Aurora Mines crisis: discussion; Committee Report on Department of Mineral Resources budget and strategic plan

This premium content has been made freely available

Mineral Resources and Energy

24 May 2011
Chairperson: Ms RN Rasmeni (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Committee briefly discussed the controversial Aurora issue and resolved to meet with all relevant stakeholders on 10 June 2011. Members stressed that the issue should be promptly resolved as the people who suffered the most were the mine workers. There were suggestions that Aurora set up a fund which would compensate the workers for their pain and suffering caused by Aurora. The Committee debated also discussed the dismissal of Mr Enver Motala and the legality thereof. The Committee also considered and approved (with amendments) its report on Department of Mineral Resources budget and strategic plan.

Meeting report

Opening Remarks
The Chairperson welcomed everyone present and thereafter asked for apologies. She said that the Committee had been invited to a joint sitting with the Portfolio Committee on Labour to attend to the issue of ex-mine workers who had threatened to take over Parliament on 8 May 2011. The issue was a very important one and had to be addressed immediately as such an incident had occurred before. Lastly, she commented on the fact that the Labour Department had been the only entity which had attended to the issue of the ex-mine workers.

Discussion on Aurora Mines crisis
The Chairperson noted that the Committee would be briefed by the Rand Mutual Insurance and possibly the Department of Mineral Resources and the Chamber of Mines on the issue of Aurora.

Mr E Lucas (IFP) commented that the people responsible for paying the workers had given several assurances that the money to pay them was available; however they had not been able to make a single payment.

The Chairperson shared the views expressed by Mr Lucas. He informed Members that he had met with the Premier of the North West and all stake holders to address the issue of the R4 million. He added that he had received confirmation that Shandong was in the country and considering investing in mines including Aurora.

Mr Lucas appreciated the amount work put in by the Committee concerning this issue. He asked if the Committee was not over extending itself by engaging with investors and asked what role the Committee planned to play.

The Chairperson replied that the Committee had no intentions to engage with Shandong, however he stressed that government had a responsibility to perform due diligence.

Mr H Schmidt (DA) said that it had been an interesting development that Enver Motala had been removed as Pamodzi Liquidator and asked why this was the case.

The Chairperson confirmed that Enver Motala had been dismissed, however said that to the best of his knowledge he was appealing his dismissal.

Mr Lucas commented that throughout the entire mess with Aurora the people who were suffering the most were the workers.

Mr Schmidt commented that Aurora was still not liquidated which meant that workers could not claim UIF.

Mr C Gololo (ANC) proposed that Aurora should compensate the workers for the pain and suffering that the company had caused.

Mr M Sonto (ANC) commented that the intervention by the Committee had born fruits however it did not address the problem fully. He suggested that the Committee discuss the possible logical and legal conclusions. He asked Mr Schmidt for his legal opinion on the legal standing of Enver Motala.

Mr Gololo supported and shared the sentiments by Mr Sonto

Mr Schmidt replied that Enver Motala was well within his rights to appeal the dismissal.

Mr E Mtshale (ANC) commented that the Committee should press upon the prompt conclusion of the case.

Ms F Bikani (ANC) suggested that at the next meeting (10 June 2011), the Committee should give time frames to Aurora and not allow a lengthy briefing.

The Chairperson concluded the issue of Aurora by taking into account concerns raised by Members. He said that the Committee would prepare for the meeting of 10 June 2011.

Report on Department of Mineral Resources budget and strategic plan
The Chairperson tabled the report for consideration.

Mr Gololo sought clarity on how many Sate Owned Enterprises reported directly to the department.

Mr Sonto referred to programmes and asked if the budget had either increased or decreased.

The Chairperson commented the departments budget had increased in nominal terms yet decreased by 0.4%.

Mr E Matshale (ANC) said the R59 million budget for travelling was far too high.

The Chairperson commented that he did not know the exact amounts for travelling but believed that the budget was valid considering that most sites visited were in the outskirts and rural areas.

Mr Matshale believed that travelling and lodging in rural areas was more reason to spend less, considering that the cities and metros charged more.

Ms Bikani commented that the report lacked a detailed break down of Human Resource Management and Capacity building.

Mr Lucas commented on the lack of budgeting process.

The Chairperson reminded members that the report was a summary of previous presentations and was a report from the Portfolio Committee. He further asked Members to move for the adoption of the report.

Mr Gololo suggested that the problem of mine rehabilitation be included.

Mr Schmidt asked for the clause which says the Portfolio Committee recommends the report to be removed.

The report was adopted.

The meeting was adjourned.


No related documents


  • 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: