JEREMY Cronin claims opposition parties effectively decided on the definition of expropriation that was belatedly inserted into the Expropriation Bill without business or public consultation (Definition not plotted, March 15). However, he omits to mention the relevant history. When the Promotion and Protection of Investment Bill was released in 2013 by Trade and Industry Minister Rob Davies, also a senior communist, it contained a clause stating that various "actions" by the state "do not amount to acts of expropriation". Among the actions it listed were "measures which result in the deprivation of property, but where the state does not acquire ownership of such property".
This clause evoked strong objections because it clearly paved the way for the state to take custodianship of property, rather than ownership, and so avoid paying compensation. In response, Mr Davies removed all expropriation provisions from the Investment Bill and said the issue would be dealt with in the Expropriation Bill instead. Now Mr Cronin would have us believe it is solely because of opposition pressure that a definition that is more carefully worded — yet aimed at achieving the same outcome — was included in the Expropriation Bill late last year.
However, Mr Cronin is to be commended for his willingness to reformulate or delete the definition while the bill is before the National Council of Provinces. I propose the definition be amended to read: "Expropriation includes nationalisation, expropriation (both direct and indirect), and any measures having an effect similar to nationalisation or expropriation."
To restore business confidence and help increase economic growth, other essential changes should also be made to the bill. In particular, in any court proceedings on the validity of a proposed expropriation or the compensation payable, the onus should lie clearly on the state to prove that all constitutional requirements will be met. Compensation for all direct losses resulting from expropriation should expressly be made available. In addition, given how frequently public entities fail to pay their bills on time, the state should have to pay the compensation due before any transfer of ownership or control takes effect.
Dr Anthea Jeffery
Head of Policy Research, Institute of Race Relations
Jeremy Cronin. Picture: TREVOR SAMSON
JEREMY Cronin claims opposition parties effectively decided on the definition of expropriation that was belatedly inserted into the Expropriation Bill without business or public consultation (Definition not plotted, March 15). However, he omits to mention the relevant history. When the Promotion and Protection of Investment Bill was released in 2013 by Trade and Industry Minister Rob Davies, also a senior communist, it contained a clause stating that various "actions" by the state "do not amount to acts of expropriation". Among the actions it listed were "measures which result in the deprivation of property, but where the state does not acquire ownership of such property".
This clause evoked strong objections because it clearly paved the way for the state to take custodianship of property, rather than ownership, and so avoid paying compensation. In response, Mr Davies removed all expropriation provisions from the Investment Bill and said the issue would be dealt with in the Expropriation Bill instead. Now Mr Cronin would have us believe it is solely because of opposition pressure that a definition that is more carefully worded — yet aimed at achieving the same outcome — was included in the Expropriation Bill late last year.
However, Mr Cronin is to be commended for his willingness to reformulate or delete the definition while the bill is before the National Council of Provinces. I propose the definition be amended to read: "Expropriation includes nationalisation, expropriation (both direct and indirect), and any measures having an effect similar to nationalisation or expropriation."
To restore business confidence and help increase economic growth, other essential changes should also be made to the bill. In particular, in any court proceedings on the validity of a proposed expropriation or the compensation payable, the onus should lie clearly on the state to prove that all constitutional requirements will be met. Compensation for all direct losses resulting from expropriation should expressly be made available. In addition, given how frequently public entities fail to pay their bills on time, the state should have to pay the compensation due before any transfer of ownership or control takes effect.
Dr Anthea Jeffery
Head of Policy Research, Institute of Race Relations
Change: 0.26%
Change: 0.41%
Change: 0.74%
Change: 0.41%
Change: -0.46%
Data supplied by Profile Data
Change: -0.01%
Change: 0.90%
Change: 0.26%
Change: 0.00%
Change: 0.66%
Data supplied by Profile Data
Change: 0.82%
Change: 0.68%
Change: 0.64%
Change: 1.03%
Change: 0.82%
Data supplied by Profile Data
Change: 0.17%
Change: -0.31%
Change: 0.94%
Change: 0.17%
Change: -0.05%
Data supplied by Profile Data