Property definition under scrutiny in Parly

574-SACP Deputy General Secretary Jeremy Cronin, speaking at the SACP special congress press conference held at UJ soweto campus yesterday(Tuesday). Picture:Dumisani Dube 07 July 2015

574-SACP Deputy General Secretary Jeremy Cronin, speaking at the SACP special congress press conference held at UJ soweto campus yesterday(Tuesday). Picture:Dumisani Dube 07 July 2015

Published Sep 2, 2015

Share

Parliament - A wrangle erupted in the National Assembly on Tuesday about the definition of the Expropriation Bill, with some opposition parties warning of the risks involved and that there could be Constitutional Court challenges.

Political parties in the portfolio committee on public works squared up on the definition of property and what constituted public interest.

Deputy Minister of Public Works Jeremy Cronin warned that tampering with the current definitions of property and public interest would create confusion.

The state has argued that the bill would empower it to expropriate any land or property in the public interest or for a public purpose.

But opposition parties, including the DA, warned that the definition of property was too broad and exceeded the one set out in the constitution.

Cronin told the parties in Parliament that the department would stick to the current definition, which was in line with the constitution.

He reminded them that the country was a constitutional democracy rather than a parliamentary democracy.

The constitution was the supreme law of the land and the Constitutional Court the highest court in South Africa, he said, adding that they wouldn’t introduce changes to what defined public interest.

“On the public interest we propose to keep it as is, but other parties want to amend what we have. We know there is some unhappiness in some quarters in the way we have proposed public interest, but we want to keep it the way it is,” Cronin added.

Anchen Dreyer of the DA and her colleague Thomas Walters warned that the definition was too broad. They argued that the bill’s definition exceeded the one set out in the constitution, which dealt with a commitment to address land reform and access to the country’s natural resources.

They argued that this was one of the essential points raised by some of the interested parties.

Dreyer said the committee should allow the FW de Klerk Foundation to submit a definition of what constituted public interest, as the foundation had proposed a few weeks ago.

She said it would help the committee to come up with a proper definition and avoid any ambiguity.

Cronin told the committee the department would stick to the current definition when it came to property.

But Dreyer and Mncedisi Filtane of the United Democratic Movement said Cronin shouldn’t shy away from defining property, as it could mean anything.

Filtane said Parliament and the department had the power and authority to define what was property. He said they were elected legislators and shouldn’t be afraid to call a spade a spade.

Filtane called on Cronin and the committee to find a proper definition of property, and remove any ambiguity in the bill.

Cronin said the definition would be determined by a particular mandate of a department or entity involved in expropriating land or property.

He said land or property was needed for a myriad reasons by the state.

Political Bureau

Related Topics: