Deputy Minister of Mineral Resources and Council for Geoscience responses; Geosciences Amendment Bill [B12 2010] (s 75): final deliberations and adoption

Meeting report

Introduction
The Chairperson welcomed the Hon. Godfrey Oliphant, Deputy Minister of Mineral Resources, delegates from the Geoscience Council and Members. He congratulated the Deputy Minister on his appointment The purpose of the meeting was to hear the Department’s responses, conveyed by the Council for Geoscience to Members’ previous questions on the Geosciences Amendment Bill [B12-2010]. 

The Deputy Minister of Mineral Resources thanked Members for the opportunity to meet them before their final deliberations on the Geosciences Amendment Bill. He looked forward in working with the Committee and thanked Members for their cooperation. He asked members of his delegation to introduce themselves.

Council for Geoscience on the Department of Mineral Resources’ responses
Mr Thibedi Ramontja, Chief Executive Officer, Council for Geoscience, briefed the Committee on the responses of the Department of Mineral Resources to their previous questions.
The Committee was concerned about the positioning of the Council as a watchdog over geotechnical reporting, in order for experts to do the work and report back to the Council for review.

The Department’s response was that it was not the Bill’s intention of the Bill to stand guard over professional ethics but to provide additional protection for the infrastructure to ensure that development took place under less risky circumstances.

Another concern was the exclusion of representation of professional and academic expertise by dropping the right of the Geological Society of South Africa (GSSA) to nominate candidates to the Board.

The Department’s response was that the proposed substitution of Section 4(2) (x) [Clause 3 of the Bill] made the provision for the Minister to appoint a person with appropriate experience, expertise or skills. That section could therefore be used to appoint a member from the GSSA or any other representative of the Geoscience fraternity.

The next issue was a concern over lack of skills, capacity and budget that was necessary for the council to achieve the objectives of the Bill.

The Department’s response was that Cabinet was informed that the Council for Geoscience would need more funding to enable it to implement the Act. A budget would then be presented to the National Treasury. Mr Ramontja stressed that skills was always a challenge, but managers were supposed to rise above such challenges and compete with the best in the world. The Department would engage with the National Treasury for additional funding in terms of its budget to enable the Council for Geoscience to implement the Act.

The Committee was concerned that the nomination criteria of the board did not address the issue of relevant skills and expertise.

Mr Ramontja had already addressed this issue. He stressed that the board did not have to be composed of geologists only; it also needed skilled people from different professions, like accountants and lawyers. The board also had a technical committee that advised it on technical issues. It had also appointed people with necessary expertise to the committee to advise it. The internal expertise of the Council for Geoscience was also available to the board.

The Committee was concerned about the need for a representative from the geotechnical fraternity on the board.

Mr Ramontja said that the proposed substitution of section 4 (2) (x) [Clause 3 of the Bill] made provision for the Minister to appoint a person with appropriate experience, expertise or skills as Mr Ramontja already had stated. In terms of the amendments the Minister could appoint two people with relevant expertise.


The Committee was concerned over breaches of confidentiality, the need to define the extent to which information could be made available and the possibility of conflict with the Copyright Act.

This concern was addressed by Section 6 (2) of the Principal Act which allowed restrictions on the use of information in the custody of the Council for Geoscience. Section 8(b) further made provision for the aggrieved party to appeal against any administrative decision made by the Council for Geoscience.

Another concern related to the blanket mandate given to the Council for Geoscience. The Council would not be able to effectively carry out the mandate as envisaged in the Bill in terms of effective evaluation of the geotechnical engineering reports with complex designs, already defined in guidelines and codes of good practice published by professional bodies.

Mr Ramontja noted that the existing policies were proved not to be sufficient and necessitated Government intervention. The question of capacity and skills in the Council for Geoscience would be addressed so as to enable the organisation to carry out its mandate.

There was also a concern that the Bill should make provision for procurement of adequate funding for the Council to achieve the objectives set out in the Bill.

The Department’s response was that Section 20 of the Principal Act already provided for the Council for Geoscience’s funding. Furthermore Cabinet was informed that the Council for Geoscience would need more funding to enable it to implement the Act. A budget will then be presented to National Treasury. Mr Ramontja stated that he had already mentioned that the Bill had gone through Cabinet and the financial implications of the Bill had been presented to it.

Another concern was over the capacity of the Council when it has to review all geotechnical reports.

Mr Ramontja emphasised that he had already touched on the matter when he stated that the Cabinet was informed that the Council for Geoscience would require additional funding to enable the organisation to implement the objectives of the Act. Then the budget would be presented to the National Treasury. They would also embark on a two year internship training programme for young scientists to fill the gap of skills shortage and to ensure there was a continuous flow of young scientists in the organisation.

Another concern was that Section 4 (5) (1) (g) would lead to unfair competition which made the CGS to be the judge and jury. The Council must only concentrate on pre-feasibility investigations and mapping of same.

Mr Ramontja responded that he did not think that the organisation would be the judge and jury, but rather that it would concentrate on regional technical investigations whereby it would look at the risk from the regional point of view with the purpose of advising municipalities with their plans. The Council for Geoscience would not focus on site specific geotechnical investigations. It would allow consultants to do site specific studies, and those studies would only be reviewed by the Council for Geoscience. He concluded that the Council would continue to do research in order to build capacity and skills development, which were critical in terms of training future geologist for the country.

Discussion
The Chairperson asked Members to raise their questions and inputs for clarity.

Mr A Lees (DA, KwaZulu-Natal) asked Mr Ramontja to explain whether the Council for Geoscience was prevented or was it a policy not to do site specific geotechnical investigations. He also raised a concern about the board appointments, which, in his view, were Ministerial appointments rather than appointments by a relevant professional body. In terms of site specific studies he needed clarity on whether there was anything that stopped the Council from going to competition.

The Deputy Minister thanked Mr Ramontja for the responses and requested Members that they should have confidence in the process of Ministerial appointments of the board because these were informed by experience, and the Minister had extensive experience in dealing with boards or professional councils. The issue of a person sent by a professional council to represent it as a member of the board to deal with sectional issues also became a problem. The board member had a fiduciary duty to deal with all the matters of the board, and it was the prerogative of the Minister to appoint the board member.

Mr Ramontja added that there was no specific clause which stipulated that the Council would be prohibited in doing site specific geotechnical studies because there were grey areas within the regulations. In terms of the current legislation, the Minerals and Petroleum Resources Development Amendment Bill provided for the Council for Geoscience to do specific investigations. The Minister could instruct the Council to do specific investigations in certain areas that were identified by the Minister.

The Chairperson asked members whether they were satisfied with Mr Ramontja’s responses. He stated that the Committee needed to pass the Bill for it to be tabled to parliament on 16 November 2010.

Mr Lees stated that he was concerned about the regulation in the Bill which dealt with the site specific geotechnical investigations that could not be done by the Council for Geoscience. He was not satisfied with the requirements provided by the Bill in terms of the Ministerial appointments of Board members. The budget requirements that needed to be met by Council for Geoscience in relation to additional funding were also a concern. But he assured Members that he accepted the Bill and endorsed its adoption.

Mr B Mnguni (ANC, Free State) moved for the adoption of the Bill.

Ms M Dikgale (ANC, Limpopo) seconded.

Mr A Nyambi (ANC, Mpumalanga) asked whether Mr Lees was raising a concern or an objection.

The Chairperson explained to Members that the Bill was a Section 75 Bill. Members did not vote for it in terms of provinces but voted for it according to parties. Mr Lees had raised objections on behalf of the DA, but the ANC formed the majority in that meeting. However, Mr Lees’ objections would be recorded. The Chairperson asked Mr Lees to clarify whether he was objecting or raising concerns to the Bill.

Mr Lees emphasized that the DA was objecting to the proposed method of appointing members of the Board and also to the lack of specific duties for the Council for Geoscience, but he accepted the Bill in principle.

The Committee adopted the Bill.

The meeting was adjourned.