Hon Chair, the DA wishes to congratulate the hon Godfrey Oliphant on his appointment as the Deputy Minister of Mineral Resources. I have not yet seen him serving as a member of the committee, but I trust that he will be able to make a contribution. [Laughter.]
This Bill intends to amend the Geoscience Act of 1993. It provides, inter alia, for the Council for Geoscience to act as a custodian of all geotechnical data for the purpose of compiling a geotechnical risk profile for the country.
More importantly, it ensures that the council will be the custodian - and I stress the word "custodian" - of technical information relating to mining. It, however, assumes the task of being a custodian with respect to mining. This is a term that is used in the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act of 2002, when it placed the ownership of mineral resources in the custodianship of the state. Whilst the Geoscience Act currently provides for numerous representatives on the Board from the private sector, such as a representative nominated by the Chamber of Mines, as well as representatives nominated by the Geological Society of South Africa and the Industrial Development Corporation, IDC, the current Bill intends to provide the Minister with the sole authority to determine who should represent the above institutions and organisations on their behalf.
Representatives from at least six different government departments would also be appointed by the Minister. The Council for Geoscience has provided specialised services to both the private sector and government departments for many years; at least since 1993 when it accommodated board members from both the private and public sectors.
Accordingly, it could be expected that representatives from the private sector nominated by the relevant institutions should be included. It also appears that some recent board members from the private sector have attended more meetings than certain members from the Public Service represented on the board, creating some obscurity as to the real reasons why private sector members are to be removed.
In the light of the recent developments relating to the intended state- owned mining company, which is to be formed by government presumably by June 2011, the above provides for a situation where no private sector participation on the board could lead to a situation where services are primarily directed to government functions - the state-owned mining company - to the detriment of the private sector, as it will have no input or participation in the affairs of the council.
An amendment that raises concern relates to the fact that the Bill proposes to allow the council to conduct business in so far as any reconnaissance operation and prospecting activities are concerned. This is a matter which has primarily been the domain of the private sector.
The view of the DA in this regard is well known: Mining operations should be undertaken by the private sector, whilst the task of government should be aimed at providing the necessary stimuli and macroeconomic framework to lure both local and international investments on a long-term basis - the basic tenets on which the mining industry is based.
Apart from the fact that government does not have the necessary expertise to run mines efficiently and cost-effectively, the state also does not have the capital - neither does it have access thereto - to capitalise and recapitalise mines considering the strong demand for socioeconomic rights and disparities.
Both Alexkor and the latest government-controlled African Exploration Mining and Finance Corporation, AEMFC, of which the state is the only shareholder, are in dire financial straits, having shed thousands of jobs and suffered a dramatic drop in production, in the instance of Alexkor, and are in urgent need of capital and experienced management.
The Bill, if approved, will not only allow the Council for Geoscience, to be in a position to act as a mandatory custodian of all knowledge relating to geological and geotechnical data on a national scale, but will also allow it to compete with the private sector in so far as exploration and prospecting are concerned. This allows the government to act as both player and referee with regard to its intended functions.
The CGS has been underfunded for many years. The intended extension of the existing mandate will require more skilled personnel and an additional budget. While the CGS is struggling to fulfil its current mandate with the allocated resources, the capacity required to fulfil its new intended mandate appears too ambitious if not impossible, as raised by various geological-related entities.
The additional unfunded mandate will impact negatively on its current commendable task, which relates to geophysics, seismology, mine safety, and aspects relating to mine flooding, acid mine drainage, development of databases and strategies on derelict and abandoned mines.
The most important reason for opposing this Bill is the conflict of interest, which will arise if the CGS is to operate as a service provider in addition to regulating the affairs to be prescribed by the Geoscience Amendment Bill. The DA therefore opposes this Bill. I thank you. [Applause.]