David Le Page
Tiego Moseneke, CEO of empowerment company New Diamond Corporation, does not concur with some of the more severe criticisms of the Mineral Development Bill. He feels the provisions for security of tenure, for example, are adequate.
“Once you are at mining stage, the Bill countenances the granting of 25-year leases that’s as good as it needs to get.”
Moseneke points out that the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs has said it will take account of industry concerns in producing a final draft Bill, and believes that it is “more than willing to make changes”.
“There may be concerns around the discretionary powers the department has. A little more work has to be done, to add detail to the nature of the exercise of those discretionary powers.”
He feels that building in greater room for appealing ministerial decisions could be a “double-edged sword. You don’t want [a situation that allows] long and costly litigation [over mineral rights].”
In this respect, he agrees with the proposal, made by the Chamber of Mines in its critique that a specialist minerals court staffed with progressive talent be formed to deal with disputes that may arise from the administration of the Act.
He is adamant that the Bill will encourage the growth of the industry: “The most laughable suggestion I have heard is that it would undermine the introduction of new players.”
He points out that the Water Act of 1998 can serve as a model for the Bill, which should avoid issues of expropriation. “The objectives of the act can be achieved without expropriating existing rights.”
There are other parts of the Bill Moseneke believes can be tightened up, such as the export duty on diamonds: “That’s a peculiarity. What we really want to do here is encourage exports … A more even system for all minerals would be much better.”
A major disappointment for the industry in the Bill is its failure to address the current ban on Sunday blasting, which the industry argues hinders economic operations and should be lifted. Subject to consultation with the unions, Moseneke agrees.
He also acknowledges the need for the minister to have a means of determining compliance with the provisions of the Act. But he feels the Bill can draw on established precedents for search-and-seizure provisions in other legislation.
Of proposed powers to intervene in the running of mines contemplating retrenchments, he says: “I think it is well-intentioned, but ill-conceived. Businesses must be allowed to run profitably. A more competitive sector will stimulate job creation.
“The main purpose of this Bill is not so much to encourage empowerment as it is to encourage new investment in the sector.”