Minerals and Petroleum Resources Amendment Bill: return of Bill

NCOP Economic and Business Development

02 September 2008
Chairperson: Mr J Sibiya (ANC – Limpopo)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Minerals and Petroleum Resources Amendment Bill was finalised by this Committee on 20 August 2008. Due to concerns about missing amendments, the Committee was asked to reconvene on the Bill. At this meeting the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) said that the legislation originally placed before this Committee did not match the agreement reached with the Department of Minerals and Energy. DME wanted to redress the problems without DEAT being present. The Committee took issue with DEAT’s unexpected presence, the presentation of previously unseen amendments, as well as the lack of synchronisation between DME and DEAT on the legislation. Hence, the Chairperson requested that DME and DEAT go away and reach an agreement, then present to the Committee a unitary briefing that reflected their engagement and agreement.

Meeting report

Minerals and Petroleum Resources Amendment Bill
The Chairperson asked why the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) was present as he was under the impression that the Committee was going to be briefed by the Department of Minerals and Energy (DME).

Mr Ishaam Abader (Deputy Director-General: Corporate Affairs – DEAT) replied that the reason that they were present was to ensure that the legislation being passed was in agreement with the views of the relevant Portfolio Committees and Departments. He added that this appeared not to be the case as the law advisors were not communicating with each other and that as a result, conflicts would be inevitable. Mr Abader added that the Directors-General of DME and DEAT had sat down and discussed policy alignment. However if this legislation were passed in its current form, this would not occur.

The Chairperson thanked Mr Abader, but said that the indication he had received was that a unified decision had already been reached between DME and DEAT. The issue now was the appearance of a new amendment clause entitled “Chairperson’s Amendments”. He asked who was actually going to make the presentation, DME or DEAT? He would have had no issue if DME had informed him that DEAT would be doing the presentation, however this had not been done.

Mr N Ngcobo, Chairperson of Portfolio Committee on Minerals and Energy, explained that the document referred to as “Chairperson’s Amendments” was in fact determined by his entire Committee (although its title gave the impression that he had unilaterally decided upon the proposed amendments). His Committee had agreed that the officials would clean up the Bill in preparation for voting on. The reason they were presented by him was due to time constraints and in order to make sure the agreed upon amendments were included.

The Chairperson, Mr Sibya, said that the issue was the presence of a new amendments being presented by DEAT, which differed from the ones with which the Committee had dealt.

Ms Futhi Zikalala (Deputy Director General: Mineral Policy and Promotion, DME) explained that DME and DEAT had an agreement that hinged upon three key pillars, as far as this went she was under the impression that they had an agreement with DEAT, as it was provided for in the Bill. She added that reference to NEMA was included, however one thing that remained was that there would be a transitional period of 18 months. Ms Zikalala asked that she be given the opportunity to explain what they were talking about without DEAT. She wanted to talk to the Committee and redress the problems as DME without DEAT.

The Chairperson stated that the Portfolio Committee members had the right to participate in this matter and that at the end, the Select Committee would comment.

Mr D Gamede (ANC – Kwazulu-Natal) supported this proposal.

Mr Ngcobo explained that the process that they were following was in order to speed up the resolution of the matter. However, he felt that DME and DEAT should go back and resolve the matter properly and come back and do a proper presentation that indicated the conclusion of their interaction.

Mr T Mahlaba (ANC) added that this was not going to help and felt that DME should be allowed to talk and that then a decision could be reached.

The Chairperson stated that the aim was for DEAT to be in sync with DME and that this had not been done. He invited Ms Zikalala to comment.

Ms Zikalala replied that DME had an agreement with DEAT and that when the Bill was supposed to be debated by the Committees it had to be sent back to both departments in order to find a solution for the environmental management aspect as this was the mandate of DEAT. In consultation with DEAT they had come up with three pillars. There was to be the use of one environmental impact assessment (EIA) process according to the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA). This resulted in amendments needing to be made to both NEMA and the Mineral & Petroleum Resources Development Amendment Bill (MPRDA Bill) in order to remove the environmental provisions in the MPRDA Bill.

In terms of granting requirements in the MPRDA Bill, she said that the timeframe would remain and the transitional agreements would hold in the interim. The Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism would be the appeal authority on environmental matters, whilst the Minister of Minerals and Energy would deal with administrative appeals. On the issue of competent authority, the Minister of Minerals and Energy would be the competent authority for prospecting, whilst the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism would be the competent authority for environmental matters, with DEAT being responsible for drafting environmental policies.

Ms Zikalala continued that the State Law Advisor had taken into account this agreement and that as the Bill moved from a D Bill to an E Bill, they had taken away the environmental provision from DME and were now incorporating it into NEMA. She added that the new amendment sought to remove references to the MPRDA Bill in terms of environmental matters and transfer them to the scope of NEMA under the DEAT.

The Chairperson stated that the arrangement regarding an 18 month transition period referred to by Ms Zikalala was not the same as it stood in the Bill. He added that it seemed that DEAT wanted to do the presentation on their own, but that DME did not want to accept ownership. The Chairperson added that the best procedure seemed to be to let the departments go back and look at these three pillars and find a capping agreement, so that they could all discuss this from the same point of departure.

Mr Ngcobo agreed with the Chairperson.

The Chairperson requested that Ms Zikalala ensure that the presentation to the Select Committee be one that both departments agreed upon. He asked that DEAT please assure the Committee that they would agree with DME on who would present, so that the presentation came from both sides.

Ms Zikalala replied that she would.

Mr Abader replied that he would do as directed. He added that he was concerned that it seemed that the process was being way laid.  He questioned why Ms Zikalala was asking for a closed session with the Committee. If there was a closed session, he was concerned that DME would not accurately present the agreements they had reached together.

The Chairperson agreed that DEAT needed to be present to do away with Mr Abader’s concern and also in order to provide information on the myriad of legislation involved on DEAT’s side.

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: