Gas Amendment Bill: Motion of Desirability; Upstream Petroleum Resources Development Bill: discussion on way forward

This premium content has been made freely available

Mineral Resources and Energy

24 May 2022
Chairperson: Mr S Luzipo (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Video

Tabled Committee Reports

In a virtual meeting, the Portfolio Committee on Mineral Resources and Energy considered the Motion Of Desirability on the Gas Amendment Bill [B9-2021]. The Committee also discussed the way forward on the Upstream Petroleum Resources Development Bill [B13-2021].

On the Gas Amendment Bill, the Democratic Alliance was concerned that the Bill overly centralised the powers of the Minister, and afforded very broad discretionary powers to the Minister without any checks and balances. It did not believe that the Bill encouraged competition in the gas sector and promoted monopolistic behaviour.

The ANC and the ATM agreed on the Motion of Desirability on the Bill, and because of the different views among Members, the Chairperson put the matter to a vote. In total, six Members agreed with the Motion of Desirability while the two DA Members opposed it.

On the Upstream Petroleum Resources Development Bill, three options were presented to the Committee on the way forward. The third option was that the Committee could undertake public hearings in the provinces -- to be identified by the researcher and content advisor -- and this was decided on by the Committee as the way forward.

 

Meeting report

The Chairperson said that the meeting could not begin without a quorum being obtained as the Committee was dealing with a serious matter that would require a quorum. The meeting began only once the quorum was obtained. The Chairperson appreciated the level of commitment Members had given to this process

Motion of Desirability on Gas Amendment Bill
The Chairperson said the Committee had started with the Bill when it was referred to the Committee around 29 April 2021. Thereafter, the Committee had requested the Department to give a briefing on the content of the Bill, which had been done in May last year. Subsequently, notices were issued for written submissions on the Bill in June 2021 and the oral submissions were conducted in November and December last year. Public hearings then followed in all nine provinces nationally.

In the rules of the National Assembly, especially rule 286 (4) and (6), which deals with the Committee processes for legislation, it was stated that the Committee must consider a Motion Of Desirability (MoD) on the subject matter of the Bill. If the MoD was rejected, the Bill must immediately be tabled with its report. If the Motion of Desirability was adopted, the Committee would therefore have to proceed to deliberate on the details of the legislation. The adoption of the MoD would relate to the principles of the Bill and the need for the Bill, not the actual content of the Bill.

Mr Arico Kotze, Committee Secretary, read through the motion:

“That in the opinion of the Portfolio Committee on Mineral Resources and Energy, legislation is desirable which provides for the amendment and insertion of certain definitions; to provide for the promotion of the orderly development of the gas industry: to enhance the national regulatory framework; to promote broad-based black economic empowerment; to provide for socio-economic and environmentally sustainable development; to provide for new development and changing technologies in the gas sector; to facilitate gas infrastructure development and investment; to provide for cooperation between the private and public sectors in the gas industry; to strengthen enforcement and improve compliance, and to provide for matters connected therewith.”

The Chairperson asked Members if they all agreed with the motion of desirability.

Mr K Mileham (DA) said that the Democratic Alliance did not find the Bill desirable in its current format. While it acknowledged the need for many of the technical amendments, definition changes and suchlike, it was concerned that the Bill did not adequately address environmental and health safety concerns. The DA was concerned that the Bill overly centralised the powers of the Minister and afforded very broad discretionary powers to the Minister without any checks and balances. The DA did not believe that the Bill encouraged competition in the gas sector, and promoted monopolistic behaviour.

Mr M Mahlaule (ANC) said the ANC understood that there was a Bill that existed and that there was a move to amend a Bill that was already in existence. It also understood that the Committee had gone around the country asking for people to make their opinions heard. The people of South Africa had made it heard that they would want part of the Bill amended. In the view of the ANC, it agreed with the Motion of Desirability.

Mr S Kula (ANC) agreed with Mr Mahlaule that the Bill addressed the issues that the Committee had always wanted to address, and agreed with the Motion of Desirability.

The Chairperson said that with regard to the Motion of Desirability, Members had a duty and responsibility and may not agree with the contents of the Bill. The Committee must decide as to whether Bill was desirable or not. Therefore, the Committee would have to vote on the matter.

Mr V Zungula (ATM) said that the ATM believed that there was a strong need for transformation and the Bill currently did address some of the issues for which the people of South Africa had been crying out. On behalf of the ATM, there was support for the Bill to proceed.

The Committee voted on the Motion of Desirability.

The ANC (four Members), the AIC (one Member) and the ATM (one Member) agreed with the Motion of Desirability. The DA (two Members) opposed the motion for desirability. Therefore, the motion was carried and the Bill deemed desirable.

Way forward on Upstream Petroleum Resources Development Bill
Ms Ayanda Boss, Committee Secretary, said she would outline the process going forward after the Committee received the initial briefing from the Department. The Upstream Petroleum Resources Development Bill had been referred by the Minister on 19 May 2021, after which it was referred to the Portfolio Committee on Mineral Resources and the Select Committee on Land Reform, Environment, Mineral Resources and Energy, for information. In July, the Bill was formally referred to the Committee as well as to the Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM) for classification in terms of Joint Rule 160.

The Bill had been classified as a section 76 Bill falling within the ambit of section 39(1) of the Traditional and Khoi-San leadership Act 2019 (Act no 3 of 2019). The Bill was further referred to the National House of Traditional and Khoi-San leaders on 18 August 2021 for comments. The Department had briefed the Committee on 17 May 2022, and the Committee had then published an advert calling for written public submissions. The adverts had been published in various national and regional newspapers to cater for the different languages.

There were three options for the Committee to decide on going forward with the process.

  • Option one, the Committee could schedule virtual public hearings over three or five days for the stakeholders who had submitted written submissions.
  • Option two, the Committee could invite specific stakeholders who might not have submitted written submissions to public hearings.
  • Option three, the Committee could undertake public hearings in the provinces, to be identified by the researcher and content advisor.

Discussion
The Chairperson asked for the opinions of Members on the way forward from the options presented.

Mr Mahlaule said he was of the view that the Committee would not survive if it was to neglect the public hearings all over the country, and was therefore in favour of option three.

Mr Kula agreed with Mr Mahlaule on option three, as he felt that public hearings were very important for this process.

Mr T Langa (EFF) agreed with Mr Mahlaule and Mr Kula on option three, which involved having the provincial hearings.

The Chairperson said he assumed that the general agreement was to proceed with option three. The process of public hearings would be preceded by the issue of the written submissions and all other processes. Subsequently, there would be a presentation to the Committee on the alternative ways in which public hearings would be conducted. Members would recall that the former President had referred the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development (MPRD) Amendment Bill back to Parliament, where all the work was done by the Committee of the National Assembly. It had been referred to the National Council of Provinces (NCOP), and unfortunately, this had come at the end of the fifth Parliament. When the end of the fifth Parliament came, the Bill was still with the NCOP.

There was a view that the Bill should have been withdrawn by the executive authority, which was the Minister. The Committee had requested legal services to check this process and its implications. The Committee would be informed afterwards of the advice from legal services.

Committee minutes

The Committee considered and adopted its minutes of 17 May 2022.

Mr Mileham said that it was unclear from the attendance who the voting Members were, as it just showed the Members present. 

The Chairperson agreed that it should be shown in the minutes that certain Members were alternates.

The Committee considered and adopted its minutes of 20 May 2022.

The meeting was adjourned.


 

Documents

No related documents

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: