Mineral Petroleum Resources Development Amendment Bill [B15-2013]: changes to other sections of Act

This premium content has been made freely available

Mineral Resources and Energy

04 March 2014
Chairperson: Ms F Bikani (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Committee had the primary objective of discussing the proposed additional clauses sought to be included in the Mineral Petroleum Resources Development Amendment Bill (MPRDAB). National Assembly Rule 249(3)(b) required special permission from the National Assembly to include these in the Amendment Bill: “if it is a bill amending provisions of legislation, …. seek the permission of the Assembly to inquire into amending other provisions of that legislation”. The Committee had to comply with this rule before the additional clauses could be included.

The proposed additional clauses requiring the Speaker’s approval had been included into the Committee's Proposed Amendments to the Bill. This development was not acceptable to the Committee. Members were of the opinion that the proposed additional clauses should have been contained in a document separate from the proposed amendments to the Bill. This would remove any element of confusion and would enable Members to know precisely the additional clauses which required consideration before they could be sent to the Speaker for approval. The parliamentary legal adviser subsequently distilled the proposed additional clauses into a separate document. Committee members agreed that they required time to study the proposed additional clauses and postponed the meeting.
 

Meeting report

Mineral Petroleum Resources Development Amendment Bill (MPRDAB): changes to other sections of Act
The Chairperson said the agenda was discussion on the proposed amendments to sections of the Act that did not appear in the Amendment Bill . Permission from the National Assembly was required to include amendments to sections of the Act that did not appear in the Amendment Bill according to National Assembly Rule 249(3)(b): “if it is a bill amending provisions of legislation, …. seek the permission of the Assembly to inquire into amending other provisions of that legislation”.  Permission would be sought from the National Assembly via a letter to the Speaker. The Committee had to comply with this rule before the additional clauses could be included in the Amendment Bill.

The Chairperson referred the Committee to the document dated 4 March 2014 which consisted of the clause by clause amendments to the MPRDAB.

Mr J Lorimer (DA) asked the Chairperson to direct members on the procedure to be followed by the Committee for the week in respect of the MPRDAB.

The Chairperson replied that the Committee would be working on the MPRDAB throughout the week with the objective of coming to a conclusion. The main document that the Committee would be working on was the document dated 4 March 2014 which contained the Committee's proposed amendments. The Committee would also consider the proposed additional clauses which they wanted incorporated into the MPRDAB and which required the consent of the Speaker. These clauses were also contained in the document dated 4 March 2014.

The Chairperson said that the focus of the Committee for the day would be the proposed additional clauses.

Mr Schmidt interjected and asked for clarity on the procedure to be followed for the proposed additional clauses. He asked if the letter to the Speaker about the additional clauses would be undertaken before the Committee deliberated the proposed amendments to the MPRDAB.

Ms Desiree Swartz, Parliamentary Legal Adviser, stated that the procedure was that the proposed additional clauses would be considered by the Committee and if the Committee was in agreement with the additional clauses, then a letter would be sent to the Speaker seeking approval to incorporate these. She confirmed that the proposed additional clauses were contained in the document dated 4 March 2014.

Mr Schmidt expressed his concern that the proposed additional clauses which still required the Speaker's approval had already been included in the document containing the proposed amendments to the MPRDAB. The right procedure was that those proposed additional clauses to the MPRDAB which required the Speaker’s approval should be separated from the proposed amendments to the MPRDAB. This would remove any element of confusion. He wondered how the proposed additional clauses which had not yet been approved could be lumped together with the proposed amendments to the MPRDAB.
 

The Chairperson directed the parliamentary legal adviser to clarify the situation.

Ms Swartz said that the proposed additional clauses which required the Speaker's attention and approval would be highlighted in order to differentiate them from the original clause by clause amendments to the MPRDAB. 

Mr Schmidt disagreed with this suggestion. He insisted that the preferable procedure was for the proposed additional clauses to be contained in a separate document so that the Committee could consider them separately from the original clause by clause proposed amendments to the MPRDAB.

The Chairperson agreed with Mr Schmidt. She asked if anyone knew the period of time it would take for the Speaker to reply the Committee.

Ms Swartz replied that it might take a couple of days before a reply was received from the Office of the Speaker. It was therefore important for the Committee to send the additional clauses to him as soon as possible for consent.

Mr J Moepeng (ANC) suggested that the Committee should break to enable the parliamentary legal adviser to separate the proposed additional clauses requiring the Speakers approval from the proposed amendments to the MPRDAB. Mr Lorimer agreed with this suggestion.

The Chairperson directed that the Committee take a short break to allow the parliamentary legal adviser to distil the proposed additional clauses into another document so that the Committee could consider them separately from the clause by clause amendments to the MPRDAB.

Short break of half an hour

The Committee reconvened with the documents that were now separated.

The Chairperson asked if the Committee was ready to consider the additional clauses immediately or if they would prefer to adjourn the meeting so that they could take the document away to properly reflect on it.

Mr Moepeng,  Mr Schmidt, Mr Lorimer and Ms L Njobo (ANC) all agreed that the meeting be adjourned.

The meeting was adjourned.


 

Share this page: