DMRE Q1, 2 and 3 2020/21 Performance, with Ministry

Meeting report

Opening Remarks
The Chairperson noted the load shedding that was taking place and, besides posing a serious challenge to society at large, it was impacting on Members connecting to the virtual meeting. He also noted that the week had seen the consequences of the tragic collapse of the slime dam at Jagersfontein.

He noted the presence of the Minister and Deputy Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy who were leading the team to present the financial and non-financial reports for Quarters 1, 2 and 3 of 2020/21.

Presentation by DMRE
Mr Gwede Mantashe, Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy, informed the meeting that he would request the Director-General, Mr Jacob Mbele, to make the presentation. He made no opening remarks.

Mr Mbele presented a summary of the performance result for each quarter:

Q1: 40 (68%) Achieved; 13 (22%) Partially Achieved; 6 (10%) Not Achieved
Q2:  47 (67%) Achieved; 8 (12%) Partially Achieved; 15 (21%) Not Achieved
Q3: 43 (64%) Achieved; 9 (14%) Partially Achieved; 15 (22%) Not Achieved

The performance highlights for each quarter were outlined:

In the first quarter, it was reported that a total of 176 837 households had been connected and over 10 000 households were electrified non-grid; 1508 jobs were created through the issuing of mining rights; 13 black industrialists were created through mining; 344 environmental inspections were conducted; 300 retail site compliance inspections were conducted; and a total of 352 license applications were processed. There was 91.76% compliance concerning 50% HDSA participation; 37 mining rights and permits were issued to HDSA-controlled entities; and the Report on the Monitoring of Koeberg’s Plant Life Extension was produced. Out of 239 invoices received, 224 (94%) invoices were paid within 30 days. However, there were some delays by branches in verifying and signing off the invoices 100% was not achieved.

In the second quarter, 34 SLP development projects were completed; Clean Fuels 2 Regulations were developed for promulgation; Biofuels Mandatory Blending Regulations were developed for promulgation and the LPG Strategy was published. The draft National Petroleum Company Bill was developed and submitted to Cabinet for approval; and the Report on Stakeholder Consultation concerning Greenhouse Gas Assessment and Reporting Framework was produced. No incidents of wasteful and fruitless expenditure reported during the quarter under review, and no reported irregular transactions for the current financial year. No reported cases of fraud and corruption during the period under review.

The third quarter saw a total of 726 jobs created through the issuing of mining rights; the draft National Petroleum Company Bill had been completed; the Report on the Monitoring of Koeberg’s Plant Life Extension Plan was produced; 63 nuclear authorization applications were processed and approved; 10 nuclear safeguard compliance inspections reports were produced and approved and five nuclear security compliance inspections reports were produced and approved. No challenges were presented.

Ms Yvonne Chetty, CFO, DMRE, briefed the Committee on financial matters. The compensation of employees (CoE) budget was underspent by R56.8 million against a projected expenditure of R781.37 million, mainly due to delays in filling vacant funded positions. Audit and legal services items saw overspending of R2.7 million and R8 million, respectively, due to the extension of the 2020/21 financial year audit and higher than anticipated expenditure for legal representation relating to The Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) applications and disputes declared by solar water heater service providers. R72 million for the Mintek Rehabilitation of derelict and ownerless mines project was shifted to the goods and services classification while the associated budget remained under Transfers, leading to a budget underspending under Transfers.

(See presentation)

Discussion
Mr K Mileham (DA) stated that as much as the Committee needed to know about what had been achieved, it also needed to know what had not been achieved. When the Department made a presentation, the Committee needed to be taken through the key performance areas where the Department had not achieved the targets, and the reasons why it had not achieved those targets. Mention had been made of not achieved targets, but the presentation did not go into detail. Firstly, the solar water heating programme had been mentioned and he wanted an update as to where the programme was. There had been talk about it for the past four years. What was the current situation? Where was the equipment, and when would the matter finally be resolved? He addressed his second question to the Minister. One of the challenges concerning electricity was the fact that the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP), which had been gazetted in October 2019, was based on outdated data, and bore no resemblance to the reality in which the country found itself. For example, the energy availability factor of Eskom’s fleet was way lower than what was forecast in the IRP. That necessitated an update of the IRP and yet, he saw nothing in the performance assessment of any work being done on IRP modelling. He needed a progress report. Could the Minister give an update on what was happening to the IRP? When could he expect to see a new Integrated Resource Plan to address the electricity crisis in South Africa?

Mr Mileham expressed concern about the risk mitigation in the Independent Power Producers’ Procurement Programme. The Programme was shown as Achieved in Quarter One, and Partially Achieved in both Quarter Two and Quarter Three. Was that because there were problems in that programme? Could the Committee get an update as to exactly what the status was of the non-compliant bidders in that programme, in other words, those that had not reached financial close by the numerous hard deadlines that were announced by the Minister.

Ms V Malinga (ANC) agreed with Mr Mileham on the issue of the solar water heating programme. Was there a political will to get the project up and running? Each and every time, the Department’s performance was presented, there was a problem with the solar water programme. Two years previously, a Chief Director said she was putting her head on the block. It was a pity that it was a woman but was that head on the block? What was the consequence management for failure to get the project up and running? Had anyone been held accountable for the delays?

Ms Malinga referred to slide 18. Was it wise to redirect funds from a budgeted project to goods and services, given what the country faced in terms of the illegal mining people digging shafts? Did the Department feel that was the correct way to deal with the issue? And what about the underspending? She was not pleased that the Department was underspending, no matter the reasons. Treasury would be happy that the money was returned, but why was underspending allowed to happen? She believed that money was meant for closing or rehabilitating the derelict mines. Lastly, how could they still be speaking about the merger of the old Department of Minerals and Department of Energy. That came to effect two years previously. Why were funded vacancies not yet filled? Who was not doing his or her job?

Ms P Madokwe (EFF) echoed the sentiments of her colleagues about how the report was not sufficiently informative. Previously, she had specifically made requests for statistics. If the Department said it had issued so many mining licenses, how many were outstanding? What was the percentage? The same applied to the issue of black industrialists. Members were unable to check whether the work done by the Department was commendable, and whether it had been done. She requested a much more detailed report in future, specifically on work that had been done. There was a backlog but she did not know whether progress was being made if there were no statistics.

Another issue that she had raised previously, which also had not really been addressed, was the environmental inspections and also investigations of incident-related issues. The Committee had to be appraised in terms of the overall outcomes. It did not assist to say the Department had done 450 investigations, for example, if Members did not know the outcomes of those investigations. What was the intervention, and were there any challenges?  It was important because there were a lot of issues concerning mining, the latest being the tragedy that had happened in Jagersfontein. The Committee could not think that things were under control.

She requested a report on vacancies in the Department as there was underspending because of vacancies, in a country where unemployment was rife and a lot of people, not just young people, were sitting at home with qualifications. If there was money and work needed to be done, why was the Department not employing people? That was extremely, extremely problematic, and perhaps the Department should account in that regard. Were there any implications in terms of performance due to the underspending, such as meeting some of the targets? And then perhaps the Department should consider looking at whether it really needed the funds, or whether they could be directed elsewhere.

During the previous oversight visit, she recalled that Mintek had been referred to a number of times and the entity had submitted a number of proposals to the Department, requiring a lot of money. There were a lot of things that Mintek was not able to do because it did not have the budget. It was extremely disturbing to hear that actually, there was money that had been redirected elsewhere, especially considering the fact that that entity, in particular, was doing extremely good work that could benefit not only the Department but the country. It was extremely disturbing.

Mr J Lorimer (DA) observed performance results that were flatlining across the three quarters of the financial year. He asked the Department to comment on that. Secondly, reporting about the mining rights seemed to be slightly bizarre. In the first quarter report, 37 mining rights and permits had been issued to HDSA-controlled entities. Was it only a highlight when a permit was issued to an HDSA-controlled entity? Were there any other mining rights issued in that quarter? In the second quarter, there was nothing on mining rights issued. Did that mean that none were issued? In the third quarter, 60 mining rights and permits were issued to HDSA-controlled entities. A cumulative figure of 146 had been achieved. Was that the total number of rights issued in that quarter, including rights issued to HDSA-controlled entities or for all three quarters? How many of those rights were part of the backlog? When rights were issued at the moment, were they being issued as they came in or was the Department only working through the backlog?

He noted that slide 13 showed expenditure on office supplies was dissipated due to staggered physical office attendance. Was there still staggered office attendance? And if so, why, given that the COVID epidemic was over? Similarly, slide 14 discussed unforeseen extra expenditure on additional office space. Where was that office space? Why did the Department need to spend extra on office space if people were not going into the office?

The Chairperson noted that in Quarter 1, a highlight was connecting 176 837 households and over 10 000 households were electrified with non-grid. Was that in line with the National Electricity Programme? 13 Black Industrialists had received mining rights. The Black Industrialists had always been a contested terrain. How was the black industrialist programme defined, especially in mining? The presentation stated that in phase 1,1 508 jobs were created by issuing the mining rights.  In Quarter 2, 37 mining rights and permits were issued to HDSA as controlled entities. At times, there was a glaring line between the mining rights and permits issued to HDSA and Black Industrialists. Clarity was needed. And then it went on to say that there had been 352 license applications, but then it says, “which is 50%”. He did not understand what that meant.  What was the output from mining rights issued in terms of creating jobs? The 1 508 jobs supposedly created in the first quarter as a result of the mining rights issue were impossible from a practical perspective as the Department could not issue mining rights in the first quarter and in that same first quarter 1 508 jobs were created. He asked for clarity on that point. 

The Chairperson moved on to the energy crisis. Was the Department willing to share the report on the monitoring of Koeberg and its life extension? The Committee had been informed that, amongst other issues, the difficulties at Koeberg had caused load shedding. If the Department was comfortable, could the Committee have sight of that report to see whether it talked to the reasons given by Eskom, in particular, concerning the challenges as far as the electricity supply was concerned?

The Minister requested the team to respond to questions and he would add to whatever was not fully answered.

Mr Mbele indicated that he would respond to some questions and invite the DDGs to respond to questions in their respective areas. He noted the request for future reports to be detailed and to contain both the highlights and lowlights.

Concerning the solar water heater programme consequence management, he said that an investigation was in the final stages to determine exactly what had happened with the programme, how the Department had arrived at that point and what needed to happen beyond that point. National Treasury had arranged for KPMG to conduct the investigation. National Treasury promised the final report by no later than the end of October 2022.  That report would guide what was to happen next regarding consequence management. The chief director who had been leading the programme had left the Department. The programme was being managed by a different colleague. The Department had gone through a phase where it was making significant progress, but then the programme experienced a number of challenges, some related to processes in the municipalities. After the elections, the programme was stopped by councils, and the Department had to present the programme to the new leadership so that they could understand the programme. That led to some delays. The biggest delays related to technical challenges with some of the parts for the solar geyser units supplied by the service providers eventually involved the legal team trying to get around that process. Installations were currently happening in various municipalities as the Department had found a way around some challenges. Some service providers have been informed that the Department would use some of the retainer funds to purchase or replace the problematic components. He promised that DMRE would return to the Portfolio Committee with a detailed report on the programme, the progress made and the challenges experienced. 

Mr Mbele responded to questions on the IRP. The IRP process was not reflected because the report related to the previous year but the Minister had since pronounced that the Department would be revising the IRP and that process had already started. There would have to be public consultations, so it was envisaged that the process could take up to the end of the following year. The Department also had to consider that some of the key assumptions in the IFP were outdated. The Minister had recently issued determinations that were outside of the IFP. For example, Eskom had requested 3 000 megawatts of gas in Richards Bay as a deviation from the IRP. The Minister had issued that determination for concurrence by the National Energy Regulator of South Africa (NERSA) and that determination was out in the public domain. The NERSA process for public comments closed on 16 September 2022 and NERSA was assessing the comments it had received from the public before deciding on concurrence.

Outside of the IRP, he said a determination for 1000 megawatts was issued for Eskom to procure through a standard offer, and that was its proposal to mop up on existing capacity that was not being used by some of the IPP generators of electricity. The determination was part of the process of concurrence by the regulator. The Department was alive to the fact that the assumptions had changed and there was a need to bring in more capacity and faster. The Minister had also issued a determination for the rest of the capacity in the IRP which equated to just over 14 000 megawatts of renewable energy and battery storage that was still in the current IRP for immediate execution. That determination was also with the regulator. But in addition to that, DMRE had also fast-tracked procurement in Window Six. In line with the announcement by the President, procurement documents were being prepared for when the Department received the go-ahead. So, the IRP was being revised to help close the gap but that had not stopped the Department from ensuring that additional capacity beyond what was in the IFP was procured.

Mr Mbele addressed the matter of risk mitigation. He explained that the indicators of achieved and partially achieved in the quarterly reports resulted from the procurement programme having a series of steps which meant that some achievements were not completed in a single quarter, especially when there were delays. In other quarters, DMRE had reached the milestone it had set for the quarter; it did not mean that the entire process was incomplete. The bidders had been given until the end of October 2022 to finalise their programmes. A reluctance to sign off on projects had been the main reason for delays in the past. Currently, the Department is working through the requirements which include things Eskom required, such as indemnities. Some of the projects had implications for the state which meant that other role players had to give permission, including National Treasury.

Mr Tseliso Maqubela, DDG: Petroleum and Petroleum Products Regulations, DMRE, accepted that target setting required some improvement, particularly in respect of clarity.

He said there had been significant progress in dealing with the backlog and he would be able to provide figures in the mining sector. On the petroleum side, the backlog had been eradicated. On the inspection side, he would present the trends, what came out of the inspections and the challenges encountered in future reports. On the petroleum side, the biggest challenge currently was mixing diesel with paraffin by people who wanted to avoid the fuel levy and the Road Accident Fund levy. Service monitors could pick up those matters and DMRE immediately reported all those service stations to SARS so that the revenue service could collect the revenue that the service stations were trying to avoid. Retailers and the associations had been informed that that was what DMRE was going to be doing.

On the mining side, the delays were in finalising Social Labour Plan (SLP) projects, which was the main challenge and the Department then had to issue directives against those projects that did not comply with the requirements. The report also indicated challenges brought about by the COVID-related restrictions on construction, particularly on some of the projects, as well as the inability of people to meet and consult on the SLP projects and get agreement from all the stakeholders. In the next reporting periods, the DMRE would specify the trends.

Mr Maqubela added that the other issue in terms of a challenge in both mining and petroleum was the issue of criminality. It was something that DMRE had encountered and continued to encounter. The theft of fuel from the pipeline from Durban to Johannesburg was a serious problem. General criminality included illegal mining and the theft of a cable from duly licensed corporations.

He moved on to the issue of mining rights to HDSA. The focus of the Annual Performance Plan (APP) was because the Department wanted to monitor the level of transformation taking place in the sector and to do more in terms of mining rights that were issued in the sector as a whole. That target focused specifically on those entities controlled by HDSAs and figures could be provided on the total number of mining rights that were issued, including renewals. It would be in the order of 400. Going forward, the APP would report on the HDSA forecast against the total number of mining rights issued.

Mr Maqubela confirmed the focus on the backlog. In the past year, DMRE had committed to clearing the backlog and was doing as well as possible, given the limitations. Some provinces were still presenting challenges, particularly because of some of the vacancies that existed. Concerning mining permits, DMRE was processing them as they came in, so there was not just a focus on the backlog. But on prospecting and mining rights, the focus had really been on the backlog. Concerning the 352 applications the Chairperson had asked about, he said that was not the total number of applications. DMRE monitored how many of the applications had ownership of 50% or more by HDSA to determine whether it was making an impact on transformation. On the petroleum side, the vast majority of applications were from HDSAs. However, they tended to apply for wholesale licenses, so those would be people who wanted to trade in paraffin, LPG or diesel.

Mr Maqubela turned to the issue of jobs. DMRE computed those jobs it enabled according to the undertakings made in the applications. It was true that the method could be improved because the jobs that DMRE reported on generally tended to be fewer than those jobs that StatsSA ultimately reported. DMRE acknowledged that as a concern. Perhaps it was reporting an underestimate, but it was based on commitments made by applicants. DMRE had also realised that it did not actually create jobs, but enabled them because, usually, the companies had already been created. The job of DMRE was to link them up with various mining companies, so the language used would have to be corrected.

Ms Chetty explained that the Department had gone through a process with National Treasury and the funding would be used for its intended purpose; it would only be used by Mintek and would not be used for any other expenditure in the Department, and it remained as such until the close of the financial year. The final classification to move funds from transfers to goods and services was controlled by a circular issued by National Treasury and DMRE had to conform. She had shown, in the presentation, the underspending in one area, but to move it from that area required Treasury's approval and such approval was only given, and the system opened to make that adjustment, in February 2021, which was in the fourth quarter. It was simply a movement of funding from one area to another and the use of the funding remained for Mintek.

Secondly, she addressed the ‘additional to establishment’ employees under compensation of employees. As of 31 December 2021, DMRE had 17 people additional to the establishment which emanated from the merger of the two Departments and would remain until those employees were placed. There was a time lag because the report referred to the results as of 31 December 2021. Subsequent to that, most of the employees had been placed. There would be a note in the Annual Report that those were additional officials carried in the system. She added that underspending was partly addressed in the last quarter of the financial year, so that was also a timing issue. The Q4 report would show those results.  

Mr Maqubela explained that Ms Hilda Mhlongo, DDG: Corporate Services, was having difficulties connecting and would respond to matters relating to her division as best he could. Concerning the rate of the filling of posts, he said that was partially to do with the time taken to vet successful candidates. That matter had been resolved and posts were being filled.

He responded to the question about the electrification programme. 10 000 households had been connected in the first quarter and 176 000 was the cumulative total, including previous years. The target had been 180 000, but problems on the ground had affected delivery. Local companies demanded a share of the projects and municipalities took a long time to appoint service providers. DMRE worked closely with the implementation agencies to ensure numbers were not significantly affected.  There was underspending on electrification, especially the Eskom projects because it was no longer about direct electrifying of households but there was a need to lay down bulk infrastructure in new areas and that took one to two years. Often it was a moving target because of the migration of people. For example, a village was electrified in North West or the Eastern Cape but the people moved to new areas that then had to be electrified. The total electrified had been at 90% but was now down to 87% as a result of the movement of the population.

He concluded by discussing the report on the Koeberg Nuclear Power Station. The Department’s report was based on reports from Eskom and the Regulator which had been submitted in confidence, so he would approach them to get their permission to release the report to the Committee.

Minister Mantashe informed Mr Mileham that the Department would be revising the IRP, not because the data was outdated, but because time was moving. He said that connected capacity had gone up by 2 000 MW and it was at 48 000 MW but, nevertheless, the energy availability factor was low. The re-model of the IRP was already underway and when it was ready, everyone would get an opportunity to comment, including Mr Mileham.

Concerning the political will to implement the solar heater project, the Minister stated that when he had come to the Department, he had made it clear to the Committee that it was one of the worst projects he had ever seen. However, he was making every effort to make it work. He informed Ms Malinga, who had raised the issue of money being transferred, that Mintek was a mining and energy research entity assisting in managing rehabilitation, so not all of the budget went to rehabilitation; a big part of the budget went to research. He said that the Department received R140 million p.a. for rehabilitation. People thought that DMRE received R50 billion for rehabilitation, but it did not; it only received R140 million.

The Minister said there were many issues in mining and the Portfolio Committee was not following developments in the mining sector. The matter of slime dams was the responsibility of the Department of Water and Sanitation as a result of a judicial decision in December 2007, although his Department would be involved in the Jagersfontein matter because he took responsibility. However, he was taking the initiative to meet the Free State judiciary as he could not allow the 2007 decision to stand because there were many slime dams in that province.

He added that the DG and DDGs had responded to all other questions.

The Chairperson told the Minister that he would request the Committee Researcher and Content Advisor to send details of those issues raised in the meeting, so that when the Department developed its programme around those areas, it would be informed by the Committee’s focus areas. Other issues needed to be part of the protocol of a submission, which the Committee would give to DMRE so that it could present and respond within a particular framework or format.

The Minister stated that he would see Members in the House the following day as he would be answering oral questions.

Consideration of minutes
The minutes of 30 August 2022 and 13 September 2022 were adopted without amendments or objections.

WAMUA/MACUA Correspondence
The Chairperson noted a letter of complaint from MACUA/WAMUA that the Committee would deal with under correspondence.

The Chairperson had received a letter from Mr Rutledge of Mining Affected Communities United in Action (MACUA) and Women Affected by Mining United in Action (WAMUA) complaining that the Committee had gone to Jagersfontein without informing MACUA  (Committee Oversight visit- see here and here). They indicated that the community was complaining. Secondly, the Committee had gone to areas in Welkom without informing MACUA or allowing the community to agree to the visit. Thirdly, the Committee had talked to the industry and the companies involved, not the people who were very angry that they had not been included in the meeting. The Portfolio Committee had left early on Sunday, so by the time the community had arrived, the Portfolio Committee had left. Mr Rutledge said that the organisations would have to reconsider how they dealt with the Committee. They wanted to be given assurance that: 1) The Committee would give them the right to be informed every time it went on an oversight visit and 2) That the Committee would give them the venues and times of oversight visits in advance.

Ms Malinga stated that the Committee did not report to MACUA and WAMUA; it reported to Parliament and did not need to ask permission from MACUA and WAMUA. Meetings of the Portfolio Committees were open to the public and stakeholders who could observe.  During the oversight visit, the Committee met with people in a library and it was not the Committee’s problem that MACUA was not in attendance. She recollected a representative of MACUA being in the meeting. The organisation was not the only stakeholder; she had never heard of other stakeholders saying that it should tell them when the Committee moved. The Committee did not have to tell them as the Committee was doing oversight of the Department.  MACUA should not put the Committee in the middle of its problems with the Department. If the organisations had genuine concerns about the Department, the Committee would follow up on those concerns. The chairperson of MACUA was taking advantage of the Committee and that had to be corrected.
 
Ms P Madokwe (EFF) noted that the Committee had not as yet responded to the requests that the organisations made. They said that they had been led to believe the Committee would consult with them but they had not received any information about how the Committee worked and were working on information that the Portfolio Committee had not confirmed. It was important for the Committee to respond to their correspondence and explain that it had not deliberated on the matter or made any decisions. Secondly, she believed that various other organisations were dealing with communities, not just the two. That was not the first time that such issues had been raised by communities, especially about oversight visits. They said the Committee was not doing enough to inform the communities and so some sort of a case study should be done so that the Committee was able to improve, because the issues raised in that letter had been raised over and over again about how the Committee conducted oversight, and how it issued information. Perhaps that was something the Committee needed to look into and improve, because the Committee had to engage the public. Perhaps, the Committee should also be much more hands-on because the information in its report had come mostly from the municipalities. When there were shortfalls in the arrangements, it was extremely important for the Portfolio Committee to be hands-on, so that Members were sure that, during oversight visits, it engaged with the most appropriate people.

Mr Wolmarans aligned himself with his colleagues who had spoken about the matter. Based on the fact that, not so long ago, the Committee had received an audit conducted by MACUA on its own initiative. The Committee had given them the courtesy of listening to them and now they were trying to take advantage of the Committee. It had begun, at first, with their hostility, and then their moderate attitude, and now the unexplained expectation that the Committee had to ask their permission to go on oversight. They were putting themselves in a corner. The last thing that the Committee wanted was to be held at ransom, or to be blackmailed. The organisations had to understand the difference between the Committee’s oversight visits and public hearings.

He said that oversight by the Committee was oversight to compile a report to Parliament to be discussed and so forth. Unfortunately, the impression was being created that when the community went to a meeting in Jagersfontein, the Committee did not want to meet with them. MACUA and WAMUA were turning things around as if the community was condemning the Committee. Members had visited Roodepoort to see the problem areas and, although they had not gone there to talk to the people, they had ended up in a community meeting, speaking to community members. He was not happy that MACUA and WAMUA thought they could blame the Committee for everything that they could not accomplish with the Department. By their own admission, and through information provided by their own representatives, MACUA and WAMUA were involved in the very same illegality that the Committee and the Department were trying to deal with. They wanted to make it out as if it were artisanal mining. It was not; it was part of the same illegality.  

Mr Wolmarans said he had always believed that those NGOs or representatives would end up formalising themselves as part and parcel of either the Committee and/or the Department to find someone for fighting their battles, which MACUA and WAMUA said were community battles. He knew, however, that they were the fights of certain individuals. He was happy that, at some stage, the Committee would discuss the submissions of MACUA and WAMUA, but far as the letter was concerned, it was devoid of any truth. As much as they were surprised or disappointed about the Committee’s interaction, the Committee was disappointed in their ingenuity concerning how they expected the Committee to treat them.

Mr S Kula (ANC) stated that the issue was most unfortunate. Firstly, MACUA and WAMUA were not being entirely honest and the Committee needed to respond to them. The Committee had been lenient on them although they had abused the Portfolio Committee for quite some time. During the public hearings on the Gas Amendment Bill, MACUA and WAMUA were at the forefront of the disruptions. The Committee had tried by all means possible to be reasonable and cooperative but they were not coming on board. They were not the only community representatives. As the Minister had said in the past, mining was the country's longest-running industry but was misunderstood.

He agreed that the Portfolio Committee did not account to them, but to Parliament. He objected to the assertions and insinuations that they were making.  They could not act as if they were the only community representatives. The time had come to attend to the matter, once and for all. No group of individuals could just constitute themselves and say, “We are a community representative group”. It was just too easy to call oneself a community representative. There had to be a clear guide and a clear policy on what constituted a community representative organisation because, in the future, thousands of community representatives would come to the Committee saying they represented the same communities. There had to be a policy on what constituted a structure representing the community. If the community was based in a ward, the councillor would be aware of such a structure; if the community was based in the municipality, the municipality would be aware of such structures. The question was whether the community itself was aware of the structures purporting to represent them.

Mr Kula concluded that MACUA was telling a pure lie; a pure distortion of what had happened. The Members did not represent MACUA alone; they represented all the people of South Africa, including them, but not exclusively them. He did not take kindly to what they wanted to get from the Portfolio Committee and that they said if the Committee did not engage them in a way they wanted to engage, they were going back to their disruptive behaviour. The Committee was not going to be held to ransom by anybody and that message had to be communicated to MACUA.

The Chairperson said that the Committee had agreed it would find a way to resolve MACUA’s issues so that there was a common understanding when the Committee dealt with the substantive issues. He thought there was a common understanding because the issues had been clearly presented by the two groups. He reminded Members that the Committee had agreed to discuss the issues, compile a report on the issues that MACUA had raised, and indicate how the Committee would deal with the issues going forward. The Committee had agreed on that; it was not a question of going back. One of the things he had done was to ask the Committee Content Advisor to take MACUA through the rules of Parliament, and the role of Committees, how Committees operated, what was within and outside a Committee’s mandate. MACUA should even know how Committees were constituted and the parliamentary rules. Details of meeting times should also be provided. It should also be suggested to MACUA that a parliamentary liaison officer would help them keep track of the Committee’s programme and intentions. Just as any organisation could observe a parliamentary Committee meeting, so could any organisation observe an oversight visit.

The Chairperson stated that some of the issues raised by MACUA were based on a complete misunderstanding. The Committee wanted to have a genuine discussion based on facts, so if the Committee were to engage with MACUA and WAMUA, it had to be in terms of the rules of Parliament. He thought that point had been resolved.

He agreed that the oversight of the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy remained the Committee’s core business because the Department reported to the Committee which had to conduct oversight visits to fulfil that function. However, it conducted its work independently, seeing what it needed to and meeting with those that it considered relevant to a particular matter. One of the things MACUA had to understand was that a Committee was not a “recognising” body that gave recognition to any organisation or body.

The Chairperson requested Members to say whether they basically agreed with what MACUA had said or not. Secondly, was the issue of public hearings and he reminded Members that the Committee had agreed to look at other mechanisms that could ensure maximum participation. Undoubtedly, a mechanism could be found to help with participation. He asked if the matters could be given to the Committee’s management committee to discuss, but added that such a discussion was dependent on whether the Committee wanted to engage with MACUA according to the rules of Parliament or whether Members disagreed with such engagement based on how MACUA want things to be done. If Members agreed that the management committee should discuss the matter, then he would report back and the Committee could have a discussion on the way forward. Did the Committee give him a mandate?

Mr Wolmarans agreed to give the Chairperson the mandate to discuss the matters in the management committee but asked him to raise the matter of the Committee’s dissatisfaction with the attitude of MACUA because Members felt abused by them.

Closing remarks
The Chairperson informed Mr M Mahlaule (ANC) and Mr V Zungula (ATM) that he was taking up the matter of their transport.

Mr Mileham asked for some clarity about the programme for Friday, 23 September 2022.

The Secretary explained that the Department would be responding to presentations made by MACUA and WAMUA, the Auditor-General of SA, SA Human Rights Council (SAHR) on the Social Audit Reports and derelict and ownerless mines respectively. Further, the Committee will consider the motion of desirability on the Upstream Petroleum Resources Development Bill and the Jagersfontein oversight visit report.

Mr Mileham asked for confirmation that the Gas Amendment Bill, which had been withdrawn, was no longer on the programme.

The Chairperson confirmed that the Bill had been withdrawn.
           
The meeting was adjourned.