MPs asked to reject changes to law on minerals

The process of dealing with the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Amendment Bill since its referral back to Parliament by President Jacob Zuma in 2016 was so “fatally flawed” that the best option was to reject it and start the process again.

This was the submission by advocate Michael Bishop on behalf of the Legal Resources Centre during a public hearing on the bill on Wednesday by the National Council of Provinces select committee on land and mineral resources.

“Any other course [than rejection of the bill] will result in litigation that Parliament will lose,” Bishop warned.

At issue is the introduction of 57 amendments by the Department of Mineral Resources after Zuma’s referral of the bill. Bishop noted that the joint rules of Parliament stipulated that Parliament’s consideration of a bill referred back by the president had to be confined to the president’s reservations.

He said these rules made no provision for the introduction of new amendments.

The National Assembly’s portfolio committee on mineral resources had incorrectly introduced eight amendments to the bill and the department had introduced 57 amendments during the National Council of Provinces process. “The joint rules make no provision for amendments flowing from procedural defects,” Bishop said.

The department's amendments mainly relate to the exploration of oil and gas and the state’s participation.

The procedural flaws highlighted by Bishop also related to inadequate public participation at the provincial hearings.

Several presenters to the National Council of Provinces hearing complained about inadequate public hearings in Gauteng, the North West and Northern Cape. Participants received the amendments only when they arrived, the notice given was inadequate and there was too little time for all their views to be heard.