Upstream Petroleum Resources Development Bill: provincial public hearings programme

Meeting report

Upstream Petroleum Resources Development Bill: Provincial public hearings

The Chairperson said there was consensus in the Portfolio Committee on the guiding principle for the provincial public hearings to be undertaken in 2023 on the Upstream Petroleum Resources Development(UPRD) Bill [B13 – 2021]. The first guiding principle was that it would be impossible to do the public hearings in the current year, so the hearings would be scheduled for January 2023. Secondly, there had been a complaint when the Committee was dealing with the gap in the areas that were to be covered during the public hearings, so there had been a decision that at least a minimum of four areas should be covered instead of two or three per province, including the ability to go to various areas.

Mr K Mileham (DA) said that as a matter of principle, the Committee should focus on the areas most likely to be affected by the legislation, such as port areas in the coastal provinces.

He added that the process for the Gas Amendment Bill had taken a while and cost the state, so he suggested that Committee could potentially reach into some of the areas through the constituency offices or municipal offices, and have the public hearings virtually, thus saving travel time and expenses.  

Mr T Langa (EFF) asked for clarity on how the public hearings could be hosted virtually. He said that communities wanted to interact and see the processes of Parliament face-to-face, instead of in a virtual setting.  

Mr J Lorimer (DA) asked what governed the amount of public participation the Committee should be doing, and if there was a standard to measure against. He raised concern about the effectiveness of the current structure of public participation, and recommended that the Committee think carefully about this issue.

Ms V Malinga (ANC) said that changing the legislation would affect everyone in the country, not only those in the coastal provinces with ports. Hosting the public meetings virtually would not be effective, as most people in the communities did not have the technology and the internet to participate. She said that engaging with the community was the core of the Portfolio Committee, so virtual participation would not be effective.

Mr S Kula (ANC) said it was not advisable to have virtual public hearings, as many people would be excluded because of a lack of access to the internet. He indicated that face-to-face public hearings were effective.

The Chairperson commented that public hearings could be two-fold. If there was a feeling within the Committee that the Bill did not affect certain areas, it could summarise everything within its purview and not conduct public hearings in those areas. However, if it conducted public hearings, there must be specific visits to the provinces to conduct them. The effectiveness of public hearings depended on what the Portfolio Committee deemed them to be.

He said that members of the public who wanted to present directly to the Committee could be allowed to do so, and this did not preclude where the person was. However, the innovation of having the public hearings hosted virtually should be looked at closely as its benefits include savings in costs and time.

The Bill had implications for all the provinces, and there would be no justification for the Committee not reaching them. He noted Mr Mileham’s suggestion, and said the Committee should consider prioritising some areas where there was high petroleum activity, ensuring that all areas were sufficiently covered.

After the Committee Secretary had taken the Committee through the programme on provincial public hearings to be undertaken for each province and local municipality, the Chairperson commented that KwaZulu-Natal had 11, and not ten, as eThekwini was a Metro and not part of the local municipality. Further, in the Eastern Cape, Buffalo City was not part of the Amatole District, but part of the Buffalo City Metro.

He said that the proposals discussed at the meeting would be considered, and the Committee would be given feedback. The proposed programme was adopted.

The meeting was adjourned.