High Level Panel Report/ SAHRC recommendations implementation: DMR status report

This premium content has been made freely available

Mineral Resources and Energy

06 March 2019
Chairperson: Mr S Luzipho (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Department of Mineral Resources had been asked by the Committee Chairperson to provide a status report about the implementation of the SAHRC and High Level Panel Report recommendations. DMR should inform SAHRC of its reservations about any of the recommendations so that failure to meet the deadlines did not lead to litigation by the SAHRC. DMR should also review the common areas between the High Level Panel and the SAHRC recommendations, what it had done/what it had not done due to limitations in its mandate.

The DMR presented the requested status report and noted the recommendations that were common to both the SAHRC and High Level Panel Reports.

In discussion, the Chairperson said DMR needed to say "this is how far they have gone" on each recommendation and outline the process which it had undergone. DMR had to make commitments about what was outstanding. The Committee would write a letter to the SAHRC and High Level Panel about the process it had followed. The Chairperson said that input from the Committee in this case would be that, instead of only IPILRA, DMR must be consistent with and relevant to all laws. It would have to take into account all legislation. Members spoke about  mine health and safety; wanted clarity on the effectiveness of IPILRA as well as the role of consent in mining development in South Africa. The timing of amendments to the MPRDA was also a point of interest. The Committee encouraged DMR to participate in a process of continual engagement with the SAHRC at it was a Chapter 9 institution and their recommendations needed to be heeded.

The Committee also discussed the DMR quarterly performance presented the previous week.

Meeting report

The Chairperson said that the mining industry was still fighting the scourge of patriarchy. He cited a recent incident of a woman in East London who was brutally stabbed to death. The excuse for this callous act of murder given by the perpetrator left much to be desired. The Chairperson described Mampintsha, a South African artist accused of domestic violence, as ‘a psychiatric patient beyond redemption’. Mr Luzipho was taken aback by Mampintsha’s audacity to convene a press conference, publicly justifying his barbaric actions, was an act beyond sickness. There was no justification for violence against women. Such incidents were working against what the Committee was trying to achieve in South African society. People were never encouraged to take the law into their own hands, but the law also had to show its might.

Committee discussion on Department of Mineral Resources (DMR) quarterly performance
The Chairperson said that the Committee had not completed asking questions on the Department of Mineral Resources (DMR) quarterly performance presented the previous week. The Committee was concerned about irregular and fruitless and wasteful expenditure. There were problems with the quarterly reports and the Committee was interested in what undertakings the Department had made. If these challenges could not be monitored during the course of the quarterly reports, these matters were likely to occur again when the Auditor General gave the next opinion. DMR would give a summary of what the Department was doing to address irregular and fruitless and wasteful expenditure, the individuals concerned, the financial implications as well as the supervisory responsibilities.

Adv Thabo Mokoena, Director General at the Department of Mineral Resources, apologised for Minister's absence. Mr David Msiza, Chief Inspector of Mines, was not present due to the Gloria Mine incident. The personal were all committed to the work of the Department. DDG of Mineral Regulation, Adv Mmadikeledi Malebe was present. Acting CFO, Ms Ditsietsi Morabe, Acting Chief Director of Strategy Senatle Mokoena, and Chief Director for Communication; Rantsadi Moatshe Acting DDG.

Deputy Director General: Corporate Services, Ms Patricia Gamede, said that the irregular and fruitless and wasteful expenditure had been looked at by the Auditor-General and DMR was trying to reconcile this.

Ms Ditsietsi Morabe, Acting CFO at DMR, explained that total irregular expenditure was R9.8 million. Fruitless and wasteful expenditure amounted to R6 million. There was an investigation by the internal auditor after the AG had reported the matter. However, that investigation did not cover all departments. Services of an independent services provider were sought to quantify this expenditure. The provider will be contracted till end of the financial year. Cases had been opened for incidents this financial year in Cape Town, Welkom and Mpumalanga. Recoupment of these funds as a result of fruitless and wasteful expenditure would follow. DMR would then come before the Committee and report about the incidents and the way forward.

Adv Mokoena said wasteful and fruitless expenditure was looked at. There was a meeting with the AG on 4 March and DMR would have another on 7 March 2019. DMR made an undertaking to report to the Committee. DMR would also engage the Public Service Commission to ensure recourse is available for all parties concerned. The individuals involved also need to give their side of the story. The independent service provider will do investigations. DMR had the capacity to conduct it, but an external party would be beneficial by providing independence in the investigation. Once done, there would be recommendations. With the independent service provider, DMR would also look at all its contracts and lease agreements.

The Chairperson said that it was likely that this matter would carry over to the Sixth Parliament committee. The matter would be dealt with through the Legacy Report. To summarise, DMR almost got a clean audit. Secondly, when emphasis of matters is raised, the Committee will asked what the Department has done to clear these as this is what the Committee must do. Lastly, it was important to deal with the Public Service Commission for the sake of recourse as these were resources at the behest of the state for the benefit of society.

On Program 2 Mine Health and Safety, Mr M Matlala (ANC) said fatalities in mines were still prevalent. He asked Mr Mbonambi if there was a way to come up with a detector to highlight dangerous areas before incidents happen. Could there not be something put in hats or clothes of miners to detect danger so as to avoid danger? He asked how often they meet with stakeholders such as the Minerals Council. Miners still get trapped underground. Some miners end up dying underground and families lose loved ones. People were looking to Mr Mbonambi and the Department to solve this problem.

The Chairperson said what he was about to say was just a request, a South African statement, not a political statement. When dealing with the Legacy Report, he asked Mr Mbonambi to confirm how many inspectors DMR has and how many vacancies. Under normal circumstances, how many inspectors would be a perfect match for the work? Could he provide their skills profile and which skills are lacking? What mine health and safety challenges did DMR have such as seismicity, fall of ground, TB? What sectors were posing a serious challenge? What was the geographic concentration? This would show if the inspector distribution was good or not. What would they do to conclude a successful mine health and safety inspection? What must be done about the zero harm policy to make it a reality?

What other challenges would require consideration? News reports had suggested that there was a potential that if FNB Stadium filled beyond capacity, it could sink due to illegal mining activities. He wanted DMR to highlight risk areas. This was for the benefit of South Africa. What are the implications for the management team present today, not DMR? DMR should speak to the wage bill and the Voluntary Severance Package (VSP). One understands that this is difficult to turn down, even the most skilled people. Once such skilled people are gone, what is the impact? What was DMR doing in the eventuality of this happening? This information in writing was needed by 11 March 2019 as it would help in compiling the Legacy Report.

Mr Xolile Mbonambi replied that the Chairperson's questions will be dealt with and the written report would be available by 11 March. On the fatalities concern, a zero fatality rate was targeted by all stakeholders which included the Minerals Council of South Africa and the labour unions.

Fall of ground and seismicity was still a challenge, especially in gold mines, which led to a number of deaths and miners being trapped underground. Although seismicity could not be predicted, there were systems in place which could give an indication of possible incidents. The system has led to an improvement in detecting incidents. There was a requirement for all employers to have a planning session before work so measures were in place to provide support and to prevent incidents. Safety nets were installed in gold mines to catch rocks before they fall and cause harm to workers. For harmful gases, there was a system to assist. It is a requirement in the Act. If incidents were detected, people would be placed in refuge bays. As per the Mine Health and Safety Act, before any employee can access a mine work place, there must be early examination by the supervisor. This requirement of the Act was strictly enforced to ensure that all workers enter the work place in areas declared safe. Despite this, people were still getting injured which was caused by accessing work places without proper early examination. Action had been taken where people were faltering about examining workplaces. There were improvements due to the involvement of unions as well as health and safety reps at the mines. Other problems were due to fires such as conveyor belts catching fire and people being killed in Phalaborwa. The Act states that an employer must implement an early warning system to ensure that If there is a fire, it is detected timeously and suppressed before it endangers workers. Where people had failed to comply, Section 54 instructions were given by DMR. DMR would work to ensure compliance was taking place. Failure to not comply would be dealt with.

On the regularity of meetings, monthly meetings took place with all stakeholders at the Mine Health and Safety Council, which comprised of the employer representative led by SA Minerals Council as well as all the unions (NUM, AMCU, Solidarity and UASA) to look at mine safety and health. These parties had taken a stance to take this to a regional level, with what is now referred to as the Regional Tripartite Forum. All stakeholders met on a monthly basis at a regional level to look at challenges of mine health and safety. The forum then came up with remedial action to be implemented. This was dealt with on an ongoing basis.

Mr M Matlala (ANC) asked if there were cases where there was no compliance. What was done by the inspectorate? Do the perpetrators get charged? If the perpetrators do not comply with the inspectorate, what happens? What does DMR do when the inspectorate gives a positive inspection recommendation and then the opposite occurs such as a fire?

Mr Mbonambi replied that DMR would give a detailed report. Measures are in place. Investigations were conducted after an accident. This would then lead to an inquiry. If it was found that there was negligence by a supervisor tasked with ensuring the safety of the area, DMR recommends prosecution of the individual to the public prosecutor. DMR would provide a detailed report of cases where this was done.

Ms Y Yako (EFF) asked how DMR enforces adequate health care close to mines to ensure there is quality healthcare? Does DMR work well with the Department of Health close to mines?

Mr Mbonambi replied that DMR works very closely with the Department of Health. He highlight previously that there was a Mine Health and Safety Council which looked at all health and safety pertaining to workers. Health care provision close to communities was possible due to collaboration with the Department of Health. In last week’s presentation, he indicated that there were annual campaigns, together with the Department of Health, because DMR had realised the TB was a challenge for those in mines as well as those who were living close to mines. During these campaigns, people were educated about TB and where they could get assistance. Dealing with TB early was proactive as it led to better safeguarding of people.

The Chairperson said they needed to be as short as possible in asking questions due to time constraints. The Committee had no questions on Program 3 Mineral Regulation. On policy, the Chairperson said that there was a reduction in fatalities, but they still needed to reduce this further. At worst, there ought to be 50 fatalities. He felt they were doing well. His only criticism was that all programmes from the DDG to the Acting CFO, said that they need money. With what they had, it was not convincing that they need money. The crisis at the Gloria Mine was pertinent. The Chairperson felt that at times DMR was not providing service. There needed to be oversight by DMR and more about silent areas in the legislation. There was a crisis at the Gloria Mine. The problem with the early closure of mines is the conflicting legislation. When what was in the MPRDA was supposed to be implemented, people would say that they had brought in a Business Rescue Practitioner in terms of the Companies Act. In DMR legislation, it was silent on these matters. These matters could be left for future reference.

The Chairperson said that they needed to move on to the next agenda item.

High Level Panel Report/ SAHRC recommendations implementation: DMR status report
Adv Thabo Mokoena said that the directive from the Committee was to look at areas which DMR believed they could address. If there were areas to the contrary, there needed to be an explanation. The importance of this was that the Committee decision would be binding on DMR. DMR had taken cognisance of the recommendations of both the High Level Panel and the SAHRC Reports and had taken into account what was said by the masses. The recommendations were positive. Engagement with SAHRC was positive. Other Chapter 9 institutions such as Office of the Public Protector were being dealt with. Mine safety and health was being dealt with.

Adv Mmadikeledi Malebe, DDG: Mineral Regulation, said DMR had assessed the SAHRC and High Level Panel Reports. The main concerns which emerged from both reports was the amendment of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) and the matter of prior written consent by communities before any mining rights are granted. There had already been engagement with the South African Human Rights Commission on these. These would be resolved through continual engagement.

On the Committee’s question about commonalities between the recommendations of the two reports, it was recommended that the MPRDA must be amended to comply with the Interim Protection of Informal Land Rights Act (IPILRA) to ensure any agreement affecting communal land must include steps taken to obtain consent from those affected, including lists of those consulted and proof of their consent.

▪ The DMR response is that the amendment of the MPRDA is a parliamentary process, which is going to be inclusive in terms of consultation with all other relevant stakeholders.

The SAHRC recommendation was that any action taken in terms of the MPRDA should be compliant with IPILRA, failing which it should be declared invalid.

▪ The DMR response is that the MPRDA requires that the granting of a mining right must take into account all applicable laws, which in this case would be including IPILRA and the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act (SPLUMA).

The recommendation was that laws such as the MPRDA that have been interpreted to enable land grabs, should be explicitly made subject to IPILRA and amended in other ways as well.

▪ The DMR response is that the amendment of the MPRDA is a parliamentary process, which is going to be inclusive in terms of consultation with all other relevant stakeholders.

The recommendation was that where mining has already taken place on communal land and the directly affected community has not benefited, the MPRDA must provide for compensation.

▪ The DMR response is that the section 54 process is an involved process which is meant to provide arbitration and mediation mechanisms to arrive at sufficient redress for communities.

It was recommended that compensation must be provided to individuals, households and communities such that the calculation places the affected persons in a position that they would have been had the mining not occurred.

▪ The DMR response is that section 54 process is an involved process which is meant to provide arbitration and mediation mechanisms to arrive at sufficient redress for communities.

The recommendation was that the MPRDA must be amended to ensure that both revenues from mining-related activities and opportunities generated by such mining activity are shared in an equitable and transparent manner among people whose land rights are directly affected.

▪ The DMR replied that Section 3 of the MPRDA prescribes that all royalties shall be administered by the Minister of Finance (Royalties Act) and that the Mining Charter and Social and Labour Plans are instruments designed to benefit parties directly affected by mining operations.

It was recommended that the MPRDA to include clear and binding financial and administrative protocols for entities that purport to represent community interests and companies that do business with them, including accountability mechanisms that align with customary law principles of transparency and accountability.

▪ The DMR replied that in terms of the Charter, communities are expected to choose their own structures, either in the form of Trusts or appropriate vehicles to represent community interest. The modalities for their representation can be agreed with the right holders/trusts or related vehicles.

The recommendation was that the MPRDA must be amended to provide for a Charter to protect and promote customary and artisanal small-scale miners, and set a framework for the participation of communities in the sustainable and equitable exploitation of the resources of their communal land.

▪ The DMR response is that the Mining Charter, 2018 provides for a dispensation for junior miners. It has dedicated provisions for meaningful participation of host communities in ownership of mines and communities in general. Small scale miners are regulated in terms of section 27 of the Act. Section 104 read with section 12 of the Act provides for community preferent rights.

It was recommended that Section 47 (Minister’s Power to Suspend or Cancel Rights, Permits or Permissions) must be amended to expressly provide for the suspension or cancellation of mining rights where a company has significantly failed to meet its Social and Labour Plan and B-BBEE commitments. (This power has never been used, so must be made explicit to put the matter beyond doubt.)

▪ The DMR replied that Section 47 is meant to deal with transgression of the MPRDA including the SLP and B-BBEE commitment and any terms and conditions of a mining right. However, the penalties can be improved in the amendment to enhance compliance.

The recommendation was that the MPRDA must be amended to establish a mechanism to independently investigate and advice on community grievances in an efficient, democratic and transparent fashion.

▪ The DMR replied that the Section 54 process includes arbitration and mediation mechanisms where there are disagreements. Such mechanisms can be improved in the amendment to include conflict resolution or any other appropriate framework of resolving complaints, disagreement or differences.

It was recommended that Section 10 of the MPRDA must be amended to expressly require that directly affected communities must be invited to negotiate and seek agreement on any mining application.

▪ The DMR response is that the amendment of the MPRDA is a parliamentary process, which is going to be inclusive in terms of consultation with all other relevant stakeholders.

The recommendation was that the MPRDA must be amended to expressly require compliance with IPILRA as a condition for the grant of a mining-related right.

▪ The DMR replied that the amendment of the MPRDA is a parliamentary process, which is going to be inclusive in terms of consultation with all other relevant stakeholders.

The recommendation was that the MPRDA must be amended to specify the minimum information to be shared with community members, including full mining right applications and environmental impact assessments, prior to any decision to accept mining under IPILRA.

▪ The DMR response is that Meaningful consultation means that an applicant must make available all pertinent information to enable a community to make a decision about the proposed mining project. Regulations to the MPRDA may be expanded to clarify this requirement.

The recommendation was that a mineral-right applicant must, at its own expense, invite the community to appoint an independent expert(s) of their own choosing to assist in the IPILRA negotiation in communal areas. Where more than one community is affected, each shall have the right to independently decide whether to grant or refuse its consent.

▪ The DMR replied that this may be negotiated with the applicant as part of the meaningful consultation process required by the MPRDA. The amendment of the MPRDA is a parliamentary process, which is going to be inclusive in terms of consultation with all other relevant stakeholders.

It was recommended that where mining requires the relocation of specific community members’ homes, insert a requirement that the majority of those to be relocated must consent to the mining activity. No person or community may be relocated to enable mining unless such relocation is unavoidable. Where relocation is unavoidable and consent is granted, remedies and compensation must be clearly defined.

▪ The DMR replied that DMR is in the process of developing Mine Community Resettlement/Relocation Guidelines to cater for rights and interest of communities in the event of relocation. Modalities of relocation will be outlined in the Mine Community Resettlement/Relocation Guidelines.

The recommendation was that alternative land must be the default compensation and people must be offered living conditions equal to, or better than, their conditions prior to the relocation.

▪ The DMR response is that modalities of relocation will be outlined in the Mine Community Resettlement/Relocation Guidelines.

It was recommended that cash compensation must be based not on market value, but on real value to affected people, taking into account the effective value of resources such as ploughing and grazing land, water access and cultural value.

▪ The DMR replied that modalities of relocation will be outlined in the Mine Community Resettlement / Relocation Guidelines.

It was recommended that Section 5A be amended (Prohibition relating to illegal acts) to make it illegal to mine without community consent under customary law and in compliance with IPILRA.

▪ The DMR replied that the amendment of the MPRDA is a parliamentary process, which is going to be inclusive in terms of consultation with all other relevant stakeholders.

The recommendation was that should mining commence or a right be granted without the consent of the community, that community shall have the right to set aside the licence and to be paid compensation for the full damages suffered.

▪ The DMR replied that the amendment of the MPRDA is a parliamentary process, which is going to be inclusive in terms of consultation with all other relevant stakeholders.

The recommendation was that communities must have a right to revoke their consent should mining activities be conducted in a manner contrary to the MPRDA and its regulations, with communities then entitled to compensation for the full damages suffered by all mining activities.

▪ The DMR response is that the amendment of the MPRDA is a parliamentary process, which is going to be inclusive in terms of consultation with all other relevant stakeholders. Compensation is provided for in section 54 of the MPRDA.

Mr Mbonambi continued to present the responses by the DMR:

It was recommended that the DMR, in partnership with the DoH and key stakeholders, is directed to commission a study to assess the impact of mining activities on communities’ health. In the interim introduce mechanisms to monitor and assess health levels in mining-affected communities. The reports must be publicly accessible, particularly by affected communities.

▪ The DMR response is that a similar participatory study has recently been commissioned by DMR. The study was on adverse health impacts associated with dust emissions from gold mine tailings. In line with sections 5(8) and 49(3) of the Mine Health and Safety Act, DMR continues to monitor and assess health levels in mining-affected communities. All health level reports will be shared with affected communities through their representatives or community based organisations during the Regional Tripartite Forums.

It was recommended that the DMR is directed to develop blasting regulations, which include provisions for sufficient and appropriate notice and adequate safety and monitoring measures, including mechanisms for community-based monitoring. The regulations should set out the processes to be followed in assessing damages from blasting operations, compensation payments, and practical repair measures, among other things.

▪ The DMR replied that the MHSA Regulation 4(16)(2) deals with blasting operations and was recently gazetted in December 2018. In 2016, DMR finalised a research project on guidelines for the development of a South African minimum standard on ground vibration, noise, air blast and flying rock near surface structures. The current MHSA Regulations will subsequently be revised to include South African minimum standards and the SAHRC recommendations.

The Chair said that from a distance it seemed like a straightforward report

Mr J Lorimer (DA) asked how DMR sees the harmonisation of MPRDA and IPILRA. When is this going to happen? Why has DMR ignored IPILRA in the licensing process and in mining regulation? There was a Section 54 process, it had clearly not worked, and there was a lot of references to it. Does the DMR acknowledge that it has not worked and what is DMR doing about this? On page 9, he asked if the social labour plans were now all publicly available without having to resort to a Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) application. On page 10 he asked how does DMR decide who belongs to a community and who does not? What was the formula to ascertain this? Page 11 mentioned Section 104 which dealt with community preference rights, he asked where community preference rights had been exercised.
There was frequent mention of the amendment of the MPRDA, when was it going to happen and when is it scheduled to be completed? What would this mean for mining applications in the interim while there was a waiting period for the MPRDA to be changed?

Mr H Schmidt (DA) referred to the Mining Charter and said the Social Labour Plans needs to be published. On artisanal and small scale miners and the MPRDA, there was a DMR document about 10 years ago about artisanal mining, which was different to small scale mining in his view. DMR had said that it was developing a plan for artisanal mining. He would have expected the artisanal mining program to feature somewhere in the response. He thought that the Minister was looking at the Artisanal Mining policy framework.

Mr Schmidt thought that the Minister had said that DMR was appealing the court case on IPILRA. Was that still the case? He was not sure that Section 54 is to the benefit of communities. It provided that mining may continue in the process of dealing with concerns raised by the mining community. Section 54 needed further consideration on matters where mining companies can continue to mine. His biggest concern was that the MPRDA was adopted before 2002 but only came into operation around 2004. You could continue to mine, but you had to seek consent from the landowner. The ownership of those minerals was with the landowner if they had not been ceded to another company or different institution. You had the mineral rights to the land, but the state has taken custodianship away from the landowner, the nation owns the minerals. He did not have a problem with this; this is what happened in international jurisdictions. His concern was that consent had been done away with by means of the MPRDA. Now, we see the SAHRC and the High Panel Report saying that there needed to be a return to consent as it was the only way in which a landowner had any form of bargaining rights about the land. This was an international phenomenon. It worked well pre 2002, to the extent that mining development was much stronger than it is at the moment. The unintended consequence of changing consent to consultation is that it happens to coincide with a reduction in mining activity in the country. It cannot be that consent is the reason that mining development cannot take place. Consent was not the reason there is a reduction in mining activity in South Africa. In fact when consent was in place, mining activity boomed. There needs to be an arbitration process to deal with landowners being excessive in terms of what they require. It at least gave them a bargaining tool. How far is the appeal or has DMR withdrawn that appeal?

Adv Mokoena welcomed the questions and said the DDG and he would reply to them.

Adv Malebe replied about the harmonisation of the MPRDA and IPILRA, saying that this went back to the question of when the amendment of the MPRDA would be finalised and that section 3 of the MPRDA took away consent. DMR had stated in its presentation that they would examine this matter to see if it was something which could be taken forward in the Amendment Bill to see if consent should be in the amendments. On the question of DMR ignoring IPILRA, DMR said that it was not being ignored as such. As and when applications were processed, DMR looked at all applicable laws.

On the Section 54 process not working and why DMR did not improve it, the DMR presentation had stated that DMR would look at improving Section 54 process going forward. On whether all SLPs were available without using PAIA, DMR had said that in terms of the recently approved guidelines based on the Mining Charter, these would be available.

Mr Lorimer said that the question was will the documents be available for public consumption?

Adv Malebe replied that in this case, DMR was confining itself to the SLP. The SLP was the one document which was not available. Other documents were made available. It was a challenge for a community to make a PAIA application for an SLP that applied to their own area.

Adv Malebe explained that the Mining Charter stated who was classified as part of the community. On where community preference rights had been exercised, she did not have the statistics on hand but rights had been issued in terms of section 104.

Adv Mokoena said he wanted to raise the point that the Department always complied with the directives from the Committee. In understanding this requested briefing, their response presentations had been made already on 13 and 20 February. He saw that now there was a repetition of questions. He asked the Committee to advise the Department if they have done what it asked them to do in responding to the Reports.

The Chairperson said that the reason he said the presentation is "almost straightforward" is that when DMR made their previous two presentations, there was a perception that “another DMR” was being dealt with. The Committee tasked DMR to compile a comparative report about the High Level Panel and SAHRC concerns. DMR needed to inform the Committee how they would combat the concerns raised in the two reports. If there is a need to amend legislation, even the MPRDA, only two institutions could make an amendment to the MPRDA: the Executive or Parliament. After years of the MPRDA Bill in Parliament, the Minister said he intended to withdraw the MPRDA Amendment Bill and start a fresh process. There was no way the amendments could be done now, and it would be done only in the Sixth Parliament. However, one cannot pretend there will be no end to this process. By requesting a DMR status report on implementation of the High Level Panel and SAHRC recommendations, it was wanting to enrich this process as a Committee.

He explained that the Committee did not want a situation where the SAHRC, a Chapter 9 institution, would make a recommendation which was not followed. His understanding was that DMR would continue working with the Human Rights Commission, outlining the process to be followed which requires public participation. He suggested for example that the response could have stated that, instead of only IPILRA, the MPDRA amendments must be consistent with and relevant to all other laws. It would have to take into account all other legislation. In response to the Committee's mandated request, DMR needed to say this is how far they have gone on each recommendation. If the Committee agrees, it will write a letter to the Speaker outlining the process which it had undergone. They had given DMR an opportunity to respond to the two Reports. He asked the Committee if this was agreed to. In the final analysis, DMR had been asked to compile and make a comparison of the concerns raised by the two Reports to which DMR would make responses and commitments. The Committee would provide a letter about the process the Committee had followed on the High Level Panel and SAHRC Reports and DMR had provided its responses and commitments. He asked if the Committee agreed.

Mr Matlala agreed to the Chair's proposal about writing a letter. He saw no need to interrogate the previous presentation made by the DMR and the Director General.

Ms Yako said she wanted to make sure that she was getting it right. There were presentations but what was to be done moving forward? The Committee Legacy Report would be discussed the following week. What would the Committee be saying moving forward?

The Chairperson said the Speaker had sent the High Level Panel Report to the Portfolio Committee and identified those items which were relevant to the Department of Mineral Resources. The Committee was sent the South African Human Rights Commission Report. The Committee is reporting to the Speaker what they did about these reports. They invited these institutions to make a presentation, and gave an opportunity for the Department to respond to the issues raised in the two Reports. He referred to the briefing they had on IPILRA which renews itself on a yearly basis, as long as it has not been nullified. He had suggested that the DMR response include that when the MPRDA is amended, it should comply not only with IPILRA but with all legislation. It would be impossible to meet the SAHRC recommendation to amend the MPRDA if a short deadline was given. It requires a parliamentary process with public participation and it would be impossible to comply. However, the DMR cannot wait until the last minute to respond to the SAHRC recommendations. The Committee will explain the process it went through in the letter to the Speaker.

Ms Nyambi seconded the Chair's proposal.

The Committee adopted minutes of 20 and 27 February 2019.

The Chairperson said that in the next parliamentary term, reporting on entities had to be considered. In the presentation of quarterly reports, there needed to be a way to evaluate entities.

Mr Lorimer said one did not want to bog down the Department with reporting. The Department already came four times a year to report.

The Chairperson replied that the entities receive about 60% of the budget. When the Department comes to report, reporting on its entities needs to be explored.

The Chairperson said the corrected version of the Legacy Report would be adopted the following week in the final meeting of this Committee.

The meeting was adjourned.

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: