With the Minister of Public Works in attendance, the Deputy Minister gave a briefing on the Expropriation Bill (B4-2015). He said that expropriation is an essential mechanism for the state to acquire property in certain instances. Section 25 of the Constitution provides that property may be expropriated only in terms of general application and to that no law may permit arbitrary deprivation of property. The Constitution states that expropriation may occur only for a public purpose or in the public interest and subject to payment of compensation.

The Committee was briefed by the Ingonyama Trust Board (ITB) on its third quarter 2014/15 performance and financial report. Apologies were received from the Minister and Deputy Minister. At the outset, Members expressed their dismay that the ITB was reporting from a document that contained different figures to the one sent through to Members earlier, and it was difficult to follow the presentation. Secondly, several commented that the reporting format was problematic, as it did not conform to standard practices nor terminology as used in the Public Finance Management Act.

The Department produced a Working Draft of the Bill that incorporated all the proposed amendments previously made by the Committee. The Deputy Minister indicated that the Department had introduced the definition of “disputing party” in clause 1, which indicated that the “ disputing party includes an owner, holder of an unregistered right, expropriated owner or expropriated holder that does not accept the amount of compensation offered in terms of clause 14(1)”.

The South African Institute of Race Relations said the Bill made it difficult for the compensation amount to be decided by a court, and the Bill did not allow the courts to examine and rule on the validity of the expropriation. The Bill tried to limit how often people could go to court about the amount of compensation. The IRR argued that 60 days was not enough time for the claimant to institute legal proceedings for the determination of the compensation, this should be extended to 180 days. Compensation should include damages for additional losses.

The Department of Rural Development and Land Reform (DLDLR) provided a progress report on its interventions to address the challenges arising from the actions of the Rama Communal Property Association (CPA). The CPA had initiated some income generating activities on its land, which included a quarry business, and had started a museum and an entertainment centre that featured a cinema. In partnership with the Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and private investors the CPA was in the process of developing houses on its land.

The Committee considered the official list of proposed amendments to the Bill (the A-list) accompanied by the B version of the Bill incorporating all the proposed amendments into the Bill.

Agri SA supported orderly land reform – equitable land distribution is a prerequisite for rural stability and inclusive rural development. Agri-SA believed that expropriation should only be used as a last resort where negotiations fail. There needed to be a clear purpose for expropriation. Compensation should never be dependent on the state’s ability to pay. The land owner should always be afforded recourse to the courts to contest both the merits of the expropriation and the compensation amount.

The Committee continued deliberations on the official list of committee proposed amendments to the Bill (A-list) accompanied by the B version which incorporated all the proposed amendments into the Bill. Chapter 4 on Intention to Expropriate and Expropriation of Property was completed.

The Deputy Minister of Public Works, Mr Jeremy Cronin, briefed the Committee on the preliminary responses of the Department of Public Works (DPW) to the inputs received during the public hearings on the Expropriation Bill [B4- 2015]. However, the Department had been expecting that the Committee would finalise its report on those hearings and thus did not yet have a full written response. The DPW acknowledged that there were many useful points but had not accepted all input.

The Committee continued with deliberations on the official list of proposed amendments to the Bill (A-list) accompanied by the B version of the Bill incorporating all the proposed amendments into the Bill. A DA member pointed out that the factors that had been highlighted in clause 12(1)(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) had no direct monetary value and it was difficult to see how these factors would affect the compensation. There was a proposal that the Department should add a clause 12(2)(g) that would focus on the actual financial loss that had been incurred by the expropriated owner.

The Deputy Minister of Public Works continued to take Members through the comments made during the public hearings on the Expropriation Bill, indicating what comments had been made and whether the Department agreed with them or had other views. The Department had added to the Preamble to make it clear that section 34 of the Constitution provided that anyone had the right to approach the courts for resolution of a dispute. In relation to the definitions, there was discussion on whether the Bill should refer to both high courts and magistrates’ courts.

The Committee continued with the deliberation on the official list of proposed amendments to the Bill (A-list) accompanied by the B version of the Bill incorporating all the proposed amendments into the Bill. A UDM MP wanted to know how it was possible to make reference to sections 12 and 13 of the Expropriation Act of 1975 in clause 29(1)(b) while this law had been repealed in clause 31. It seemed superfluous to make reference to an Act that had been repealed.