MPRDA Bill: legal opinion on NCOP amendments; Extension of Security of Tenure Amendment Bill: adoption

Meeting report

Extension of Security of Tenure Amendment Bill [B24B-2015: finalisation and adoption
The Chairperson informed members that the aim is to finalise the Extension of Security of Tenure Amendment Bill. He reminded them of the discussions held on this Section 75 Bill during the previous meeting.

All Committee members agreed to rescind the Committee's previous decision.

The Committee agreed to adopt the Extension of Security of Tenure Amendment Bill [B24B-2015] without amendments.  

Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Amendment Bill: legal opinion on NCOP proposed amendments
Ms Daksha Kassan, Parliamentary Law Advisor, took the Committee through the proposed amendments agreed to by the Committee, after its previous meeting on the negotiating mandates from the nine provinces.

She explained that some of the amendments agreed to by the Committee amend the principal Act and not the Amendment Bill only. If the Committee wants to amend not only the Amendment Bill but also other sections of the principal Act, then it has to get permission from the NCOP. This is according to Rule 169(1)(b) which states: “The select committee or other Council committee to which the Bill is referred – if it is a Bill amending provisions of an Act, may seek the permission of the Council to enquire into amending other provisions of that Act”.

This even applies to amendments of other subsections of a section - which are not dealt with in the Bill -  even where that section is being amended. It also applies to new insertions of subsections into a section of the Act even where that section is being amended in the Bill but that insertion is not currently in the Bill.
            
Ms Shahida Bowers, NCOP Procedural Adviser, explained that if the Committee was dealing with a normal Bill, NCOP Rule 169(1)(b) would apply. However, because the MPRDA Bill is a remitted Bill sent back by the President with reservations, Joint Rule 209(2) states that the Committees cannot go beyond the remitted Bill referred to the NCOP and the scope of the President's reservations. Therefore, it was the opinion of the NCOP procedural table that the NCOP cannot authorize the Committee to go beyond the remitted Bill and the scope of the Presidents reservations. Consequently, NCOP Rule 169(1)(b) does not apply.     

The Chairperson allowed the meeting to break for 10 minutes so that the ANC members could caucus.

When the meeting resumed, the Chairperson said that the Committee agreed that it would adopt the proposed amendments without those that go beyond the scope of the remitted Bill and the President's reservations. The permanent delegates would explain to their provinces why these amendments were excluded.

Ms C Labuschagne (DA) objected to the decision taken by the ANC on behalf of the Committee. She requested that the matter be discussed in the meeting. After much discussion, Ms Labuschagne requested that an external legal opinion should be sought to consider the implications of not agreeing to amendments that go beyond the scope of a remitted Bill. The DA confirmed that they could not vote on the matter in the absence of a legal opinion. 

The majority of the permanent delegates disagreed, stating that the Joint Rules and NCOP Rules are clear about what can and cannot be done by the Committee about this type of remitted Bill.

The Committee resolved to adopt only those proposed amendments that did not go beyond the scope of the remitted Bill. The provinces that voted in favour of the resolution were: Eastern Cape, Gauteng, KZN, Mpumalanga, North West. Limpopo and Western Cape abstained.

The Committee adopted the minutes of the 5 June 2018.

Meeting adjourned.

Postscript: NCOP officials will meet on 2 August 2018 to discuss the matter and thereafter a final list of proposed amendments will be drawn up by Parliamentary Law Advisor, Ms Kassan, and Principal State Law Advisor, Mr Theo Hercules, to send to provinces for their final mandates.