Climate Change Bill: deliberations

Meeting report

The Chairperson indicated that he had received a letter from Mr T Le Goff (DA) that the Committee should consider before proceeding with the agenda. He invited Members to adopt the agenda, adding Mr Le Goff’s letter.

Ms S Mbatha (ANC) moved for the adoption of the agenda. Ms N Gantsho (ANC) seconded.

Member's climate change proposal

Mr Le Goff said that he wished to address the Committee on a matter he had raised personally in the public participation process. It had also been the subject of numerous protest actions and memoranda that had been delivered to the Presidency and to Parliament, which had been accepted in various forms by Members of most parties in Parliament. One of the requests which had been consistent was the establishment of a Joint Steering Committee on Climate Change, which had been established by resolution in the House on 2 June last year. There had been some issues with that resolution, but it was a welcome development to that end.

There were two ways of establishing a new committee in the parliamentary system. The first was via a resolution either through the House or the National Council of Provinces (NCOP), and the second was via legislation. The problem with introducing a joint committee by way of resolution was that it was absolutely tethered to the duration of that particular Parliament, so that when that Parliament ends so did that committee. This created no certainty over the guiding mechanism that might particularly inform Parliament’s work in that area. Topically, it made sense to have this discussion because this was an input provided on the Climate Change Bill.

He had been observing the Committee's many discussions in the clause-by-clause deliberations. He had noticed that the issue regarding the establishment of the Joint Steering Committee on Climate Change had not been addressed in the deliberations, even though it was a very strong message sent to the Committee. He was therefore giving it an opportunity to correct this because of the public input that had been provided. He did not want a post-analysis of the discussions on the Bill, and it came out that the Committee had not listened to the people of South Africa.

The issue of the Joint Steering Committee on Climate Change was something that was already part of the parliamentary system. Basically, to create some contingency, the suggestion had been that the Climate Change Bill should introduce in a clause the Joint Steering Committee on Climate Change as a permanent feature of the politics and the political system in Parliament, to ensure that there was a cross-cutting committee that could address this. He was sure that the Portfolio Committee would note that climate change was not limited only to an environmental problem, but also to a national security issue, an employment issue, and a gender issue, among others.

There were many different aspects, and the various work groups involved were just too broad for the Portfolio Committee to specifically address by itself. This was the reason for the establishment of the Joint Steering Committee on Climate Change, so as to ensure that all of the Members of Parliament were taken along on that journey, so that they were able to collectively address this matter comprehensively. It was also so that they were not operating in silos like they had seen happen in many different aspects of government, where there would be different policy areas acting in competition with each other.

He said that climate change required a whole society approach, and this was an opportunity to really address the issue in a manner that made sense and was cogent, because a lot of the criticisms he had seen were about how the Presidential Climate Commission (PCC) and various other entities would fit into the parliamentary structure. This Joint Committee was necessary because they would interface with other policy areas, to make the Bill coherent.

Mr Le Goff went on to say that in terms of reporting, any committee of Parliament could request anyone to appear before it, but there was a certain power and agency that came from having a structure that received reports, gave insight and had oversight over such matters, especially in terms of the just energy transition investment plan. In his estimation, this was the largest programme of government that they would see in their lifetime, amounting to about R1.5 trillion in its entirety. Presently, there was very little oversight over that particular plan, and the Committee had a job, as Members of Parliament, to make sure that government stayed on track in terms of what they needed to have its own scrutiny. If Parliament chose not to support the establishment of the Joint Committee, then they would be choosing not to have any oversight in a reasonable and effective manner. The real consideration before the Committee was whether the Joint Committee could be included in the Bill. This was not a new issue -- it had already been raised as part of the public participation process. It had been submitted by numerous entities, and not just by him.

He was asking the Committee to consider the establishment of a Joint Committee through the Climate Change Bill. The worry was simply that when the 6th Parliament ends and the current Committee is dissolved, even though the current Joint Committee had not sat yet, there might not be a continuation of the said committee. It was therefore important to have some longevity. People may argue that such a committee should be an ad hoc one, and not necessarily a permanent feature, but climate change is part of humanity’s future. The present climate change trajectory and its impact would be felt for at least the next 300 to 500 years. This fact was locked in science, and there was no debating that -- and the worst effects were yet to be felt. He was insistent that it made sense to include the Joint Committee in the Bill because if they were, in the far distant future, to no longer need that legislation and it was repealed because it lacked any relevance, it would at the same time mean that this parliamentary structure would not be necessary.

He pointed out that the resolution passed by the House last June was somewhat flawed, specifically because, in its composition, it did not include the Portfolio Committee on Environment, which was the lead committee on climate change issues. Obviously, it was headed by the Department regarding chief climate change negotiations, and a lot of the work that happened in that space. It made absolutely no sense for the Portfolio Committee on Environment not to be included in the current Joint Steering Committee on Climate Change. Some of the criticisms received so far have been that the Joint Committee might be dominated by whatever party was the ruling party at the time, and not be inclusionary. He suggested that the Committee look at how they might include a mechanism whereby they would include the rest of the parties that were minority parties, just to make sure there was some representation and it was not just a one-party talk shop.

He said that he understood the urgency of passing the Climate Change Bill, and it was important that it be passed soon, and that from a legal standpoint it did not strain any efforts or require a fresh round of public participation, as it was already a feature of the parliamentary system. He therefore was not asking the Committee to create a committee that did not exist. It did exist. He simply asked that it be continued and given some contingency by which it could endure. The issue had already formed a part of the public participation process, so it was not a reformulation of the Bill in the sense that it was adding something that had not been asked for. The Joint Steering Committee on Climate Change had been asked for. He was requesting the Committee to give the matter its diligent attention and foresight, and in his opinion, it was a matter that the Committee could agree on.

According to Mr Le Goff, there was no real downside to doing this, other than a coherent response in line with the parliamentary system. Institutionally, Parliament had not done much to address climate change despite a lot being said. In the absence of the introduction of the Bill, there would not be much that Parliament as an institution had done. He urged the Committee to consider that a parliamentary response was required on the issue of climate change, in which Members of Parliament could actually take action, to interface with the matter in a substantial way, and this was the way to do it.

Discussion

Mr N Singh (IFP) said Mr Le Goff had called him and indicated that he wanted to make the presentation he had just made. His view at the time was that from his recollection of the drafting of the legislation, he had not come across a committee like the Portfolio Committee setting up a committee via legislation. It was usually something that was an injunction in the Constitution, that every Department should have a committee -- and he was referring to the committee on Vote 1 at the moment, using that particular section of the Constitution -- and then the Rules Committee must provide for the creation of a particular committee linked to a department. Obviously, there were other kinds of committees, such as select committees as well as ad hoc committees.

He had tried to find out if it was within the scope of the Portfolio Committee in legislation to provide for a committee, or if it was a Rules Committee matter that would evolve over time. He had tried to get a hold of the legal adviser, who was unavailable. He agreed that it was good to have oversight over climate change, but the mechanism to get there was what they had to contend with. The Joint Committee could also be revived in the 7th Parliament. His concern was that even with the establishment of the PCC, what the role of the current Portfolio Committee was going to be. The last time they met, the Minister had given a plausible reason why it was necessary to have the PCC, but he was backtracking on that. In his opinion, they would have to consider whether the legislation should provide for this, or if there was another way. It was a noble idea, but the legal advisers should also assist in that regard.

Ms Gantsho thanked Mr Le Goff for the presentation, but in her opinion, the issue of a Joint Steering Committee on Climate Change being established through the Climate Change Bill would only serve to confuse the process that was already underway. She believed that Parliament had empowered the Portfolio Committee, as well as the Select Committee, to deal with matters of the environment and oversee work on climate change. She knew that Parliament could set up a committee, but the Portfolio Committee had already resolved to focus on climate change clauses and this issue was going to confuse that process. If it needed to be debated further, then they would have to wait for the 7th Parliament and discuss it then, but for the moment, it was going to confuse the Committee’s process that was already underway.

Ms Mbatha said that public participation had been held in all nine provinces and all the private sectors, and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) had been invited and had presented to the Committee. It also involved other departments that were part of the Climate Change Bill, but it was indeed an environmental problem. Other committees dealt with climate change issues, such as select committees and ad hoc ones which were established on the basis of such events. The legal advisers would advise the Committee on how best it could deal with the issue, but she believed that as a Portfolio Committee they had done their best to include everyone, as was required.

Ms Thiloshini Gangen, Parliamentary Legal Advisor, said that while the Joint Committee was indeed established, she was not entirely sure what it had achieved since its establishment. The resolution that had been shared did not include the Portfolio Committee, which was problematic. More importantly, however, the Department had bolstered Clause 13 of the Bill quite substantially, requiring the PCC to report to the National Assembly, and that, as far as the legal minds were concerned, that was the absolute or utmost form of oversight. In her opinion, that bolstering was quite sufficient in terms of oversight.

Ms Mbatha stressed that the Portfolio Committee was not a one-party committee, but a multiparty one. Whatever was discussed was done as a collective of different political parties, and it was not a one-sided situation.

Mr Le Goff's response

Mr Le Goff apologised to Ms Mbatha, clarifying that he was referring to the Joint Steering Committee on Climate Change that was in existence, and not the Portfolio Committee. He understood the precepts of multiparty interaction in Parliament.

He said that the Joint Rules of Parliament were quite clear about this type of committee being introduced by legislation. The Bill before the Committee was exactly the type of legislation appropriate to introduce this type of thing. He welcomed the move to first consult the legal advisers, but urged the Members to read the Joint Rules of Parliament, which were quite clear. The existing Joint Committee had not yet sat, and that was the real problem. By the time this Parliament was dissolved by the end of next year, he could not say for certain that the Joint Committee had sat, and the work that might have been achieved would never be known.

Regarding the topical areas this Committee would deal with, he invited Members to read the resolution passed in the House, which was quite clear. In terms of whether or not this should be included in the Bill, he impressed upon the Committee that the issue was one which had been presented to the Portfolio Committee. They had failed to include it in their line-by-line, clause-by-clause deliberations. This was the reason why he was making the representation, because the Committee was failing to express what had been submitted to it. This was not about creating confusion over the process. The Committee’s job was to ensure that the issue raised was included in the deliberations and had not been discussed. That was why he had felt the need to write to the Committee Chairperson so that the Committee did discuss it, because it should have actually been included in the clause-by-clause deliberations.

He asked the Committee why the issue had not been included. The protests that had continued in terms of the memoranda delivered to Parliament and the Presidency on this matter were not going to go away if the Committee did not address it now. They would still have to deal with the remnants, because until a permanent committee of this nature was established, the various entities that wanted the committee to be created were not going away. The question was left to the Committee if they decided to address this. This was the right legislation to do it, and he did not think it would complicate matters, as it had been requested. He reiterated that he was not introducing something new. The Committee just needed to investigate the submissions that they had received over the various submission rounds.

The Chairperson asked whether Mr Le Goff was saying that even if the Committee had interacted with more than 6 500 people across the country, it should have incorporated each of their views in the line-by-line deliberations by the Committee.

Mr Le Goff responded that he was not saying that specifically. The issue by itself should have been something discussed. It interfaced with the country’s parliamentary system. He had attended many public hearings, and he had noted that many of the public comments were not specifically directed towards anything that was actionable or made sense at times. This issue, however, spoke directly to Parliament and how it operates regarding the committee system. It seemed to him as if the issue had not been taken up because it was very specific. If the PCC was being discussed, then the Joint Committee was not a new issue being requested. He was not saying that they should have discussed it in their line-by-line deliberations, but it should have at least been discussed and the Committee could have then resolved whether to take it forward or not.

Further Discussion

Ms H Winkler (DA) asked about the current status of the Joint Committee on Climate Change. It had not yet convened, and it was supposed to have an oversight mechanism, but it did look like it was a defunct entity since it had not yet sat. It was quite odd that nothing had transpired yet.

Mr Singh said that the Committee had heard Mr Le Goff’s submission and spent time on it, which meant that it was adding weight to what he had presented, but as he had said earlier, the Committee had to take legal advice. In his experience as a parliamentarian for 35 years, he had not come across a committee being established in legislation of this sort, because he felt like that they would be overstepping their role. The Rules Committee and the Joint Rules Committee were responsible for establishing committees.

In the debate by this Committee, it must be said and insisted that having heard that the Joint Steering Committee on Climate Change had done nothing so far, it begged the question of whether a joint committee would be effective, because the Environment Committee was already there. He also was a bit taken aback when the Joint Committee was formed, because, in his opinion, they were usurping the role of the Portfolio Committee on Environment, which had the direct responsibility over what happened in the Climate Change Bill. Notwithstanding that, he agreed that climate change was a cross-cutting issue, and maintained that it was a good idea to have more oversight from many departments, but it was important that the legal mechanisms should be looked at for that to be done. They needed to get advice as they moved forward.

Ms T Mchunu (ANC) said she supported what Mr Singh was saying. The Committee had listened to many people during the public roadshows, and interacted with the community. She did not think, subject to the legal advice, that they should take a committee and put it into legislation. If one had read the legislation, structures were being recommended to deal with all other matters, and the issue of oversight could not be subjected to only one committee. There were a lot of structures that were there that could assist in terms of oversight. The Portfolio Committee has done the process so far, allowing interactions within this legislation as well as the oversight part of it. She did not think that they should make the Joint Committee permanent by putting it into the Climate Change Bill, as had been proposed.

If the current Joint Committee had never sat, how would the Portfolio Committee ensure that it sits? It meant that the Portfolio Committee had been able to do the work without the Joint Committee. What was suggested in the Bill was going to be effective without that particular committee.

Ms Mbatha said she did not think the Committee should push for establishing a committee in the Bill. She shared the sentiments of Mr Singh and Ms Mchunu.

Ms Gantsho said that Mr Le Goff needed to know that not all public inputs made it to the final legislation, and that did not translate into failure as he had mentioned. E-Connect worked on thorough engagement and resolved what to focus on, and the Committee did that. If Parliament saw fit to reestablish the Joint Steering Committee on Climate Change, it would do so. Parliament would have to discuss this issue further outside this process, so they needed to focus on the process they were dealing with.

The Chairperson said that the resolution of the Committee on the issues was that the state law advisers and Ms Gangen would look into the matter and revert back to the Committee on establishing a committee by a Portfolio Committee, and would revert back to Mr Le Goff.

Climate Change Bill: deliberations

Ms Gangen went through clauses of the Climate Change Bill for deliberation by the Committee.

In Clause 1 of the A-list, they had inserted the definition of the words or phrases "national greenhouse gas emissions profile," " Public Finance Management Act," and the word "resilience."

Clause 3 amended page 7, line 35, of the Bill by omitting the words "the physically challenged" and substituting them with "persons with disabilities". Clause 7 amended page 8, line 23, of the Bill by inserting the words “laws," and omitting "and” after the word “policies".

Clause 10 sought to substitute section 10 of the Bill with a section providing for the continuation of the Presidential Climate Change Commission that existed before the Bill and the composition in terms of numbers and who would form part of the Commission.

Clause 11 amended page 9, line 39, of the Bill to substitute one of the listed mandates of the Commission with a new one. It also changed page 9, line 40, of the Bill to add sub-sections that empowered the PCC to establish committees to assist in performing its functions and the composition of such committees.

Clause 12 amended page 9, line 42, of the Bill by substituting sub-section 1 with a sub-section which provided for the process of appointment of commissioners to the PCC. Clause 12(2) also amended page 9, line 48, of the Bill by adding sub-sections on the role of the commissioners, their remuneration and the nationality of the commissioners.

Ms Gangen also indicated that the A- list had also sought to introduce, among others, new clauses like Clause 13, which sought to amend page 9, line 50, of the Bill by deleting section 13 and replacing it with a section on the manner of reporting by the PCC to the Minister, the amount of times that the PCC would report, as well instances when the President may require a report from the PCC.

See A-List of amendments attached

Discussion

Ms A Weber (DA) said clause 1 indicated the definition of "Natural Greenhouse Gas Emissions Profile" to mean the latest trends in national GHG totals, with and without sinks from agricultural land use and forestry activities. She agreed with the definition, but wondered why the big contributors to emissions such as mines were not included.

Ms Winkler wanted to know if the amendments formed part of the response to the questions submitted in previous meetings by the Committee, and whether the amendments made by the Department had been done in consultation with the Minister, and the legal department had agreed to them. She wanted to know, as there were quite a number of things that the Department had said they would look into, including the financing mechanism. There were some other questions that she had submitted that the Department was supposed to report on to the Committee today.

Mr Singh said that Clause 10, sub-clause 6, where it spoke on the appointment of commissioners, seemed to be couched in mandatory terms for a period of five years by use of the term "must." Did that mean that in the event that a commissioner was no longer suited for the role before the term of five years, the commissioner would stay there for the full five years? Could that provision be drafted differently so that if a commissioner was not performing their duties after three years, they could be removed?

He asked what other presidential commissions the Committee was aware of, and where those commissions had derived their establishment and powers from. Was it specific legislation? He was trying to understand the nexus between a Climate Change Bill, a Presidential Commission, and the reporting by that Presidential Commission. He asked the legal advisor to clarify that issue for him, as there were many commissions that the President appointed.

The Chairperson said it was a pity that Mr Le Goff had left the meeting, but asked at what point a link or a distinction could be drawn in reporting. The legislation was being established and was going to govern the functionality of the PCC that was going to report to the Minister, so was this committee going to be appointed by the President, but be reporting to the Minister? It would be funded in terms of the PFMA, and report to the Minister. He wondered whether there was some duplication of work, and at what point the Commission would report to the Minister and at what point they would report to the President.

Responses

Ms Gangen said that use of the word "must" in Clause 10 was indeed ominous, and assured Mr Singh that they would definitely look at rewording this, especially for the reasons given.

In response to Ms Winkler, she explained that the A-list was essentially a culmination of whatever the Members had discussed and had indicated that they ideally wanted to be included and changed. If there were outstanding issues that the Department needed to revert to the Committee, she was sure they would do so.

Mr Tlou Ramaru, Policy Analyst, Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE), in response to Ms Winkler, said that the DFFE had responded to the questions previously raised, and had submitted them back to the Portfolio Committee. One of the issues had been the financing mechanisms included in the amendments.

The reporting to the Minister referred to administrative reporting, so that the Commission could comply with the PFMA. The Commission would have to submit administrative reports to the Minister, who would then table them before the National Assembly, given the fact that this would be listed as an entity. In terms of the Commission's mandate, the President could call for any report that would be required, but administratively, they would be reporting to the Minister, so the Minister would be able to facilitate that oversight and table it to the Portfolio Committee.

Mr Jongikhaya Witi, Chief Director: Climate Change Monitoring and Evaluation, DFFE, in response to Ms Webber, said that the definition of the National Green House Gas Emissions profile was actually the trend of greenhouse gas emissions, because they wanted to compare how the emission trends were concerning the target set. He explained that there were two ways of expressing the trends. The first was consideration of gross emissions, and the second was the net emissions. The gross emissions were where they accounted for all the sources of emissions, and the net emissions were where one accounted for both the sources of emissions but also the sinks, because some sectors like forestry would typically absorb emissions. However, they could be a source in some cases where they were large scale fires. A forest could also serve as a source of emissions, so it was important to express both trends. Gross emissions did not consider the sectors that absorb sinks of emissions. The Department’s targets were based on the net emissions, accounting for both the sources and sinks of emissions.

Mr Sibusiso Kobese, Director: Law Reform, DFFE, referred to the question about other presidential commissions and how they were constituted. There were other presidential commissions, like the Human Rights Commission and the Electoral Commission, which were Chapter Nine institutions that had dedicated legislation. The PCC also took that form, though it would not take the status of a Chapter Nine institution. He repeated that there were commissions established by way of dedicated legislation.

On reporting, he explained that the Commission, in the main, would be reporting to the Minister in terms of Clause 13(6). If one looked at Clause 13(6), the President would have the right or privilege to ask for any reporting from the Commission from time to time. The Minister, in turn, had to report to Parliament, but Parliament had all the powers to summon the PCC to account in terms of its oversight role.

On the use of the word "must" in Clause 11, he explained that the Department had taken into account the public comments, which had indicated that the Bill at many points was using the word "may." The overwhelming view had been that the Bill should use more peremptory wording, and that was why they had changed the word may to "must." The change was consistent with the public comments.

In response to Mr Singh, he said that once the Commission was established, it would also have its own code of conduct through which Members would be held to account if they went astray. In his opinion, the code of conduct did not necessarily need to be legislated. The use of the word "must" did not mean that the Minister or the President’s hands would be tied in holding one errant commissioner to account.

In response to Ms Winkler, he said that there were a number of submissions received by the Department to which they had provided detailed responses and submitted to the secretariat. Some of the proposals made had been incorporated into the A-list.

Further discussion

Ms Weber appreciated the clear explanation provided, but asked where the gross emissions were covered in the definition section that spoke about it. It either needed to read as the national GHG emission profile, because if the nation was going to be assessed on the targets, there were definitely going to be targets for gross emissions.

Ms Winkler said she had noted the inclusion of the financing mechanisms in the A-list, but Mr D Bryant (DA) had previously broached the subject of the PCC reporting to the Portfolio Committee, and the Department had indicated that was something that they would take into consideration for inclusion. However, she did not see anything mentioned in the presentation.

She asked whether the Department could commit to the Committee as soon as possible after the Act had been promulgated, that it would list all carbon budgets that were involuntary and those that were determined by the Minister's GHG mitigation plans, and all GHG emissions data reported to the Department with appropriate reduction, taking into consideration section 15 of the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA), and make those records electronically available.

She asked whether the DFFE could advise whether the chief directorate of enforcement had raised any concerns concerning the compliance monitoring and enforcement of the Climate Change Act once it was passed. Had the directorate indicated any specific capacity and resource requirements it would need for compliance monitoring and enforcement of the Act once it was passed?

Mr Singh said that he was confused about the mandates of the PCC, and was still unclear from the response provided. The PCC derived its mandate from the Bill and was not directly accountable to the Minister. When the PCC appeared before the Committee previously, the impression they had got was that it was accountable to the President. When he had asked the Minister two weeks previously, she seemed satisfied with the PCC. The Committee could not object to creating the PCC, but she seemed satisfied with the reporting mechanisms. He was just not too clear in his mind that the mandate of the Commission should arise from the legislation, or something else. He suggested that the legal minds meet and mull it over, and come back to the Committee with a response looking at other examples.

The Chairperson said that he was equally puzzled about the PCC and other presidential commissions that derived their mandate from the Constitution, because the PCC did not derive its mandate from the Constitution. It was causing a bit of confusion. The Committee was aware that the current number of commissioners appointed by the President was 30, which was too much. Secondly, it included Members of Parliament, and one of the clauses spoke about government, civil society etc. Being a Member of Parliament and being a commissioner appointed by the President essentially meant one could be a referee at the same time as being a player.

Further responses

Mr Ramaru said that when one read the definition, it meant the latest trends on the national GHG emissions totals. It also went further to include the sinks which were agriculture, forestry and land use in the main, which was what the Department referred to as the "emissions sink" which might also contribute to the emissions, so the issue of key business operations was also covered on the element that says it means the latest trends in GHG emissions totals. The only way it went further was also to mention the sink, where it said with or without sinks, and further indicated the sectors that also provided the sinks. It did not mean that the emissions mentioned would be the only ones that would be the ones coming from agriculture, forestry and land use. They had mentioned them because of their key roles as the sink.

On the issue of the PCC reporting to the Portfolio Committee, he said that they had agreed that at any given time, the Committee could call the Commission to account, given the fact that it would become a listed entity under the PMFA. It would provide its administrative reports to the Minister who would then table them in Parliament.

In response to the Chairperson, he said that according to the Bill itself, it was clear that commissioners could come from government, organised labour, civil society and the business sector to provide advice, and it says it was not limited to this. If there were areas where it seemed that there might be some kind of conflict of interest, he would ask the legal team to address it. The issue was well noted.

Mr Witi said that the definition did cover the issue of gross and net emissions with the phrase "with or without sink," because "with" meant that they were accounting for the absorption of those emissions and "without" was actually gross emissions. The definition could be maintained as is, or they could use the words "gross" or "net" emissions. The advantage of using that wording was that it was explicit as to which sources of emissions or sinks they were being referred to, because one would always ask, if someone had prepared emission trends, whether they had accounted for those sources of sinks. He said that they were in the hands of the Committee as to what would be the best term to use.

In response to Ms Winkler, he said that the Department would publish information about carbon budgets and mitigation plans once the Bill was passed into law. In a previous meeting, the Department had highlighted that there would be a cataloguing process in relation to regulation 15 of the PAIA, to highlight what information needed to be made publicly available concerning carbon budgets alone. There was no doubt that there would be information published. The information would be published manually at that point, but the Department had already started the process of working towards developing a web-based platform to sustainably present the information because, on a year-to-year basis, it would have to review submissions, and then verify and approve the reports. Once that process was concluded, they would be able to publish the information that had been catalogued as appropriate to publish.

Mr Kobese said that the idea that the President would chair the Commission, appoint commissioners and request reports from time to time may seem to be odd to some extent, but that was the proper process of what was happening in other countries as well. They had done a comparative study with other African nations that had passed a Climate Change Act, like Kenya and Nigeria. In those countries, the President chaired the Commission, and the Deputy President was the deputy chairperson. This was not just the norm in Africa, but also globally as well. That had been the approach, perhaps because the respective states wanted to give prominence to the climate change work. The Minister had been in the last meeting to emphasise the importance of the President chairing the Commission, and that ministers had been co-opted into it. That was the global standard, and giving the Commission the necessary stature was necessary. If the President did not chair it and ministers were not co-opted, then the Commission may not have the relevant status it deserved and its work would not be taken seriously. That was why clause 10 emphasised that the setting up of the Commission would include the ministers who would be co-opted, so of the 30 members, maybe eight would be ministers from the key departments. The importance of the ministers serving in the Commission had already been explained.

He said that the Department had submitted its draft proposal around offences and penalties to the chief directorate of enforcement. They had vetted the inputs made and a few changes were suggested and the deletion of some items, but in the end, they had a properly consolidated version. The chief directorate had not raised an issue pertaining to capacity, but it had already been explained in a previous meeting that the Department did have dedicated compliance and enforcement capacity, including at the provincial level.

Mr Ramaru, on the issue of 30 Members being too much, said that they could be guided on the reasonable number. On Members of Parliament being commissioners in the PCC, he said that the ministers could co-opted, but where issues of conflict of interest might arise, he said that the legal advisors could guide them on how to manage that.

Further discussion

Mr Singh said that he hoped that his request would be considered and that the legal minds would meet, as he was still confused about establishing the PCC mandate and the reporting mechanism. Where had they got their mandate from, and then thrown it into a Climate Change Bill? That was his perplexed view about how the PCC was being established.

The Chairperson asked the Department how soon they could respond to Mr Singh‘s question, the issue regarding the number of commissioners and the other concerns raised by the rest of the Committee.

Ms Gangen said that she would need time to meet with her colleagues and the Department before getting back to the Committee

The Committee then agreed to meet with the legal team on 12 September to receive a response to their enquiries.

Adv Shaun van Breda, Senior State Law Advisor, said that depending on the outcome of the meeting with the legal team, there might be a need to make minor amendments to the A-list just to address those concerns. He indicated that he would be unavailable on 12 September, as he had another meeting, but he would make sure to meet with his colleagues before then.

On the request to establish a joint steering committee on the Climate Change Bill, his view was that the Committee could be established only in accordance with the rules of Parliament, and not with respect to the Bill. It would therefore have to be established when the next Parliament rises.

The Chairperson said that the Committee already had clarity that the establishment of other committees must be referred to the Rules Committee, which would prepare a recommendation. They would prepare a report.

The meeting was adjourned.