Opposition spurns new property bill

Investments will suffer: DA

THE controversial Expropriation Bill, which sets out the legislative requirements for the State to lay claim to land, was passed by the National Assembly yesterday.

While the biggest opposition parties rejected the bill, it was pushed through by the ANC, with 202 votes in favour of the vote and 88 against, with two abstentions.

The DA opposed the bill, denouncing, among others, the definition of “property” in the bill as not being limited to land only.

DA MP Anchen Dreyer said this meant it was “wide open to interpretation” and could mean intellectual property, taxi fleets, cattle and other movable property could be expropriated. It could have a detrimental effect on the economy.

“It is crucial for foreign investment that property rights are secure. Without this… South Africa will no longer remain a desirable destination for foreign investment.”

As expected, the EFF also rejected the bill, but for different reasons. It wants “expropriation without compensation”.

The IFP supported the bill, calling it “long overdue”, but the United Democratic Movement objected to the bill on the grounds that while land could be expropriated for restitution purposes, those who were dispossessed of their land prior to the 1913 Land Act would not benefit.

Deputy Public Works Minister, Jeremy Cronin, dismissed the fears of opposition parties, saying the bill was both administratively fair to landowners, and protected the State from having to pay “extortionate amounts of money” to effect land restitution. Cronin said legislators had for more than 20 years failed to develop a law of general application which was in keeping with the constitution.

“The absence of such a law of general application has been unfair… to the judiciary which is often being called on to pronounce on cases of expropriation without clear legislative guidance, and its absence is also unfair to the expropriating authority.”

The Expropriation Bill sets out the rules by which the government can lay claim to land “in the public interest” and “for public purpose”.

While landowners would be paid compensation, the State would not merely rely on “market value” to determine the rand amount to be paid.

Other criteria include the “history of the acquisition”, “the current use of the property”, and “the purpose of expropriation”. – ANA