OUTA 2021 Report on Parliamentary Oversight in SA

This premium content has been made freely available

Mineral Resources and Energy

30 September 2022
Chairperson: Mr S Luzipo (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Video

In a virtual meeting, the Portfolio Committee received a briefing from the Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse (OUTA) on its 2020/21 Parliamentary Oversight Report which was critical in that it found no significant improvement in Parliament holding the Executive to account. The improvement needed is a responsive Parliament that holds the Executive accountable, whose operations take place in a transparent manner and which shows a welcoming and proactive stance towards public participation.

OUTA emphasised the need for Parliament to engage with civil society more constructively. The Committee was advised to look into the diversity of stakeholders it engages with, and if this incorporated civil society. It noted that the Portfolio Committee on Mineral Resources and Energy has been holding the entities within this Department to account and has repeatedly expressed frustrations over and over again, but there has not been resolution. OUTA suggested that the Committee should get clarity on the extent to which it can amend the budget to reduce the budget of entities that were not delivering.

Generally, Committee members did not agree that Parliament lacked in its stakeholder engagement and asked how this was assessed. However, there were some elements of the Parliamentary Oversight Report that Members agreed with and accepted the criticism, especially on the observation that the Committee has not done much in the follow-up on the implementation of its recommendations.

Members questioned what the Committee should do when it had repeatedly raised concerns, but the problems were still recurring in the Department. They also questioned how much power the Committee had to amend budget line items.

Meeting report

OUTA Presentation on the Parliamentary Oversight Report
Adv Stefanie Fick, OUTA Executive Director: Accountability Division, said OUTA is a registered non-profit civil action organisation that focuses on exposing government corruption and the abuse of taxes and public funds through investigation, research communication, empowerment and litigation.

Ms Rachel Fischer, OUTA Researcher, explained that the report tends to be critical of the oversight capabilities of Members of Parliament. She referred to “MPs dragging their feet”. She noted that OUTA often makes mention of Parliament's engagement with civil society organisations, as well as academics, researchers and other entities that have experience in the various Portfolio Committees.

This report forms part of the civil society drive to push for greater accountability of the Executive and to ensure that Parliament puts the interest of the public first and cooperates with civil society to strengthen its oversight role.

• The improvement needed is a responsive Parliament, that holds the Executive accountable, whose operations take place in a transparent manner and which shows a welcoming and proactive stance towards public participation.

Key messages and recommendations
• Constitutional requirement for oversight: Failed
OUTA wants to ensure that Parliament does have oversight over the Executive, but unfortunately, due to state capture and the delay in Parliament prioritising the recommendations of the Zondo Commission, OUTA is of the view that Parliament can improve on this and take a harsher stance of holding the Executive to account.

• Parliamentarians’ oath of office: Failed by some MPs
OUTA is of the view that some MPs fail to keep to their oath of office. The citizens of South Africa should come first and foremost in this duty.

• Public communication: YouTube helps but it is not participation
YouTube does help with public participation. However, electricity restraints (loadshedding) impact telecommunications and ICT infrastructure, precluding many South African citizens from attending or submitting public comments.

• Public participation: Often ignored
This is due to the lack of invites to civil society; when these consultations occur, it is not incorporated and the follow-through is limited. When public participation occurs, it tends to rather be a tick-box exercise.

• Oversight: Inadequate

• Oversight: Insufficient independent information
OUTA found insufficient independent information to suitably ground the research, findings and processes that Parliament produces. OUTA argued that if there is fundamental and regular engagement with experts in this field to broaden the base of knowledge, then this could contribute substantially to the effectiveness of what Parliament does.

• Oversight: What happened to Parliament's oversight and accountability model?
Although Parliament as a whole structurally prioritises this model, OUTA would like to see the Portfolio Committees taking up this model. Committees have the power and privilege to utilise this model and make it more effective and visible.

• Oversight: Even MPs may not be heard
OUTA does acknowledge that MPs might face individual challenges and Portfolio Committee challenges. The views might not always be heard due to the size of the National Assembly.

• Oversight: Absenteeism
OUTA has been monitoring the Committee meeting attendance, which can certainly be improved. Due to the concerning situation that South Africa is facing, in terms of energy and electricity resources, this Committee and its Minister have an additional burden to be visible and proactive, and to ensure that the county does not fail due to electricity shortfalls.

• Constituency work: No oversight of constituency offices
OUTA does feel that MPs could be more visible in their constituency work.

• Structural reform: Overhaul required
There are structural reform gaps. Parliament as an institution should be reviewed annually and be improved. Parliament and Portfolio Committees cannot be allowed to get away with poor implementation.

• Ethics: Inadequate leadership
There is a lack of awareness of ethics requirement, good and bad conduct and the inbuilt sense of a moral compass. One cannot be blind and ignorant of allegations of corruption, bribery, treason and general maladministration. Government has to stand firm in its ethical responsibilities to ensure that political biases and agendas do not take over the needs of the citizens.

Portfolio Committee on Mineral Resources and Energy – Case study period of 2020/21
Ms Liziwe McDaid, OUTA Parliamentary Officer, briefed the Committee on the oversight performance of the Portfolio Committee on Mineral Resources and Energy. This Committee has been holding the entities within this Department to account and has repeatedly expressed frustrations over and over again, but there has not been resolution. It is suggested that the Committee could exercise its powers to ensure that the Department is held accountable. She emphasised that the Committee does make fantastic recommendations in its Budgetary Review and Recommendations Reports (BRRRs), but it does not seem to translate into change. She made the example that the Committee had indicated that the budget had been spent but the work did not get done. She pointed out that this could be an opportunity to cut the budget.

The presentation highlighted the percentage of Portfolio Committee meetings attended by Ministers/Deputy Ministers. It noted that the Portfolio Committee on Mineral Resources and Energy is not one of the best performing in terms of Minister/Deputy Minister attendance.

Discussion
The Chairperson thanked OUTA for the presentation and thought it was a good exercise. This platform should not be taken as a platform for accusations and defence. He encouraged the Members to accept the binocular view, as the Committee cannot assess itself. He would appreciate if the Committee could have constructive engagement that places facts on the table.

Mr K Mileham (DA) thanked OUTA for a very comprehensive report. He referred to the chart that spoke to the Committee's public hearings and stakeholder engagement as he was curious about how this was determined. This Committee has had a number of stakeholder engagements and public hearings over the past three years, particularly on the Gas Amendment Bill, the Committee did oversight and interacted with communities at various mine sites, including Lily Mine. He did not understand why this was not reflected on the chart.

He agreed with the assessment about the Minister’s attendance at Committee meetings, as he had previously raised this in the Committee. Minister Mantashe and his deputy are amongst the worst attendees at Committee meetings, which makes it difficult for this Committee to hold them to account. He urged that the Committee place pressure on the Minister to attend Committee meetings and to answer the questions. One of the challenges that this Committee has is a culture of protectionism, where the governing party tends to rally around whatever the Minister or the Department says, rather than addressing the issues critically or looking into where the problems are in the Department; it tends to brush such considerations under the carpet. The Committee needs to be far more aggressive and concerned about the problems in the Department.

Although the Committee makes recommendations on the BRRR and the Annual Performance Plan (APP) reports, the Committee does not track the progress against those recommendations. When approaching the next financial year, there should be a report that indicates if there has been any progress after implementing those recommendations, and if not, why? The BRRR recommendations should translate into the APP. There appears to be a disconnect between the work done on the BRRR and the work done in the APP, as well as the review and incorporation of the outcomes into the next year’s recommendations. He agreed that OUTA made a good suggestion about penalising the budget, but he was curious as to how the Committee would go about doing that because he was of the perception that the Committee cannot amend the budget after it is presented to the Committee. That is a function given to the National Assembly as a whole. He questioned how much power the Committee has to amend budget line items.

Ms V Malinga (ANC) said she was shocked by the presentation, particularly when it stated MPs are “asleep at the wheel”. This is the second time she agrees with Mr Mileham, because this Committee has been up and down to consult with all stakeholders, through public hearings or by receiving presentations. She questioned how the Committee was asleep at the wheel and asked if the presenters implied that the Committee was irrelevant. This Committee has hammered the South African Nuclear Energy Corporation (NECSA) for not submitting its financials on time. The Committee has hammered the Department about the solar water heater programme. This Committee has done everything humanly possible to get the work done. She takes serious offence that OUTA said MPs are asleep at the wheel. On the key recommendations, Ms Fischer had said that the public does not know the MPs. Ms Malinga said that the Committee is not running a PR company and that the parliamentary website displays the names of all MPs on the different Portfolio Committees.

She questioned if OUTA understood the process of oversight work, because there are processes that the Portfolio Committees have to follow to go out and do their oversight work, which has to be approved by Parliament. She agreed with the concern that the Minister has not been attending meetings, but the Minister does not run the Department. She explained that the Minister oversees the Department and there are officials that run the Department. The Committee has expressed dissatisfaction with how the officials run the Department. She asked for clarity on what was meant by MPs being “asleep at the wheel” because when this Committee was dealing with the Gas Amendment Bill, Members had not been home for two weeks due to public consultations. The Committee will take the criticism when it is wrong and accept the recommendations on how to improve, but she does not agree that the Committee has been asleep at the wheel.

Ms P Madokwe (EFF) agreed with Mr Mileham and Ms Malinga’s comments. She requested that OUTA explain how it made the observation that the Committee has not done well, and provide specific recommendations on how the Committee could improve, because the Committee is of the view that it has done everything humanly possible. There has been a number of public engagements and correspondence with the Committee during this term; the Committee has also engaged with some organisations in the meetings. If there is any correspondence or attempts at engagement that the Committee has not attended to, this should be brought to the Committee's attention. There are some elements of the Parliamentary Oversight Report that are correct. The Committee does accept the criticism, especially on the fact that the Committee has not done much follow-up on the implementation of the recommendations, and this is something that the Committee had raised a number of times to the relevant officials. There has also been confirmation from the Department that some of the recommendations had not been implemented on time or have not even been processed.

Mr M Mahlaule (ANC) acknowledged the criticism, particularly on the lack of engagement with civil society organisations (CSOs). There has been research on how Parliament fails to reach as many CSOs as possible. He advised OUTA that it would have been helpful if the Committee received a comparison on how many CSOs had interacted with the Committee in previous parliamentary terms in comparison to this Committee; as well as what would be an acceptable quantity of CSOs to engage with. When this Committee did its rounds on public participation and oversight, it did not make the mistake of not involving stakeholders. He asked what the acceptable number of CSOs the Committee ought to meet would be. Whether a Committee met with CSOs or not, is different to the Committee agreeing or disagreeing with the inputs of the CSOs. For instance, a Committee might engage with a CSO, but not necessarily agree with the inputs; he questioned if this was interpreted as the Committee has failed to engage with the CSO.

He heard Mr Mileham’s comment about the governing party being defensive of the Minister’s attendance, which is rather unfortunate. When the Minister had first come in, he had a Deputy Minister who had unfortunately passed on. Before that time, there was no meeting that was not attended by either one of them. For a very long time, the Minister had no deputy, and Members understood that it was not possible for the Minister to be everywhere. Although it does not take away the fact that the Minister has not been attending, he does not agree that the governing party has been defensive for no reason.

He was unsure if the Committee was empowered to cut a budget and rearrange the line items of the budget; he noted that Mr Mileham had also raised this query. The Committee does adopt the budget, and there are situations where the Members reject the budget, which is dependent on their party positions. The Committee does debate the budget, as this is the responsibility that it has. OUTA should indicate why it said the Committee has the power to cut the budget. He also did not think it would be helpful to cut the budget of already struggling entities. For instance, there have been repeated assertions that the Committee has adopted the budget but NECSA is limping.

Mr Mahlaule noted that the Department has consistently had problems with its solar water heater programme, the Committee had raised these concerns every year to try to resolve it. He questioned what advice OUTA would give the Committee in resolving those concerns, because the solar water heater programme has been a recurring problem and the Committee has not been asleep at the wheel. He questioned what the Committee should do in such instances when it had repeatedly raised concerns, but the problems are still recurring in the Department. He does not agree that this indicates that the Committee had not played its role, because the Committee is also wary of overreach and does not want to cross that line. Holding a Department accountable and dictating what the Department should do are two different things.

Chairperson’s comments
The Chairperson said that he assumed the Parliamentary Oversight Report is researched work. The Committee is established according to the rules of Parliament. It has constitutional obligations, but at times it may be found that the rules of Parliament are not consistent with the constitutional prescripts of the country. He informed OUTA that he would have found it helpful if they had made references according to the specific rules of Parliament, in terms of what a Committee should be doing and what the Committee has not been doing. He recalled that during the Fifth Parliament, the Auditor-General had observed the Committee’s performance, but performance reviews should be clear on what it measures against.

NECSA and the Central Energy Fund (CEF) do not get money from government, so their budget is generated income. It was the first time that NECSA has been able to table its financial statement and turnaround strategy plan. He recalled that because NECSA and CEF are Schedule 2 entities, it was not required for those entities to table their finances in Parliament. However, it was this Committee that obtained legal advice that all entities are accountable to the Committee of Parliament; NECSA and CEF were then called to the Committee to present their turnaround strategy and table financial statements. This is an indication that the Committee had exercised its power and authority.

Members have raised concerns about the non-performance of NECSA, CEF and the State Diamond Trader, and the Committee has done oversight visits. The Committee had informed NECSA that it was not pleased with its performance, but the Committee had also noted the intention and the improvements. At some point, NECSA was even on the verge of being unable to pay its employees. But with the necessary intervention and demand for stability, NECSA has a board and an executive team.

He questioned how the observations were made on the Parliamentary Oversight Report, as well as the Auditor-General's observations. He disagreed that the Committee did not engage with the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) because the Committee had recently engaged with the SAHRC and informed the Department to indicate what areas it was able to succeed in, particularly on the audit outcome of the rehabilitation of the derelict and ownerless mines. When engaging on the closure of the derelict and ownerless mines, the Committee had expressed that if the Department does not deal with the resource allocation, then it will be almost impossible to close the derelict and ownerless mines. Budget allocations are subject to the decision of National Treasury.

He felt that OUTA had contradicted itself when it said that the Committee had not engaged with CSOs, because it also said that when the Committee does meet with CSOs, it meets with some and not others. The Committees of Parliament are not institutions to recognise structures; Parliament and its Committees are an institution that is accountable to the people of South Africa. This Committee only meets on Tuesdays, and has recently been allowed to meet on Fridays as well. At most, the Committees of Parliament can meet about two times a week, when allowed.

He has read the recommendations of the Zondo Commission, and unfortunately, there is nothing the Committee can do until the report is brought to Parliament. The Zondo Commission has far-reaching implications, and one of the concerns raised was resource allocation, which the Committee is not mandated to do. The top-heavy arrangement was adopted post-1994, where too much power was given to the Executive. He explained that a Committee of Parliament first has to meet and make application before it is able to make a decision, whereas the Ministers are able to make decisions themselves. He thought OUTA would have had a deep analysis of the environment under which the Committees work.

There is a risk that post-2024, there will be more Portfolio Committees in Parliament than there are now, because, at times, coalition government is about attracting people to a side. The number of ministries may be a joke post-2024 because there is no cap on the number of ministries nationally.

When this Committee was established in 2019, its first priority was to visit all the entities, including the Department. The second priority was to engage with all relevant stakeholders in the mineral and energy sectors. He agreed that it is not possible to have met with everyone, but since its inception, the Committee has been consistent with its engagements. He explained that there had been weeks when the Members of this Committee have been on oversight and not been home to see their families.

He agreed that the Committee could not keep discussing just for the sake of discussing. Therefore, the Committee has discussions and prepares reports that are tabled in Parliament, so that the recommendations of the Committee can be recognised. On consequence management, he made an example and said that it was this Committee that revived the challenge of the Strategic Fuel Fund (SFF) and the 2015 sale of the strategic stock. The Committee has made follow-ups, particularly on the solar water heater programme; the Committee had consistently asked for feedback following the oversight visits. This Committee resuscitated the Department’s solar water heater programme in 2019.

The Chairperson said he did not dismiss what OUTA had raised, but the Committee did not ignore the civil society organisations on the Karpowership debacle, because the Committee had decided to focus on the contract and the allegations against the conduct of the Department. If the Committee had not agreed with the CSOs, it does not mean that the Committee had ignored civil society. When engaging on the fuel price, the Committee consulted with the relevant stakeholders to address the price hikes. He does not agree that the Committee has not done what it was supposed to do.

He explained that the system of Parliament makes it very difficult to have vigorous and continuous engagement, because Members serve on several other Committees. OUTA has been welcomed to the Committee, because the Members want to improve engagement and exchange ideas.

OUTA Response
Adv Fick agreed with the remark that sometimes there is a need to agree to disagree. She agreed that it is about making the system better. OUTA respected the opportunity to present its report to the Committee. OUTA and the Committee were there to uphold the Constitution, the basis of the Parliamentary Oversight Report. In Section 48, the National Assembly takes an oath to swear or affirm faithfulness to the Republic. OUTA would like to assist Parliament in terms of its powers. Section 55 states that the National Assembly must provide mechanisms to ensure that all Executive organs of state in the national sphere of government are accountable to Parliament. It is not about being dictatorial but about holding the Executive to account and ensuring that they do what they are supposed to do. Section 55 further states that Parliament is to maintain oversight of the exercise of national executive authority, including the implementation of legislation and any organ of state.

She hoped that OUTA’s research and these conversations would assist the Committee to continue holding the national sphere of government to account. Section 59 states that the National Assembly must facilitate public involvement and conduct its business in an open manner; she congratulated the Committee for fulfilling this obligation. In terms of Section 96, Ministers and Deputy Ministers are also accountable to National Assembly. OUTA does research and attends some Committee meetings to try and be of assistance, to assist the Committees in holding the Ministries to account.

Ms McDaid said she would have expressed the same frustrations as Ms Malinga if she were an MP. Members currently had the 2021 Report but the 2022 Report captures the public hearings for the Gas Amendment Bill and the environment in which the MPs have to operate. She explained that three years ago, OUTA determined how it would do its assessments in a manner that is fair to assess Parliament’s engagements and where it gets information. It was thought that one of the ways to indicate this is on how many CSOs the Committees engage with and the number of days allocated to public hearings. She noted that previously, the Portfolio Committee on Energy hosted “mini-indabas” to invite stakeholders to engage on a particular topic. These would include the presence of the Department and CSOs that raised questions or made comments. Parliament facilitated this opportunity to enable engagements, to learn and address the challenges. These gatherings were useful but have not happened over the last few years.

The report does acknowledge that the Committee has a lot of meetings – this is reflected in the tables. The report reflects the percentage of the meetings the Minister or Deputy Minister attends and considers that the Ministers could be busy and therefore, the Deputy Minister might attend. Due to their duties, it is unrealistic to expect the Ministry to attend all Committee meetings.

The assessment also takes into account the sources of the information. She noted that Parliament is under-resourced in having only one researcher per Committee, which does need to be looked into. OUTA had engaged with Parliament’s Research Unit to find out how they get their information, how the reports are put together and if they are published. Amongst the researchers that OUTA had met, there was a general acknowledgement that its research reports are not published which OUTA had pushed for. The research reports might be useful, but OUTA does not know what they are and cannot offer comment on them. OUTA took the BRRR and looked at whether it had used any other reference than the Department.

She understood the administrative process for the Committee to motivate oversight visits, but she suggested that the Committee could use the virtual platform to invite stakeholders to provide the Committee with their analysis of the Department’s performance prior to the BRRR, so the Committee could then use such information when compiling its BRRR to augment the research capacity. There is lawlessness in the mining sector on the West Coast and it is very difficult because people are too scared to speak out; these are the kinds of issues that people should feel comfortable raising with the Committee.

The report had also given a general observation of Parliament. This Committee has been vocal in raising its concerns with the Department, which is not the same across all Committees. In terms of the progress, she noted the Committee’s frustration with overseeing challenges for years but still not seeing any results on the ground. She suggested that perhaps an intervention would be to reduce the budgets of the entities that are not delivering and give those funds to the entities that are delivering. There is legislation within the Appropriation and the Division of Revenue Acts that govern what the Committee can do regarding the budget. OUTA does share the frustration that the Committee deals with the same issues over and over again, but the 2022 report also acknowledges that the Committee has been following up on those issues.

The Committee does engage with some stakeholders, but these are often government or industry stakeholders. She suggested that the Committee could look into the diversity of stakeholders and if this incorporated civil society. OUTA noted that Parliament has been trying to create a public participation index, but this mainly seems to be aimed at communication. For instance, although Parliament is broadcast on YouTube, it is still not a form of participation.

NECSA gets at least R1 billion from the Department, which is state money; therefore, NECSA should account to Parliament. She is pleased that the Committee had ensured that it accounts to Parliament.

This Committee does have an impossible burden because it has two very large Departments over which it conducts oversight. Perhaps in the next political era, there should be a Department of Energy and a Department of Mineral Resources.

On the Karpowership debacle, she clarified that a subsequent letter was sent to Parliament when it became apparent that the Committee was narrowly focused on the contract. OUTA felt it would have been respectful if the Committee had come back to the CSOs to explain what was happening or to engage with them on the issues.

This is the first year that OUTA has really looked into the capacity side, in terms of what the MPs can do to strengthen their oversight. She reiterated that the Committee is advised to get more information from diverse sources, particularly before engaging on the BRRR. The research reports should be made publicly available on Parliament’s website so South Africans can see how Parliament makes its decisions.

Ms Fischer thanked Mr Mileham for noting the need to track and trace the BRRR and see the follow-through in the APP of the following year. This shows that Members are cognisant of what has been addressed by the Department. She reminded the Committee that the Oversight Review Report was not a targeted focus on this Committee as it looked at a number of portfolio committees. She gave the example of the Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs that submitted its BRRR and, within a month, obtained a response from the Department on the items of concern. This was signed off by Minister Motsoaledi and submitted to the Speaker of Parliament. This example could be an active exercise to look into that could improve the process.

On the extent to which the Committee can engage with the budget, the Committees do have a function to monitor and oversee the work and the budgets of the national government departments, and hold them to account. This means that the Committees also deal with departmental budget votes. The Committee would need to clarify the extent to which it can amend the budget, but the Committee certainly has a role to critically engage with the budget.

She thanked Ms Malinga for indicating her feelings towards the comments in the report – which was an overall analysis of the Portfolio Committees included in the research. She clarified that OUTA did not imply that the Committee is irrelevant. The Members of the Committee are in an extremely privileged position, are extremely relevant and have the power to effect change. The Parliamentary Oversight Reports are critical but not in a negative sense. The reports need to indicate gaps and challenges, but it is also an opportunity for improvement.

She noted the comment that the Committee is not running a PR company and agreed that the Committee's mandate is different, but the Members should be aware of the realities of South Africa. South Africa ranks 91st out of 110 countries globally, in terms of internet penetration rate which is currently 53%. There are only 38 million active internet users in the country, so a large proportion of South Africa’s citizens do not have internet access, increasing the digital divide. Although some people have internet access, it does not mean that it is at home; internet access is questionable in terms of where people get access, how good the access is and how often they have access. This may further be compounded by general media and information and digital literacy. It may be said that information is available online for citizens to search, but there is also a need to question the reality of their capabilities to do so and if there is an additional responsibility to ensure that citizens can do this.

In response to Ms Madokwe’s request for recommendations for improvement, she said that the Committee has the opportunity to monitor, track and trace the recommendations in the BRRR and see how it is reflected in the APP. On how public participation could improve, she suggested that the Committee could consider or encourage the development of a working group. She is sure that working groups are available within the civil society / non-governmental organisation sphere together with other government entities. If this is something to be established or if Members would want to form part of a working group, then perhaps it could be a shared responsibility amongst the Members, or perhaps it could be the responsibility of one of the Members to observe these types of working group meetings.

She assured Mr Mahlaule that if the Committee had disagreed with the inputs of stakeholders that it did not mean that OUTA had disregarded that as public participation. The Chairperson had rightfully referred to this as a dialogue, because a dialogue is a discussion between multiple parties. When there are disagreements, there is usually change and growth. She noted that the Chairperson had pointed out that the Committees have restrictions and are under-resourced in terms of content advisors and researchers; if this can be worked on, then it would certainly add value, because research does form a foundation for decision-making. No institution is perfect, but it should at least collaborate towards meeting and being a better institution.

She concluded that most of the items are based on the report that the Members have received and that OUTA would send its latest 2022 report as soon as it is available. She hoped that the reports influence the BRRR. When doing analysis, OUTA found that the opening sections of the BRRRs normally acknowledge what sources were reviewed and considered. Therein the Committee can also acknowledge CSO reports or other research reports, as it would give added depth. The BRRR may also acknowledge if there are Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) considerations, specifically National Development Plan (NDP) considerations. It is the decade of change towards 2030 to meet the various indicators of the NDP, of which electricity provision is a major consideration. Seeing this clearly defined in the BRRR certainly underscores that the Committee recognises the need to meet those indicators.

Further discussion
The Chairperson said that he thinks there is a common understanding. OUTA should feel free to share its inputs. The fact that the Members have been elected to be MPs does not mean they possess natural wisdom, because they all learn. If any Member is not prepared to engage, then that Member is prone to ignorance. He had served in Committees for five years, and when he had started, he would have assumed that it was a chaotic environment, but over time it was generally understood that the Members needed one another. The Committee has adopted a strategy to discuss an issue raised by any Member of the Committee, regardless of the political party that the Member belongs to. The Committee will soon be doing oversight on illegal mining and some of the recommendations were raised by a Member because it made sense. At the end of the day, the people of South Africa must not suffer and be prejudiced as a result of political privileges.

The Committee must never see CSOs as opponents, but the CSOs should also not see the MPs as antagonistic. When the Committee engages with civil society it regards this as complementary work. He agreed that CSOs should feel free to engage with the Committee, this might not mean that there would be physical meetings, but civil society should keep providing the Committee with information, so that Members may gain knowledge regardless of agreeing or disagreeing with the input.

Adv Fick thanked the Chairperson for the engagement with OUTA. It is part of democracy to be able to agree to disagree, and this was also an opportunity for OUTA to learn.

Ms McDaid said that she had watched this Committee under the leadership of the Chairperson and she thought that the Chairperson had really shown how Parliament could work throughout all of the troubled times in the past few years. She has shared the same frustrations as the Committee and noted that OUTA is keen to help in moving forward.

The Chairperson thanked OUTA for the constructive discussion.

4th Term Committee programme
Ms Ayanda Boss, Committee Secretary, shared the draft fourth term Committee programme.

Mr Mileham said that the Committee had a couple of joint meetings with the Portfolio Committee on Public Enterprises. Every single one of those meetings has ended with questions that have been asked by this Committee that has not been answered. The answers would either be postponed to the next meeting or promised in writing. He understood why an organisation like OUTA would observe that the Committee is not effectively doing its oversight if the Committee is not getting the answers that had been asked in those meetings. He cautioned that the rushed nature of the joint committee meetings does not allow the Committee to probe or get insight into the answers Members are looking for. The Members have raised pertinent questions that have not yet been answered.

He noted that nothing in the programme addresses the Upstream Petroleum Resources Development Bill, which is a priority. For the past year, there has been a lot of talk about the Just Transition Fund, and the $8.5 billion allocated to South Africa to enable a transition away from fossil fuels. He believed that the Committee would need to be briefed on this, including the progress made to date. He remained concerned that load shedding does not appear to be a priority of this Committee, as reflected in the programme. The Committee has not really prioritised the electricity crisis to the extent that it deserves.

Mr J Lorimer (DA) agreed with Mr Mileham on the mysterious absence of discussions on the Upstream Petroleum Resources Development Bill. There are two issues with mining, one is that of illegal mining, which the Committee has been covering comprehensively. The other issue is the mining cadastral system and the state of the backlog in mining. He asked if the Committee could fit into the programme a briefing by the Department on the status and progress towards a new cadastral system and the backlog in mining.

Ms Malinga said there was a challenge in the licensing regime within the Department. At most sites where the Committee had oversight of illegal mining, the stakeholders continued to raise the challenge of the mining licence process. She asked how the Committee could deal with the hold-up to grant those mining rights, because it leads to people resorting to illegal mining.

The Chairperson referred to Mr Mileham’s comments on joint meetings with the Portfolio Committee on Public Enterprises. During the previous meeting, the Members were informed that there were mini-plenary sessions; it was then agreed that there would again be a full-day joint oversight visit to the Koeberg nuclear power plant, because all of the questions were related to Koeberg and the challenges faced by Eskom. The joint oversight visit to Koeberg is scheduled for 21 October 2022; it is one of the first priorities after the Committee has dealt with the BRRR. He added that the Committee could request the Minister to brief the Committee on the Just Transition Fund.

He suggested that when the Department is invited to present to the Committee, it should also include briefings on the mining cadastral system. The Committee can deal with the Upstream Petroleum Resources Development Bill at any moment during the last quarter, he agreed that it is urgent and the Committee staff will look at possible areas for the public hearings.

The Committee considered and adopted its fourth term programme.

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: