appeal has been finalised, within the prescribed period, and correct the position that the holder of a prospecting right would have an exclusive right to apply for the renewal of the prospecting or mining right. Members also asked to discuss the tagging again on the following day, as the majority held the view that the Bill should have been tagged as a section 75 Bill, although the Chairperson pointed out that the tagging was not something upon which the Committee could decide.
 

Meeting report

Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Amendment Bill B15-2013: Clause by clause deliberations on version dated 6 March
The Chairperson summarised that on the previous day, the Committee had completed going through the Bill, clause by clause, but that certain issues had been flagged for discussion today.

Mr J Lorimer (DA) wondered if the Committee could still vote on clauses before having written to the Speaker, in terms of Rule 249, requesting permission to incorporate some new clauses into the Bill. He asked to hear an opinion from the Parliamentary Law Advisor.

Ms Desiree Swart, Parliamentary Law Adviser, said that the permission of the House was needed to introduce other clauses that did not deal with matters in the original Bill. When the matter went to the National Assembly (NA ) House sitting, the letter requesting permission to introduce extra clauses must be referred to the House at the same time. Once the House had given permission for those clauses, then the House may immediately consider the Bill submitted by the Committee.

Mr H Schmidt (DA) said that this presupposed that the House would give permission on those clauses. He felt that surely the Bill should rather come back to the Committee after hearing from the House. Some of the clauses may be agreed to and others not.

Mr S Mohai (ANC) thought that the advice by the Parliamentary Law Adviser would allow the process to continue.

Mr M Sonto (ANC) also agreed. The Committee had requested an opinion and was now interrogating it, which did not seem to make sense.

The Chairperson said that she had gone through the process and the letter to the Speaker would not, in her view, retard the processes of the Committee. The Rule also said “may make application” but not “must”.

Mr Schmidt repeated that his problem was that referring the letter to the Speaker at the same time as attempting to pass the Bill assumed the House would agree to the introduction of the further clauses. He still felt that it was actually more correct to delay the voting until permission was granted.

The Chairperson pointed out that if permission was not granted to incorporate those clauses, then so be it, but in the meantime the Committee would have been able to proceed on others.

Mr Schmidt questioned the process gain.

Mr J Moepeng (ANC) suggested that the Committee move on.

Mr J Lorimer (DAO asked that his party’s objection to the process be recorded. He did not believe that the procedural matter had been correctly decided and the DA wished to check on that for itself.

A new version of the Bill dated 6 March 2014 was circulated.

The Chairperson noted that Members would now go through this version (referred to as the A list), and consider the Bill clause by clause, and where there were definitions and changes these would be considered.

Clause 1
Mr Lorimer questioned the definition of “beneficiation” on page 3, line 7 of the Bill. He repeated his suggestion that it should read “Beneficiation means the transformation of a designated mineral to a higher value product which can either be used locally or exported”.

Mr Theo Hercules, Principal State Law Adviser, Office of the Chief State Law Adviser, read out the definition in the original Bill as “the transformation, value addition or downstream beneficiation of a mineral and petroleum resource (or a combination of minerals) to a higher value product, over baselines to be determined by the Minister which can either be consumed locally or exported”.

He pointed out that the A-list now also contained a revised suggested definition reading: “means the transformation, value addition or downstream beneficiation of a mineral or mineral product (or a combination of minerals) to a higher value product over baselines to be determined by the Minister, which can either be consumed locally or exported”.

Mr Mohai thought that this last definition was an improved formulation and would avoid confusion.

Mr Lorimer did not support that, but reiterated his own proposal.

Mr Mohai asked for some discussion on the principles of the debate at this point.

The Chairperson said that three main clauses were set aside for debate today. This was one of them.

Mr Schmidt asked if the Committee was discussing and voting. If it was voting, then some of the other clauses were to be challenged also.

The Committee Researcher indicated that if there was disagreement on this, then there should be a vote on this, and then the other areas would be covered.

Mr Hercules said that before the Committee voted on this clause, there were also two other amendments that he wanted to point out.  He referred to the document dated 6 March (the A list) – and read out the wording to be inserted, on page 3, shown as item 13 and item 15. In each of these paragraphs it was proposed that the phrase “and safety” was to be inserted, in the Bill, at line 18 on page 5 (which referred to the definition of “mining area”) and in line 50 on page 5 of the Bill (which related to the definition of “prospecting area”).

Mr Lorimer said that there were several clauses on the A list that the his party, the DA disagreed upon. He repeated that he wanted the opportunity for those also to be put to the vote.

Mr J Moepeng (ANC) said that the Committee had deliberated at length on the previous day and there was discussion about issues being flagged for further debate. Members had presented their arguments and counter-arguments, and it was agreed that on some of the issues, the Members must agree to disagree. He believed that this Committee should now be going through clause by clause, and he was not sure whether any new arguments would be raised. The DA had not requested that specific issues be flagged.  The ANC recognised that the DA would not always be agreeing, and many of the matters boiled down to an ideological stance.

Mr Mohai pointed out that the two DA members had left the meeting on the previous day before the Committee had concluded its discussions on which issues were still to be flagged. The Committee had had sufficient discussions on the previous day and he thought that today’s discussions should be focused, rather than repeating the previous arguments.

Mr Schmidt wanted to put on record that there were more than three issues, on his recollection, that were flagged. He suggested that Members should merely proceed to vote on every clause. He agreed that on several of these clauses there would not be consensus.

Mr Sonto objected to the turn of the discussions, in view of the fact that the DA Members had left yesterday’s meeting early. He suggested that the Chairperson should proceed in the way proposed by the State Law Adviser.

Mr Godfrey Oliphant, Deputy Minister of Mineral Resources, wished Members well in their debate, and said that at some point the Committee would need to deal with the Motion of Desirability and voting. There was a good sense of the issues, and he was sure that matters would be dealt with properly. He had to leave the meeting at this point.

The Chairperson reiterated that her line of discussion was following the conclusion of the Committee who were still there at the end of the meeting on the previous day. Whilst she had not gone to directly to the three flagged issues that the Committee Section manager had suggested, the Committee would reconfirm its positions and the Committee may well need to vote and move on. She would not open the floor for discussion.

She reminded the Members that there had been additions or changes, and these were summarised in a single-page document which was circulated to Members.

Mr Lorimer raised another query about procedure.

The Chairperson said that all Members must refer to the A-list dated 6 March.

Mr Lorimer said that the definition he had proposed yesterday was not on that document, which was of concern to him. He suggested that Members should simply go through the clauses

The Chairperson said that she did not wish to do that; she would prefer to go page by page.

Mr Lorimer said that he still wanted the opportunity to raise his objection to all the clauses where he foresaw problems.

Mr F Mathibela (ANC) suggested that Members continue. Votes would follow.

Mr Schmidt said that there was a rule that the opposing view should be contained in the Committee Report. He wanted confirmation that the minority views would be included in a Committee Report before this Bill went to the House.

Mr Moepeng said that it was not relevant to deal with this now.

The Chairperson asked again that the Members must go through the Bill page by page, which would cover the matters dealt with on the previous day. She would now refer to pages of the Bill.

Page by page discussion: preliminary
Page 1 was agreed to.

On page 2 of the Bill, there was agreement.

On page 3, Mr Mohai suggested that the underlined definition for beneficiation should be endorsed and all the other areas should be deleted.

Mr Lorimer proposed that his definition, as just read out be supported.

Members voted on the issue, with seven votes for the definition supported by Mr Mohai, and two against.

On page 4, Mr Lorimer said that the DA did not agree to the definition for “designated minerals”.

Mr Schmidt also noted that the DA did not agree with the definition of “free carried interest”.

Mr Mohai noted that the ANC supported the definition of designated minerals , as set out in the A-list.

The State Law Advisers read out the new definition for “free carried interest” at item 2 on page 2 of the A list. This read” free carried interest means the interest allocation to the State in exploration or production operations without any financial obligation on the State”.

Mr Moepeng said that he was now finding this process tedious. He was worried that the Committee would run into difficulties if it was not dealing with the A-list directly. His assumption was that for “free carried interest” the same wording would be agreed upon. He suggested that the Members should stop the current process, and go through the A-list.

The Chairperson said that she would be inclined to disagree with the State Law Adviser. She pointed out that the State Law Advisers had stated that they would be updating the A-list.

Ms Swartz said that this Committee must vote on the Amendment Bill to be forwarded to the House. The A list included clauses also where there were no further changes, but it also did not cover every clause. She reiterated that the meeting would have to vote on every clause. That was why the Committee should be going through the Bill. Any changes set out in the A list must be read with the clauses that were being voted upon.

The Parliamentary Committee Section representative said that the proposed amendments were before the Committee, and if the Committee had gone beyond the scope of the Bill, then Rule 249 would apply and the Committee must seek permission for inclusion of those clauses. However, before seeking that permission the Committee should vote on the clauses.

The Chairperson said that she had a problem with people coming in to advise the Committee at this late stage. The Committee had been moving well.

Mr Moepeng wanted to make sure that this Committee was acting correctly. He summarised that what the Parliamentary Advisers were saying was that, when going through the clauses in the Bill, the Members should also be checking to see if those clauses had been changed subsequently by anything in the A-list, in which case they would be dealing with the clauses “as amended”.

Mr Mohai did not understand why it was now suggested that using the A-list would be procedurally incorrect. He asked the State Law Advisers to point to any other changes.

Mr Schmidt said that normally a Committee would get a B-version with the amendments effected. Be that as it may, he agreed that the Committee proceed page by page, referring also to the A-list, because, as the Parliamentary Law Advisers had pointed out, the Bill was the guiding document.

The Chairperson checked again that all Members had the Bill in front of them, as well as the list dated 6 March. She confirmed that both documents would be used. The Committee would go page by page through the Bill, but would also refer to the updated A list.

Mr Moepeng said that he would also suggest that every time Members made a proposal to agree to a clause, the State Law and Parliamentary Law Advisers must regard this as agreeing to the clauses “as amended”. Members had already spent three days discussing the A-list and the legal drafters should have presented a “B-list” ; either the drafters had been slack, or the Committee had been misled as to what they should be considering, and that was a problem that perhaps the Chairperson needed to deal with in another forum. He asked why the Members were not going through he A list.

Mr Mohai said that it was explained how the bold and bracketed and underlined phrases should be dealt with. If the A list was agreed to, then it would be taken as amending the clauses in the original Bill. He suggested that perhaps the State Law Advisers had not had sufficient time to draw another document.

Mr Lorimer said that the A list was drawn without the input of the DA and some of the matters it had raised were not included.

The Chairperson wanted to raise a point of order. The DA Members had left the second meeting yesterday early, despite the fact that she had, earlier in the day, acceded to their request to stop the first meeting at 1:00 pm, and furthermore they had left last night without indicating that they would not be returning.

Mr Lorimer interjected that he had another meeting to attend.

The Chairperson continued that in all fairness, they must accept that the Committee had been working on and agreeing on the A-list. It was also agreed that any areas of disagreement would be summarised after completing the A list – and those were held over to today’s proceedings. The agenda for today’s meeting referred to consideration of the A-list. She was concerned about the delay, and she asked that the process that the Committee had started should be continued.

Mr Schmidt said that if the correct process was not followed, it could render the entire discussions null and void. This was supposed to be the responsibility of the Department of Mineral Resources, not the law advisers, and the Department should have drawn up the B-version or the A list.

Mr Mathibela said that Mr Schmidt and Mr Lorimer were speaking of an A-list that did not contain their input. However, she asked if it was intended that corrections should be made to that every day.

The Chairperson said that inputs were supposed to have been added into today’s A list. However, there would normally be agreement on what must be reflected.

Ms B Tinto (ANC) said that yesterday there were changes agreed upon. She had thought that an updated version of the Bill would have been worked on today, but nothing was before the Committee. However, the A list did contain some of the amendments already agreed upon and she thought that those could be discussed.

Mr Lorimer reiterated that the DA did not agree with the definition for free carried interest.

The Chairperson said that this would be voted on

Mr Lorimer again noted that the DA’s objection was not included in the papers that were before the Committee, nor were the other issues that were raised.

The Chairperson said that at the end of the meeting the Committee had agreed on some of those issues.

Mr Lorimer noted his strong objection to the process.
 
Mr Schmidt objected to only three issues being recorded as areas to be flagged.

The Chairperson repeated that the Committee would be going through clause by clause, to agree upon what would be included in the final document of the amendment Bill. The Committee would be voting on every clause.

Mr Schmidt did not agree.

Mr Sonto asked why Members did not proceed on the basis of the A-list and move straight to that.

Mr Moepeng suggested that Members should vote to use the A-list, to effect changes to the Bill that the Committee had been discussing to date. He suggested that perhaps the Committee must firstly vote on the A-list, to close the issues.

Mr Schmidt objected again, and disagreed with the summary by the Chairperson that there were three flagged issues. He said that the reasons for disagreement must be included in the Committee report. He thirdly thought that the correct process was for the Committee to vote on the Bill, as amended by the A-list, not the other way around.

The State Law Advisers nodded to indicate their agreement with the last point.

The Chairperson called a short recess to consult further with all the advisers.

Clause by clause deliberations
On resumption, the Chairperson said that the Committee would now return to the beginning of the Bill, and take a vote on each clause individually.

Clause 1
 to line 47 of page 6
Mr Moepeng proposed that the Committee agree to clause 1, with the amendments reflected in the A-list.

Mr Schmidt noted that he did not agree with the definitions of:
- designated minerals, on the basis that the Minister should not have the right to designate
- free carried interest, which the DA did not believe had any place in the Bill
- mine gate price, as the DA believed that the words “fair market price” should have been used
- any of the references to national priorities, without this phrase being defined.

Mr Lorimer also noted his objection to the following definitions:
- production right
- security of supply
- State participation.

A vote was taken, with the majority (eight votes from the ANC) in favour of clause 1 as amended by the A-list, and two (the DA members) against. (This proportion of voting was the same for the rest of the disputed clauses, unless noted otherwise).

Clause 2
Members agreed to the clause, as amended, with the addition of “optimal” on page 6 of the Bill, at line 56.

Clause 3
Mr Schmidt asked for clarity whether (b) was being omitted, and received confirmation from the State Law Advisers that it was.

Members agreed to the clause, as amended.

Clause 4
Members agreed to this clause.

Clause 5
Mr Moepeng noted the proposal to reject this clause, and insert a new clause, as set out in the A list. The ANC would support the new clause

The DA opposed the clause.

The majority voted in favour of the clause, as amended, with the DA voting against.

Clause 6
Mr Moepeng noted the amendments set out in the A list from pages 7 to 8.

Mr Schmidt said the DA wished to oppose the clause, as it appeared to be in conflict with a Constitutional Court judgment.

The majority voted in favour of the clause, as amended, with the DA voting against.

Clause 7
All Members agreed to this clause, without any amendments.

Clause 8
The amendments to the clause were set out in the A list.

Mr Schmidt voiced opposition, on the basis that the clause gave extraordinarily wide powers of discretion to the Minister.

The majority voted in favour of the clause, as amended, with the DA voting against.

Clause 9
Mr Schmidt voiced opposition, on the same basis as for clause 8.

The majority voted in favour of the clause, as amended, with the DA voting against.

Clause 10
Mr Lorimer voiced the DA’s opposition, on the basis that the clause gave wide powers of discretion to the Minister.

The majority voted in favour of the clause, as amended, with the DA voting against it.

Clause 11
Mr Lorimer objected to this clause because if referred to the process in section 9.

The majority voted in favour of the clause, as amended, with the DA voting against.

Clause 12
The clause was amended by the A List.

Mr Schmidt opposed on the same basis as his previous objections in relation to Ministerial powers.

The majority voted in favour of the clause, as amended, with the DA voting against it.

Clause 13
All Members agreed to the clause, as amended.

Clause 14
Mr Schmidt opposed the clause because of wide discretionary powers granted to the Minister.

Mr Mohai said that the DA seemed to object every time the Minister was mentioned.

The majority voted in favour of the clause, as amended, with the DA voting against it.

Clause 15
Mr Schmidt opposed the clause because of wide discretionary powers granted to the Minister.

The majority (seven) voted in favour of the clause, as amended, with two DA Members opposing. The Chairperson noted one abstention but refused to discuss it when the Members demanded who had abstained and reiterated that she had counted seven hands raised.

Clause 16
All Members agreed to this clause.

Clause 17
Mr Lorimer opposed this clause, on the grounds that it referred back to section 9.

The majority voted in favour of the clause, as amended, with the DA voting against it.

Clause 18
Mr Schmidt noted the DA’s opposition to the clause, on the grounds that it granted wide power to the Minister.

The majority voted in favour of the clause, as amended, with the DA voting against it.

Clause 19
All Members agreed to the clause, as amended by the A list.

Clause 20
All Members agreed to the clause, without amendments.

Clause 21
Mr Lorimer noted an objection on the grounds that the clause dealt with beneficiation.

The majority voted in favour of the clause, as amended, with the DA voting against it.

Clause 22
All Members agreed to the clause, as amended by the A-list.

Clause 23
All Members agreed to the clause, with the amendments noted in the A list.

Clause 24
All Members agreed to the clause, with no amendments.

Clauses 25 and 26
All Members agreed to these clauses, with no amendment.

Clause 27
Mr Schmidt noted his opposition to the clause.

The majority voted in favour of the clause, as amended, with the DA voting against it.

Clauses 28 and 29
All Members agreed to the clauses, as amended.

Clause 30
Mr Schmidt noted the opposition to this clause.

The majority voted in favour of the clause, as amended, with the DA voting against it.

Clauses 31, 32, 33
All Members agreed to these clauses, with no amendments.

Clauses 34 and 35
All Members agreed to the clauses, as amended by the A-list.

Clause 36
Mr Schmidt said the DA opposed this clause on the basis of its argument that the Bill should be split, the one to deal with oil and gas and the other minerals.

The majority voted in favour of the clause, as amended, with the DA voting against it.

Clause 37, 38,
Members agreed to these clauses, with no amendments.

Clause 39,
Mr Lorimer noted the opposition to this clause, on the basis of wide Ministerial discretion.

The majority voted in favour of the clause, as amended, with the DA voting against it.

Clause 40
Members accepted this clause.

Clause 41
Mr Lorimer noted that the DA wished to oppose the clause on the basis that it was leaving matters to regulation rather than setting them out in legislation.

The majority voted in favour of the clause, as amended, with the DA voting against it.

Clause 42
All Members accepted this clause.

Clause 43
All members agreed to this clause, with amendments.

Clause 44
All members agreed to this clause, with no amendments.

Clause 45
All members agreed to this clause, with amendments.

Clause 46
Mr Schmidt opposed the clause because the DA did not agree with the removal of matters from the Petroleum Authority South Africa.

The majority voted in favour of the clause, as amended, with the DA voting against it.

Clause 47
Mr Schmidt noted that there were two clause 47s and two clause 48s, according to the numbering on page 27 of the Bill. It was agreed that this would have to be attended to when the B version of the Bill was drawn.

Speaking to the “first clause 47” Mr Lorimer noted the DA’s disagreement on the basis of PASA being dissolved.

The majority voted in favour of the clause, as amended, with the DA voting against it.

Second numbered clause 47 (repeal of sections 72 and 73)
All Members agreed to the clause

Clause 48
Mr Schmidt noted the DA’s opposition

The majority voted in favour of the clause, with the DA voting against it.

Second numbered clause 48 (amendment of section 74)
MR Lorimer noted the opposition to the amendment of section 74.

The majority voted in favour of the clause, as amended, with the DA voting against it.

Clause 49
Mr Lorimer noted opposition to the clause, on the grounds of wide Ministerial discretion.

The majority voted in favour of the clause, as amended, with the DA voting against it.

Clause 50
Mr Lorimer objected to the clause on the grounds that powers were being given to regional managers rather than PASA.

The majority voted in favour of the clause, as amended, with the DA voting against it.

Clause 51
Mr Schmidt noted the DA’s disagreement with the clause on the basis of unbridled Ministerial discretion.

The majority of Members adopted the clause, with no amendments, with the DA voting against it.

Clause 52?
The majority of Members adopted the clause.

Clause 53
Mr Schmidt noted disagreement on the basis of unbridled Ministerial discretion.

The majority of Members adopted the clause, as amended, with the DA voting against it.

Clause 54
Mr Schmidt noted the DA’s disagreement on clause 54.

The majority of Members adopted the clause, as amended, but the DA voted against it.

Clause 55
Mr Lorimer noted that the DA disagreed with the clause because of the replacement of the authority of PASA with regional managers.

The majority of Members adopted the clause, as amended, but the DA voted against it.

Clause 56
Mr Lorimer said the DA disagreed with the clause on the basis that it gave unfettered powers to the Minister.

The majority of Members adopted the clause, with no amendments, but the DA voted against it.

Clause 57
Mr Lorimer noted the DA’s disagreement on clause 57.

The majority of Members adopted the clause, with no amendments with the DA recording its votes against it.

Clause 58
The DA recorded its disagreement with the amendments to clause 58.

The majority of Members adopted the clause, with amendments, but the DA voted against it.

Clause 59
All Members agreed on clause 59

Clause 60
The DA recorded its objection to this clause.

The majority of Members adopted the clause, without amendments, but the DA voted against it.

Clause 61.
Mr Schmidt indicated the DA’s unhappiness with this clause, on the basis that it gave unbridled Ministerial discretion.

The majority of Members agreed to clause 61, with no amendments, with DA voting against it.

New clause inserted after clause 61: insertion of section 86A to the Act: State participation on exploration and production rights
The clause was read out from the A list, by Mr Hercules.

Mr Lorimer opposed the insertion of the new clause on the grounds that it allowed for too much State interference in the industry.

The majority of Members supported the insertion of the new clause, as amended, with the two DA members voting against it.

Clause 62
Mr Lorimer opposed this clause, on the basis of the removal of the powers of PASA, a principle outlined earlier.

The majority of Members voted to accept the clause, with no amendments, with the DA voting against it.

Clause 63
Mr Lorimer disagreed with the clause on the basis that PASA’s involvement was now removed, and Mr Schmidt added, in jest, that the DA was not prepared to agree to “Malema” clauses.

The majority voted to accept the clause, without amendments, with the DA voting against it.

Clause 64
Mr Lorimer recorded his disagreement to the clause on the basis of that DA did not agree with the removal of PASA.

The majority voted to accept the clause, without amendments, with the DA voting against.

Clause 65
Mr Hercules pointed out that this clause was affected by amendments noted on the A-list, which applied to page 35 of the Bill, in three places on line 17.

Mr Hercules noted that previously the Bill had amended section 91, which related to the power to enter into mining or prospecting areas. The Bill, as introduced, had the Minister may designate a regional manage or any officer to carry out function in (4). The amendment now had the effect of adding a reference to a person with appropriate experience.

Mr Schmidt asked what section 92 related to.

Mr Hercules said that this related to routine inspections.

All Members accept the amendments indicated, and agreed to the clause, as amended.

Clause 66
Mr Schmidt noted the DA’s disagreement with the clause, on the grounds of overly-wide Ministerial discretion.

The majority agreed to the clause with amendments, but the DA recorded its dissent.

Clause 67
All Members agreed to reject this clause.

Clause 68
Mr Schmidt noted the DA’s disagreement with the clause, on the grounds of overly-wide Ministerial discretion.

The majority of Members agreed to the clause with amendments, but the DA voted against it.

Clause 69
All Members supported the clause, with amendments.

Clause 70
Mr Schmidt noted the DA’s concern that the penalties may be excessive, when compared to the offence allegedly committed.

The majority of Members supported the clause, as amended, but the DA voted against it.

Clause 71
Mr Lorimer opposed this clause as it appeared to give excessive powers to the Minister.

The majority supported the clause, without amendment, but the DA voted against it.

Clause 72
All Members agreed to the clause, with amendments

Clause 73
All Members agreed to the clause, without amendments

Clause 74
All Members agreed to the clause, with amendments

Clauses 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
All Members agreed to the clauses, without amendments

New clause following clause 79: Amendment of item 9 of Schedule II to Act 28 of 2002
Mr Hercules read out the clause (as contained on the A list). This required the holder to register a reservation, permission or right within six years,.

Mr Schmidt asked what the consequence of this would should a holder fail to do so, and if that person would lose the right, on non-registration after six years.

Mr Hercules agreed that the person would have to register that right within six years of the date of this Bill coming into force.

Mr Schmidt asked what land was referred to in sub-item (1).

Mr Mohai objected that Mr Schmidt was merely taking the meeting back, because he had left early on the previous day.

Mr Hercules clarified that item 1 in the Schedule was quite long and referred to the right to use of surface of land granted or acquired in terms of the Precious and Base Metals Act of 1908, the Previous Stones Act of 1964, or under several sections of the Mining Rights Act 1967, or by virtue of the reservation under that Act, the Minerals Act immediately in place before the MRPDA had taken effect. It was essentially a transitional provision, which set out the position notwithstanding the replacement of these rights or the repeal of any of that legislation. The amendment before the Committee today spoke of the period of that transition.

All Members voted to accept that new clause.

Short title
All Members agreed to the short title

Long title
The Chairperson noted that this was on page 2.

All Members agreed with the Long Title.

Memorandum on the Objects
The Chairperson noted that the Memorandum would need to be changed.

Mr Schmidt said that he would not agree to the consequential changes because they reflected parts of the Bill with which the DA had recorded its disagreement.

Process for voting and Committee Report
Mr Moepeng suggested that the Members now adopt the Bill, and formally proposed that the Bill be accepted.

Mr Lorimer said that at some stage the Committee Report must be drawn and voted on.

Mr Sonto clarified that normally the Committee would vote for the Bill, and noted that the Committee Report did allow for opposing views to be recorded. He thought the Report followed the adoption of the Bill.

Ms Desiree Swartz said that the Committee could adopt the Bill, but, when making the recommendation to the House, it would have to approach the House for permission to include the extra clauses. This would have to be decided upon by the House before the House considered the adoption of the Bill, and this should be reflected in the Order Paper.

The majority of the Members (8) adopted the Bill as amended, with the dissent of the DA Members (2) noted.

Letter to the Speaker
The Chairperson noted that the Committee was intending to approach the Speaker for permission to include clauses on two issues, related to the water and environment issues. She tabled and read out the draft letter, which noted the Committee’s approach was made in terms of Rule 249(3)(b). It gave notice that the Committee intended to go beyond amending the sections in the Bill, and thus sought permission also to include amendments to:
- align and clarify that an environmental authorisation must have been issued before the granting of such right
- provide that the execution of the granting of a right in terms of the MPRDA will be suspended until an appeal has been finalised, within the prescribed period
- to correct the position that the holder of a prospecting right will have an exclusive right to apply for the renewal of the prospecting or mining right.

Mr Schmidt wondered if there should be a specific references to the clauses.

The Acting Chairperson noted that they would be attached as an addendum.

Mr Moepeng thought that the letter sufficed on its own and pointed out that the Rule was worded as “may” and not “must”.

Mr Mohai supported the letter.

Mr Moepeng felt that the Committee was not done with the process and needed to agree on the tagging. He proposed that the Committee record its agreement with the State Law Advisers and Department that this should have been tagged as a section 75 Bill.

The Chairperson noted that this was not a decision that the Committee could make. A letter would be written to make a formal request that the tagging revert to section 75. 

Mr Mohai asked that the Chairperson make an enquiry into the outcome of the first letter addressed to the Speaker. He asked if there was a draft Committee Report.

The Chairperson said that a final decision would be made on the following day about the approach in regard to the tagging. The Committee report would need to be polished.

Mr Moepeng pointed out that the State Law Advisers and Department had expressed their opinion on the tagging and thought the Committee should refer to that and express agreement.

The Chairperson pointed out that the Committee had just voted to adopt the Bill that was noted as a section 76 Bill. She reiterated that there was no response received on whether the tagging had been changed. She would follow up on this.

Mr Schmidt noted that the prerogative to change the tagging lay with the Speaker, together with the Joint Tagging Mechanism.

Mr Lorimer asked for a reminder of the initial letter addressed, after the Minister had requested that, and asked whether the Committee had made a formal decision to challenge the tagging.

Mr Mohai reiterated that was discussed at the end of the meeting on the previous day, but Mr Lorimer asked if the meeting had a quorum at that stage.

The Chairperson called Members to order and Mr Mohai agreed that the matter be discussed on the following day.

The meeting was adjourned. 
 

Documents

No related documents

Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: