Harmony Gold Mine (illegal mining activities) Committee Oversight Report; Oversight of Mining Industry Corporate Social Responsibility

Meeting report

Committee Oversight Report on visit to Harmony Gold Mine
The Chairperson said that the report was to be published in Parliament’s Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports (ATC) that week. The normal procedure was that the Committee would, after publication of this public document, decide if there would be debate, or a statement, in the House. It was the Chairperson’s point of view that there should be a debate and provinces where illegal mining practices took place, should be invited. The Minister would decide on the schedule of the debate. The Chairperson then asked Mr Hlongwane to engage with the Committee on the report.

Mr Zakhele Hlongwane, Parliamentary Liaison Officer, Ministry of Mineral Resources, said that he was not mandated by the Department of Minerals to engage on the report.

The Chairperson said that he had a problem with the way the Department of Minerals had treated the Committee. The report had been sent to the Department a week or two previously and was of provincial interest in the national sphere of government in terms of the amount of money going out through illegal mines. In terms of the Constitution, the Committee had oversight over the Department. The Committee did not take lightly the fact that the Department did not give the Committee the time to utilise people within the Department to go through the report which was on such an important issue. He asked Mr Hlongwane, as the Public Liaison Officer, to convey the message to the Minister and Director General.

Mr B Mnguni (ANC, Free State) said he believed that the Committee should not engage or make decisions on the report until the Minister had engaged with the Committee. However, he recommended that a strongly worded letter be sent to the Department regarding its treatment of the Committee.

Ms E Van Lingen (DA, Eastern Cape) said that this situation was a waste of time and money and undermined policy of the National Council of Provinces. Given the situation, the Committee would not be able to complete its tasks in the next five years. She suggested that the Committee make an example of the situation to get proper future engagement not only from this department but all the departments with which the Committee would deal. She supported the Chairperson in his view.

Mr D Gamede (ANC, Kwazulu-Natal) said that the Committee deserved respect and could not operate like this. The Department needed to address this issue.

The Chairperson said that this report was a Committee report and the Department was required to respond to it. If they did not respond, the Minister would be called to respond to the debate in the House. He highlighted the fact that the Department and Ministry had been informed and the Committee could not wait a day, a month or year for them to respond. He suggested that, with the Committee bidding, the Committee should go-ahead and approve the report, put it in the ATC, and write to the NCOP Chairperson, the Chief Whip and the House Chair to schedule it for debate as it was of national interest to do so. The Committee would require the vote of six provinces to approve the report. If the Committee accepted the report, in terms of the rules of the NCOP, the report should be publish in the ATC and forwarded for debate in the NCOP Chamber. To postpone the matter further would prolong their work.

Mr Mnguni said he supported the view that they should ATC the report and then debate it in the House. He added that the Committee programme should not be affected and should continue as planned.

Mr Gamede said he believed the Committee needed to be strong on the issue as a function of government.

Mr M Maine (ANC; North West) supported the Chairperson in his approach to the report.

The Chairperson asked if the Committee would second the proposal. It was seconded.

Mr Hlongwane said that his personal opinion on the part of the Department was that it was not a matter of disrespect but that unfortunately the present meeting had clashed with a Cabinet engagement. The Department was also on a Strategic Planning session for the following three days. The communication regarding the present meeting was only received on Thursday 13 August 2009. He believed that the Department was still busy with the report and that no malice was intended.

The Chairperson said that the Department had received the Committee programme and that the Member’s comments were within their right. He appealed to all Members to join in the debate and said that he would invite all affected provinces. He would also send a copy of the report to the MEC of Police in the Free State, the National Minister of Police and the Minister of Home Affairs.

Corporate Social Responsibility in the Mining Industry
The Chairperson said that he had requested the diamond mining research document from the Bench Marks Foundation www.bench-marks.org.za which included the corporate responsibility of all mines and extended across most provinces. He asked members to read the report as it would be applied in terms of oversight visits.

The Chairperson said that it had come to the Committee’s attention that the private mining houses in some provinces had not fulfilled their mandate in terms of their social responsibility and this affected local and provincial government. These private mining houses had requested that local government take over social responsibility of the mining community. With the backlog in local government, the Chairperson said he was not sure that local government had the capacity or funding to take on the responsibility from the mining houses. He wished the Committee to undertake oversight visits and engage the Department and mining houses on the issue.

It was noted that in some areas such as Limpopo and Northern Cape, projects to be carried out by mining houses for the community were not running. A Mining Scorecard by the Department, 2006, revealed that when asked if a mining company had developed systems through which empowered groups could be monitored, the answer was ‘not yet’. Asked if the mining company had formulated an integrated development plan and had co-operated with government in implementing these plans for communities where mining took place and for labour-sending areas, the answer was ‘not yet’. The answer to questions on commitment to housing and living conditions, and established measures to improve nutrition for employees was ‘not applicable’.  The Chairperson said that companies reaping the benefits of wealth and minerals of the country were not acting on their mandates.

Oversight would be based on the research done by the Bench Marks Foundation and as an extension of Parliament it was necessary for the Committee to engage with the communities so that the mining houses would come to the table and contributed according to their rightful duty.

He said that the government was wrongly blamed for the negative economic impact created by this lack of social responsibility. The Deputy President had said that in the interest of our communities and provinces, it was important that the government took to task the entities which exploited communities.

Mr A Nyambi (ANC, Mpumalanga) requested that the Committee be given time to examine the document in order to do justice to it and make informed decisions at the following meeting. He supported the Chairperson with regard to the adoption of the Committee Report and its debate.

The Chairperson said that the idea was not to engage the document within this session, but to merely put it on the table for Members to apply their minds for next week’s agenda. He had spoken to the Chairperson of the Select Committee on Land and Environmental Affairs about the idea of a joint initiative in terms of oversight functions. It would include the Department of Minerals and Energy, Alexkor and De Beers, and the Department of Public Enterprises, thereby having a three-pronged approach from the Select Committee on Economic Development, Land and Environmental Affairs, and Labour and Public Enterprises. This was critical for the mining communities. For example, in the Eastern Cape, mining rights had been allocated by the previous government, but the communities had yet to receive any benefit.

General Matters
The Chairperson said that with regard to the 2-4 September oversight visits, there might be a sitting which would interfere with that date, and therefore proposed the 16-18 September for the oversight visit. He suggested that Committee Secretaries keep Members up to date by corresponding with the Programmes Office for the schedule. Northern Cape had been added to the oversight visits as three important mining companies, namely Trans Hex, Alexkor and De Beers were in the Northern Cape. It would also be necessary to visit Limpopo, Mpumalanga, Eastern Cape, North West and KZN. He hoped that the Department would advise the Committee on this countrywide trip.

Ms Van Lingen asked if Mr Adams could elaborate on a new mining company up the West Coast.

The Chairperson said that Ms Van Lingen was referring to tungsten mining in Picketberg. The National Minister had approved the licence, but the delay was due to the Environmental Impact Assessment and Report, as objections from communities were being considered. It was a grape and fruit valley, and the mining operations could also cause water shortage for the communities in the area.

The Chairperson concluded that he had received an invitation from the Department to attend a Stratplan Workshop on 2010/11. He was waiting on a reply from the Chief Whip as to whether in case he himself could not attend, that another Committee member could attend in his place.

The meeting was adjourned.