THE STORY (“Expropriation Bill runs into severe criticism”, March 30) gives credence to DA scaremongering. The story’s sub-heading reads: “DA believes present version would lead to capital flight and mass job losses”. That’s patent nonsense.
The bill currently before Parliament was extensively discussed at Nedlac in 2013. All constituencies signed off on it.
Business was well represented by the Chamber of Mines and AgriSA amongst others. No-one remotely suggested it would lead to capital flight or mass job losses.
The business sector expressed appreciation that the bill stipulates an extensive process to be followed by any expropriating authority. Unlike an earlier 2008 bill, it expressly provides for access to courts in compensation disputes.
There are, I imagine, matters of detail some would still like to see changed (a more restrictive definition of “property” than in the Constitution, for instance).
I don’t agree, but they’ll have another opportunity to make their arguments in the parliamentary hearings.
Gross errors
However, the Business Report (BR) story is based on gross errors. It tells us the “bill’s predecessor was withdrawn in 2013” because it wouldn’t pass constitutional muster. Not true. After proceeding through Nedlac, the 2013 bill missed the previous parliament’s submission date. It was held back for the current parliament.
The BR story tells us “critics of the bill are concerned it extends the power to expropriate assets from the minister of public works to all organs of state”. Wrong again.
Diverse existing laws already empower several ministers, all provinces and all municipalities with expropriating powers. The fundamental purpose of this bill is to provide administrative consistency across all expropriations, as constitutionally required.
There are other grave misrepresentations in the story which can be addressed elsewhere.
The nub of the issue is that, contrary to the Bill of Rights requirements, the DA is hung up on a “willing buyer, willing seller” approach.
In practice, this has often seen years of delay in the roll-out of Eskom power-lines, for instance, as property owners seek to drive up prices.
So let’s not forget – when the state expropriates, it’s taxpayers’ money paying for compensation.
The present bill seeks to achieve an equitable balance between individual right to compensation and broader public interest.
Jeremy Cronin is the Deputy Minister of Public Works.