Marine Oil Pollution (Preparedness, Response and Cooperation Bill): Negotiating Mandates & Department Response

Meeting report

The Chairperson opened the meeting by welcoming all attendees. The Committee met to consider negotiating mandates on the Marine Oil Pollution (Preparedness, Response and Cooperation) Bill. Public hearings had already occurred at national and provincial levels, with numerous stakeholder organisations providing input. Subsequently, the Committee visited all nine provinces to obtain their negotiating mandates, accompanied by additional public hearings.

Following the Department of Transport’s (DoT) presentation on the proposed provincial amendments, the Chairperson announced that the State Law Advisors and Parliamentary Legal Advisors would collaborate to prepare a C-List of the Bill for consideration at the next meeting.

The Chairperson asked if any apologies were received.

Mr Hlupheka Mtileni (Committee Secretary) reported that Mr Thomas Kaunda MP had submitted an apology.

Ms M Makesini (EFF; Free State) informed the Committee that Mr Khanya Ceza MP would be late.

The Chairperson requested Mr Mtileni to outline the process for considering the negotiating mandates.

Mr Mtileni explained that each delegate would present their respective province’s mandate, while the Chairperson would present mandates for absent members. The Chairperson clarified that any proposed amendments would be referred to the DoT for comment.

Negotiating Mandates

Western Cape negotiating mandate

The Chairperson read out the mandate: ‘The Standing Committee on Local Government, Environmental Affairs, and Development Planning, having considered the subject of the MOP Bill referred to the committee understanding rule 217, reports that it supports the Bill with the proposals as attached.’

Eastern Cape negotiating mandate

Mr M Peter (UDM, Eastern Cape) read out the mandate which said: ‘The Portfolio Committee on Transport, after considering the MOP Bill, confers a mandate to the permanent delegates representing the Eastern Cape provincial Legislature in the National Council of Provinces to negotiate in favour of the Bill with the proposed amendments.’

 Gauteng negotiating mandate

Mr E Ndzimande (MKP, Gauteng) read out the mandate, which read: ‘The Gauteng Provincial Legislature supports the MOP Bill subject to the amendment below being considered.’

Free State negotiating mandate

Dr I Scheurkogel (DA, Free State) read the mandate: ‘The Free State Provincial Legislature votes in favour of the MOP Bill.’

Kwa-Zulu Natal negotiating mandate

The Chairperson read out the mandate, which read: ‘The Portfolio Committee on Transport met today, Wednesday, 26 March 2025, and agreed to mandate the KwaZulu-Natal delegation to support the MOP Bill.’

Limpopo negotiating mandate

The Chairperson read the mandate: ‘The provincial National Council of Provinces delegates are to negotiate in favour of the MOP Bill on behalf of Limpopo.’

Northern Cape negotiating mandate

Mr K Mmoiemang (ANC, Northern Cape) read out the mandate, which read: ‘The Committee supports the MOP Bill without any amendment.’

North West negotiating mandate

Mr B Mabebo (ANC, North West) read the mandate: ‘The Portfolio Committee on Community Safety and Transport Management votes in favour of the MOP Bill.’

Mpumalanga negotiating mandate

The Chairperson read out the mandate, which said: ‘The Portfolio Committee on Public Works, Roads, and Transport, after considering the MOP Bill, confers on the permanent delegate representing the Mpumalanga province in the National Council of Provinces a mandate to negotiate in favour of the MOP Bill.’

The Committee duly noted all negotiating mandates.

The Chairperson then invited the department to take Members through its responses to the submissions received on the Bill.

Department of Transport responses to the proposed changes by three provinces on the Marine Oil Pollution (Preparedness, Response and Cooperation) Bill

Mr Mdumisani Ntuli (Chief Director: Maritime Transport Policy and Legislation) took the Committee through the responses.

Clause 1: Definition of Authority

The Western Cape suggested refining the definition of "authority." The DoT agreed and amended the clause to clarify the chief executive officer's role without unnecessary references, improving consistency with existing legislation.

Clause 5: Risk Assessment

The Eastern Cape raised concerns about the Director-General's approval of risk assessments. The department supported their suggestion, incorporating a provision for approval by the Director-General. However, the department disagreed with the Eastern Cape’s proposal to publish the report, stating that this is already covered under Clause 5.4.

Clause 13: Duty to Report Oil Pollution Incidents

Western Cape and Gauteng both requested clarity on reporting requirements. The department highlighted that reporting is already governed by the Marine Pollution Prevention Act, which specifies that incidents should be reported "forthwith." The concern was addressed by confirming the existing legal obligations.

Clause 14: Initial Response Actions

Gauteng suggested that linking response actions to the National Oil Spill Contingency Plan might be restrictive. The DoT agreed, proposing the deletion of the national capability reference, allowing site-specific responses based on local resources.

Clause 15: Incident Management System

Gauteng recommended revisions to determine the size of incident response teams better. The DoT agreed and proposed clearer guidelines for scalability.

Clause 16: Support of Disaster Structures

Gauteng pointed out missing wording in the clause regarding relevant bodies. The department acknowledged the oversight and proposed including the term “appropriate agencies.”

Clause 17: Termination of Response

Gauteng raised concerns about assessing damage and monitoring natural resources. The department offered flexibility, considering the inclusion of specific terms, such as “natural resource damage assessments,” without making it a rigid requirement.

Clause 21: Consultation and Notification

The Western Cape suggested that the authority be required to specifically request input from affected persons. The DOT agreed to amend the language to compel authorities to seek feedback from potentially impacted stakeholders actively.

The Chairperson invited legal advisors to respond.

Mr Andile Tetyana (Parliamentary Legal Advisor) confirmed alignment between provincial proposals and DoT positions. He said further engagement would continue during the C-List drafting process.

Discussion

Mr Ndzimande asked if the DoT supported Gauteng’s proposal for broader consultation on the Response Fund.

Mr Ntuli stated that extensive consultations were held, and the Response Fund had not faced opposition during public hearings.

Ms Makesini inquired about Clause 13(b) and industry input.

Mr Ntuli explained that Clause 13(a) already addresses land-based spills linked to South African waters, which covers the concerns raised.

Mr Mmoiemang asked if the department had noted the typographical errors in Gauteng’s mandate. He said the Committee could not consider matters outside the scope of public hearings.

The Chairperson added that the department requested that an offence under subsections 1(a) and (b) be included on page 20 of the matrix.

Dr Scheurkogel asked if Clause 21(2) required further clarity and whether Clause 30(2) needed stronger penalties.

The Chairperson acknowledged a typographical error in Clause 30(2), which the department would correct.

Mr Ntuli proposed amending Clause 21(2) to include “and obtain input,” making it read: “the authority must… notify and obtain input from any person known to the Authority.”

Mr Peter raised concerns about the capacity of marine protection institutions.

Mr Ntuli responded that South Africa has legal mandates informed by international agreements, including the Marine Zones Act, to guide its marine protection efforts.

Mr Mabebo sought clarity on the R5 million fine and one-year imprisonment proposed in Clause 30(2).

Mr Ntuli clarified that the penalties would only apply where willful or gross negligence could be proven and emphasised their role as deterrents against marine pollution.

The Chairperson agreed that the penalties serve to enforce compliance.

Dr Anneke Clark (Content Advisor) explained the next steps of the process, which include compiling a C-List of agreed amendments, followed by a D-List to be sent to provinces for final mandates.

The Chairperson announced the Committee would reconvene the following week to consider the C-List and hold a virtual workshop with the Auditor-General regarding audit outcomes for the DoT and the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure.

Ms K Molokomme (ANC) suggested that the next meeting be held virtually, which the Chairperson approved.

Committee Minutes

The Committee then took Members through the 26 March 2025 meeting minutes. After doing so, he requested a mover for their adoption.

Dr Scheurkogel moved for adoption, seconded by Mr Peter.

The minutes were duly adopted.

The Chairperson thanked Members and departmental officials for their engagement and closed the meeting.

The meeting was adjourned.