Expropriation Bill [B4B-2015]: consideration

Meeting report

The Chairperson reminded everyone that the purpose of the meeting was for Members to merely highlight those issues they were opposed to in the Bill on a clause-by-clause basis. In the next meeting, Members would be afforded an opportunity to provide a detailed written response on the reasons for opposing certain parts of the Bill.

Chapter 1: Definitions
“expropriation”
Ms A Dreyer (DA) indicated that the DA was opposed to the definition of “expropriation”.

“disputing party”
Mr S Jafta (AIC) asked why the definition of “disputing party” was not consistent with what was provided for in Section 34 (Access to courts) of the Constitution.

Ms C Madlopha (ANC) responded that the Bill’s definition of “disputing party” was specifically for the process of expropriation for a public purpose, while section 34 of the Constitution was broad and referred to a number of cases.

Mr Andre Meiring, Chief Director: Property Policy; also responded that the term “disputing party” was used in the Bill exclusively in respect of the claim for compensation. This did not mean that any disputing person who questions the rationale for the expropriation of property cannot bring the matter to court.

“property”
Ms Dreyer pointed out that the DA was strongly opposed to the definition of “property” as this definition failed to stipulate the limit of the property that could be expropriated.

Ms Madlopha said that the ANC was in support of the definition of “property” as this definition was thoroughly adequate about what could be expropriated.

Mr M Filtane (UDM) said that the UDM was opposed to the provided definition of “property” in the Bill.

“public interest”
Ms Dreyer indicated that the DA was opposed to the definition of “public interest” in the Bill.

“owner”
Mr Filtane expressed concern that the definition of an “owner” seemed to exclude the holders of unregistered rights of the property.

Mr Meiring responded that the Bill did go to some length to ensure that the persons who have unregistered rights are indeed treated fairly and this is also stated in the Preamble. The definition of the “owner” focused precisely on people who had registered rights or full ownership to the property. The holders of unregistered rights are not recorded and therefore the Bill is compelled to deal with those individuals separately. Efforts had been put in place to deal with compensation claims of holders of unregistered rights.

Members agreed with the clarification.

Chapter 2: Powers of Minister to expropriate
Ms Dreyer said that the DA was opposed to the use of “must” in clause 3(2) as this implied that the Minister of Public Works had a right to arbitrarily expropriate the property.

Chapter 3: Investigation and valuation of property
Mr Filtane asked if there was any instance where “if applicable” in clause 5(b)(ii) would be relevant for the owner of unregistered rights not to consult the municipality.

Mr Meiring agreed that “if applicable” should indeed be deleted as there was no instance where it would not be applicable for the owner of unregistered rights not to consult the municipality.  

Members agreed with the suggestion.

Chapter 4: Notice of expropriation
Ms Dreyer stated that the DA was strongly opposed to the entire clause 7 and clause 8(3) and (4). There was also opposition to clause 9(1)(a) and (d) and clause 9(2)(a) and clause 9(3)(a),(b) and (c).

Mr Filtane asked why the expropriated owner/holder in clause 9(4) who had indicated the desire to place the expropriating authority in possession of the property prior to the date contemplated in section 8(3)(f), should still be compelled to provide a notice in writing of not less than 20 days before the date on which the expropriated owner/holder desired to place the expropriating authority in possession.

Ms Madlopha commented that indeed the expropriated owner/holder should be given an option to be able to vacate the property earlier or immediately after receiving the notice of expropriation. However, it must be highlighted that clause 9(4) made a provision for the expropriated owner/holder that would not be willing to vacate the property immediately. In essence, the stipulation of not less than 20 days for the expropriated owner/holder to vacate the property was put in place to expedite the process of expropriation of the property.

Mr Filtane noted the objection of UDM to clause 9(4) as the section failed to provide the expropriated owner/holder with flexibility to be able to vacate the property in less than the stipulated 20 days. This implied that the expropriated owner/holder could not vacate the property immediately in order not to carry the unnecessary cost of possessing a property that was to be expropriated.

Ms Dreyer stated that the DA was strongly against clause 9(5).

Chapter 5: Determination of compensation
Ms Dreyer indicated that the DA was opposed to clause 12(1)(a)(b)(c) and (d).

Mr M Dlamini (EFF) said that the EFF’s view was in sharp contrast to the entire Chapter 5, as the party strongly believed in the principle of “expropriation without compensation”.

Ms Dreyer pointed out that the DA was in opposition to clause 18(1) and (2).

Chapter 6: Mediation and determination by court
Nothing has been changed.

Chapter 7: Urgent expropriation
Mr Filtane suggested that in the case of urgent expropriation in clause 22(2)(b)(ii), there was a need to not only take into consideration the real and imminent danger or substantial injury to humans but to animals as well.

Mr Meiring responded that the Department would take on board the suggestion that had been made by Mr Filtane, as there are always individuals in court who represent the interests of animals.

Members agreed with the addition.

Ms Dreyer said that the DA was against clause 22(5) and (6).

Chapter 8: Withdrawal of expropriation
Nothing has been changed.

Chapter 9: Related matters
Nothing has been changed.

The Chairperson indicated that Members had been given an opportunity to express the views of their political parties on the Bill. It was now up to Members to provide a written response elaborating on the reasons for opposing certain parts in the Bill and this would be incorporated in the Committee Report ahead of the Bill being adopted and sent to the National Assembly for the second reading debate. The Department was also to include the additions that had been made today to the final version of the Bill.

The meeting was adjourned.