RESPONSES TO CONCERNS RAISED ON THE GEOSCIENCES AMENDMENT BILL Company Concerns raised DMR response GSSA Concern over loose use of terminology “to undertake Exploration and Prospecting research” CGS will undertake prospecting to attract investment in the Country & to encourage HDSA to enter the mining industry The positioning of the Council as a watchdog over geotechnical reporting (professional ethics). It is not the intention of the Bill to guard over professional ethics but to ensure that development takes place under less risky circumstances

Company Concerns raised DMR response GSSA The exclusion of representation of professional and academic expertise by dropping the right of the GSSA to nominate candidates to the Board. Sec 4(2)(x) makes provision for the Minister to appoint a person with appropriate experience, expertise or skills. It can therefore be used to appoint a member from GSSA Concern over lack of skills and budget necessary for the council to achieve the objectives of the Bill. Cabinet was informed that CGS would need more funding to enable them to implement the Act. A budget will then be presented to National Treasury

Company Concerns raised DMR response SAIEG Definition of the Council as mandatory advisory authority may clash with the role of other advisors as advisors in certain instances, lead to conflict particularly when the Council does not have high level expertise in certain specialised fields Reference to “mandatory” has already been deleted throughout the Bill A need for a representative from the geotechnical fraternity in the Board. Sec 4(2)(x) makes provision for the Minister to appoint a person with appropriate experience, expertise or skills. Already proposed amendments to increase the number to 2 persons

Company Concerns raised DMR response SAIEG Concern over breaches of confidentiality. A need to define the extent to which information can be made available. Possibility of conflict with the Copyright Act. Confidentiality of information in the custody of the CGS is addressed by Sec 6(2) of the principal Act. S 8B further makes provision for the aggrieved to appeal against any administrative decision made by CGS

Company Concerns raised DMR response SAIEG Concern over a blanket mandate given to CGS, CGS will not be able to effectively carry out the mandate as envisaged in the Bill i.e. effective evaluation of geotechnical engineering reports with complex engineering designs, already defined in guidelines and codes of good practice published by professional bodies. The existing policies have proven not to be sufficient and therefore necessitated governments intervention. The issue of capacity and skills in the CGS will be addressed so as to enable CGS to carry out its mandate

Company Concerns raised DMR response NUM Health and Safety in the mines: Mining industry must be forced to develop advanced technologies to timeously detect possible seismic events. The relevant Act to address this issue is the Mine Health and Safety Act which is also administered by the Department. Already a funded project between MHSC & CGS to address the problem The Bill must make provision for procurement of adequate funding for the Council to achieve the objectives set in the Bill. Sec 20 of the principal Act already provides for CGS’ funding. Furthermore Cabinet was informed that CGS would need more funding to enable them to implement the Act. A budget will then be presented to National Treasury

Company Concerns raised DMR response NHBRC Deletion of reference to Council as a “mandatory” advisory authority. The word mandatory must be retained throughout the Bill. The deletion of reference to mandatory came as an instruction from Cabinet. Lack of representation from the Department of Human Settlements or the NHBRC on the Board. Noted, representation will be made for an official from Human Settlement Dept. Concern over the Capacity of the Council if it is to review all geotechnical reports. Cabinet was informed that CGS would need more funding to enable them to implement the Act. A budget will then be presented to National Treasury

Concerns/issues raised DMR response Company Concerns/issues raised DMR response NHBRC Section 4 (5) (1) (g) unfair competition and creates a judge and jury scenario. Council must only concentrate on pre-feasibility investigations and mapping of same. Section 5(1)(g) implies that the Council will only render specialized services to the private sector. Such services will then be prescribed in the Regulations.