Thank you, Chairperson. Malibongwe elamadoda! [Praise the name of men] I would like to take this opportunity to thank members of the select committee for their positive input. Thank you very much, chairperson, for the continual and support leadership you have shown not just in this House, but also in the committee. My officials appreciate your leadership in helping us to steer this ship in a positive way. Thanks go to all the hon members and to hon Eliza.
I must indicate that matters raised by members - matters of transformation - will remain at the centre of the department because a lot still needs to be done. Regarding beneficiation, we cannot continue to behave as we have in the past. We have to deal with it.
Hon Gunda, people saying no to beneficiation in our country is a thing of the past. We have taken a policy decision and we are going to beneficiate. It is not an individual choice, but a government's policy and there is a willingness and commitment by this government to beneficiate.
With regard to the point raised on the State Diamond Trader, may I indicate that whilst we have a history of Kimberley being the main producer of diamonds, South Africa is a unitary state and how we locate any asset in our country becomes very important - it must be strategic and accessible.
The trader, which is in Johannesburg, is not there by default. We are revisiting that, but, definitely, the issue of moving to the Northern Cape does not make us competitive. South African diamonds attract global interest. So we have to be located in a way that the interest globally can make our diamonds accessible. This also means that we must be able to create a hub: where having transport means that when those people come to buy, they can easily access the hub. That is very important for us. But, if you are going to look at this in terms of me and you, then it does not recognise that we are a single country.
We must bear in mind that South Africa has no federal states; we are a unitary state. We have to make sure that whatever happens in Kimberley benefits the rest of the communities of South Africa. I must also indicate that Gauteng and Limpopo have diamonds. Therefore, we get diamonds all over, not only in Kimberley. What we have to move away from is the distortion created by De Beers in the past.
I agree and acknowledge that whatever happened in the past must not happen in the future. Kimberley must not be disadvantaged because it only has diamonds. It has to benefit from what is in South Africa holistically like any other community. Therefore, diamonds and all other minerals of this country must benefit the rest of South Africa. The distortion can't go on and must be corrected. We cannot create jobs in Johannesburg alone. We have to create jobs in the rest of South Africa - we have to create sustainable jobs all over.
Hon Eliza, we will indeed look at the issue of Alexkor, because it is a cause for concern.
Within this context, I also want to raise the issue, broadly, of small- scale mining. When we deal with issues of small-scale mining, we must also say what legacy it leaves for the country. We can't just allow small-scale mining to continue differently. There are major implications, and there is a price to pay with regard to issues of the environment.
So, we can't ignore those issues, Mr Mnguni, as if they don't exist. They are there. Even with small-scale mining, we can't erode and degrade the environment. We have to act responsibly - all of us, big or small. These are the challenges we have to engage with. We have to ask ourselves how best we can make sure that the future for our children is right; that they are able to inherit a country that is still user-friendly. This applies to all of us. I think we know that the issues of rehabilitation are a cause for concern.
I must also indicate that we are going to have a strategy on rehabilitation. One of the issues we are going to relook at is our current system in terms of people contributing towards the rehabilitation fund. Is it sustainable? Can it ensure that after mining the land can be reutilised in a way that makes it good? We are going to revisit that because, in my own view and in my own observation, it is not enough.
Currently, as members know, the challenge we have is that the derelict and ownerless mines have left us with a cost of about R50 billion. Where will it come from? Is this not the money which is supposed to improve the lives of ordinary people and poor people? This is because when we pay tax, our tax is supposed to pay for ownerless and derelict mines because that is a current challenge.
I must also indicate that our system currently will continue to create derelict mines, unless we become vigorous in ensuring that in the future, as the policy says, the polluter pays. We must ensure that "the polluter pays" is not just a slogan. So, we have to translate that into something concrete.
Transformation is indeed not good, but I also want to indicate that, as we deal with these issues, we must also bear in mind that these are not easy matters. We ourselves, those who are trying to empower, also tend to create problems because we want to offer ourselves as fronting people without really making sure that transformation becomes a reality. So, those are the real challenges we are facing. We have to address them.
In my own view, transformation of the mining industry will lie in the core of people being operational. Therefore, this means we need to encourage more people, especially young people, to go to school so that they can get the requisite skills, join the mining industry and become future owners, because equity cannot just be hanging. People are hanging on mining companies, and hence it creates a lot of fronting.
Therefore, we have to correct that as part of the transformation process if we want to ensure that in 25 years' time it is different from today. We must make sure that transformation is real, and not fronting: where people come in but can be kicked out tomorrow, while other people are being rented to the industry.
The charter, indeed, for me, is a living document. It is an instrument and a tool that we will always use to measure our success. But the biggest challenge we have is that we are far from the reality. There are many issues that we have to deal with in order to ensure that matters of fronting and transformation are real and concrete in South Africa.
Hon member, there is no political interference. I don't know what political interference you are talking about. We have laws in this country. I think that what we have to do is to separate issues: for instance, my child happening to apply or wanting to be involved in a particular business being seen as political interference. I want to know what law in this country says that the children of the leaders of political parties, including yours, hon Eliza, cannot become involved in business. I want to know which policy that is. Or, if that is what we want, why don't we put it into law? Also, are we not discriminating? Are we saying they are different from other South Africans and must not have rights, and that as soon as I become a Minister my kids forfeit their rights as equal citizens of this country? These are issues that we must address, because we politicise issues in the wrong way. That is why I am asking which law says they can't in South Africa?
I am a regulator. When I consider an application, I don't check whose child it is and who they are related to. What guides me is the law. I don't even look at the company or who owns the company. I look at whether the company is compliant and at whether the procedures are followed. On that basis we issue a licence; not on the basis of who is behind the application. That's not my responsibility. There is no law which says that I must scrutinise individuals. You as Members of Parliament, you as the legislators, you are responsible for oversight through the ethics committee to say, "If my children are involved in business, have I declared?" That is your responsibility; not my responsibility as the regulator. [Applause.] That is not my responsibility.
I want to plead with this House: Let's not mislead the world by saying there are some who are better than others. That's not true. We have laws and if, indeed, there is a violation of the law, let's point out where there is that violation. Let us not generalise, because there is no law that says the children of leaders, including your children, as Members of Parliament, cannot become involved in business. There is no law that says that. So let's separate issues for us to be able to take these matters forward.
With regard to the issue of Aurora, there are challenges with Aurora, but as the regulator we don't have authority over Aurora. Unfortunately, we don't have a relationship with Aurora. They are not the licence holder. With any of these companies and the stories we read about, the licence holder during liquidation is the liquidator. So, our focus, as Members of Parliament, should be on the liquidator. We don't have a relationship with the liquidator. They are a management company. If you look at the licence or at the permit, the right person is the liquidator.
I must also say that we have a problem with the liquidator. He is causing many problems, not Aurora. Let us not follow what the papers say, because as you play an oversight role you are missing the real target, the real people who are causing problems and nightmares for the workers are the liquidators, not Aurora. We don't have a relationship with Aurora. We must know the law. We must understand that the law says that the licence holder is the one we have a relationship with.
With regard to health and safety matters, indeed, I agree with members that we have to make sure that there is zero tolerance. We will increase our oversight and our inspectorate when it comes to matters of fatalities. We are not happy. I agree with you. We are not happy and we can't be happy, as long as people continue getting hurt in the mining industry.
Hon members, thank you very much for the support. I am happy that NCOP members understand that illegal mining is not our competence. Illegal mining is criminal. It is killing our country, hence we referred the matter to the Justice, Crime Prevention and Security cluster, because we felt that it is something beyond us, and we can't continue to entertain what is really eating away at our economy. Thank you very much, Chairperson, for this opportunity. I thank the members for their support.
Hon members, anyone who has an issue is welcome to discuss it with us. I am open to this. Let's find time to deal with the issues which are of concern to all of us. This is not about the opposition or the ANC. These are matters concerning the country. We have to make sure that working together we correct all the negative implications for the mining industry.
In terms of the Freedom Charter, indeed, the mineral wealth beneath the soil belongs to the people of South Africa as a whole. They have to benefit - all of them. I agree that nationalisation will not help us, and this will not take us in that direction, but we have to find innovative ways of having our people benefit from the mineral wealth of this country. Thank you. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.