ANC and DA support for Restitution Bill risks disaster - IRR

Nom Chompsky

High Tory
Joined
Mar 6, 2004
Messages
54,616
Reaction score
39,465
Location
Cape Town
I really hope when it comes to vote, the DA changes its mind. Private property rights are very important for investment decisions. Take that away and you will be well on your way to a failed state.

Two pieces of pending legislation could together result in the expropriation of commercial farming operations with zero compensation.

The first is the Restitution of Land Rights Amendment Bill of 2013 (the Restitution Bill), which will open up a new five-year window for the lodging of land claims. Some 379 000 new land claims are likely to be submitted and could cost the State about R179bn to settle, according to the Government's regulatory impact analysis. Yet in the 2013/14 financial year, the restitution budget was roughly R3bn. How, then, is the State to find the money to settle all these claims?

The answer could lie in the so-called Promotion and Protection of Investment Bill of 2013. This suggests that expropriated property owners will be entitled to ‘just and equitable' compensation, but the Bill also contains a weasel clause stating that it is not ‘an act of expropriation' if the State takes property, not as owner, but as custodian for others.

Where the State takes as ‘custodian' - as the Constitutional Court has already ruled in a case involving mining rights - the deprivation of property from an existing owner is not matched by the acquisition of that property by the State. This means that there is no expropriation - and no right to any compensation.

...

Once the Restitution Bill is enacted and hundreds of thousands of new land claims are lodged, the Government could argue that it is obliged to honour these claims but lacks the money to pay compensation. Under the Investment Bill, it could then take the claimed land as custodian for land claimants - and without having to pay any compensation at all.

Says the IRR's Frans Cronje: "Together, these two pieces of legislation could spell the end of private property rights in South Africa - not just in agriculture but across the economy. We suggest that the Government and the African National Congress (ANC) may be preparing the ground to confiscate private property and distribute it to poor communities if and when they feel the need to do so. That time will come when the political pressure on the ANC is so great that it fears losing a future election.

"The Bill could also spell the end of commercial agriculture, so bringing about the collapse of the rural economy. Rural poverty and unemployment levels would then soar. In urban areas, rapidly rising food prices and the inflow of rural job seekers would add to desperation among the poor and unemployed.

"A myth is being peddled that accelerated land reform will boost rural economies and promote social cohesion. This is not so. South Africa requires large-scale commercial farming to meet its food needs and drive its rural economy. This in turn requires strong property rights. By contrast, taken to their end point, the two Bills could devastate the rural economy on a scale comparable to Britain's scorched earth policy during the Boer War.

"Both the Government and the Democratic Alliance, which says it will support the ANC in re-opening land claims, seem careless of this outcome, prompting the IRR to sound this warning. We do not do so lightly but because we can see where policy is headed."

Source: http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politi...b/en/page71654?oid=545140&sn=Detail&pid=71616
 
Such a thing would collapse the economy if abused, but Zuma and co do not care.

They care about only one thing - staying in power. If they have to give land away to do that, they will.
 
I see Zim2 in the making, some time in future reality will be upon those that do not see this coming!
 
250px-Declaration2.png
 
Due to the legacy of our past, land is and will remain an emotive topic...cool pragmatic heads need to prevail, if this matter is to be resolved, in a win-win situation. What the bloody solution is, I have no idea...but for this country to work, land ownership like other facets of our society, needs to reflect the demographics of the nation.
 
Why does it HAVE to reflect the demographics?

I have never understood this need for every facet of this country to be demographically representative... Some sectors of the population will do somethings better than others and therefore will be over represented in that sector.

Land is only an emotive topic in this country because our ruling party constantly harp on about it. It should not be the issue that it is, jobs and education should be the emotive issues.
 
Due to the legacy of our past, land is and will remain an emotive topic...cool pragmatic heads need to prevail, if this matter is to be resolved, in a win-win situation. What the bloody solution is, I have no idea...but for this country to work, land ownership like other facets of our society, needs to reflect the demographics of the nation.

Cool pragmatic heads won't prevail because it's only an issue as long as it's emotive. If people stopped and thought about whether or not the majority of people wanted land or a bit of wealth life style I suspect that most people would realise that one doesn't always equal the other.
 
Why does it HAVE to reflect the demographics?

I have never understood this need for every facet of this country to be demographically representative... Some sectors of the population will do somethings better than others and therefore will be over represented in that sector.

Land is only an emotive topic in this country because our ruling party constantly harp on about it. It should not be the issue that it is, jobs and education should be the emotive issues.

Exactly. As I've asked before, and wasn't answered on.

Let's say hypothetically everything becomes reflective of demographics... So what? Will it solve poverty, unemployment and inequality? Will it make the economy grow faster? Will it create jobs?
 
Exactly. As I've asked before, and wasn't answered on.

Let's say hypothetically everything becomes reflective of demographics... So what? Will it solve poverty, unemployment and inequality? Will it make the economy grow faster? Will it create jobs?

If anything it will make poverty worse, it will increase unemployment, it will more than likely shrink the economy.

The only thing it may achieve on a broad scale is to reduce inequality, purely by dragging everyone down to the lower level.
 
Counting the days, nothing else to do but count the days ........

And to think people were shouted down for saying we were headed this way.
 
Due to the legacy of our past, land is and will remain an emotive topic...cool pragmatic heads need to prevail, if this matter is to be resolved, in a win-win situation. What the bloody solution is, I have no idea...but for this country to work, land ownership like other facets of our society, needs to reflect the demographics of the nation.

Why does it HAVE to reflect the demographics?

I have never understood this need for every facet of this country to be demographically representative... Some sectors of the population will do somethings better than others and therefore will be over represented in that sector.

Land is only an emotive topic in this country because our ruling party constantly harp on about it. It should not be the issue that it is, jobs and education should be the emotive issues.

Exactly. As I've asked before, and wasn't answered on.

Let's say hypothetically everything becomes reflective of demographics... So what? Will it solve poverty, unemployment and inequality? Will it make the economy grow faster? Will it create jobs?

Restitution of Land Rights has absolutely nothing to do with demographics.

It's about returning land that was taken away by the Apartheid government.

Qualification to be a claimant
- Must be a person dispossessed of a right in land after 19 June 1913 as a result of past racially discriminatory laws or practices
- Is a deceased estate disposed of a right in land after 19 June 1913 as a result of past racially discriminatory laws and practices
- Must be a direct descendant of a person referred to in paragraph (a) who died before lodging a claim, and has no ascendant
- The community, or part of community. dispossessed of a right in land after 19 June 1913, as a result of past discriminatory laws and practices
- The claim for such restitution was lodged not later than 31 December 1998.

This new Restitution of Land Rights Amendment Bill of 2013 (the Restitution Bill) will open up a new five-year window for the lodging of land claims.

http://www.ruraldevelopment.gov.za/services/commission-on-restitution-of-land-rights
 
Why does it HAVE to reflect the demographics?

I have never understood this need for every facet of this country to be demographically representative... Some sectors of the population will do somethings better than others and therefore will be over represented in that sector.

Land is only an emotive topic in this country because our ruling party constantly harp on about it. It should not be the issue that it is, jobs and education should be the emotive issues.

Probably because this is the only criterion under which the ANC can appear to be operating legally.
 
We're responding to a person that was talking about the demographics.

I'm just clarifying that Restitution of Land Rights, which the article is about, has nothing to do with demographics.

I also don't think it's a purely emotive issue as Nick333 says. The claimants have to prove that the land was stolen from them by the Apartheid government and these claims are assessed by judges in court as to their legitimacy. I think we can all agree that stolen property should be returned, irrespective of the amount of time that has passed since the theft, so long as it can be proven to be the case.
 
I'm just clarifying that Restitution of Land Rights, which the article is about, has nothing to do with demographics.

Yeah, I know.

joelus said:
I also don't think it's a purely emotive issue as Nick333 says. The claimants have to prove that the land was stolen from them by the Apartheid government and these claims are assessed by judges in court as to their legitimacy. I think we can all agree that stolen property should be returned, irrespective of the amount of time that has passed since the theft, so long as it can be proven to be the case.

Is this also one of those 'principles' that only applies to the Apartheid government and not any theft that happened before, i.e. the whole history of settlement and displacement in Southern Africa by various peoples?

And what about people (perhaps 4 or 5 different people) who bought property from someone legally, thus didn't steal anything, but now almost a century down the line someone rocks up and says their ancestors lived there. Do they have no say in the matter?
 
I think we can all agree that stolen property should be returned, irrespective of the amount of time that has passed since the theft, so long as it can be proven to be the case.
Why should the stolen property be paid for? Isn't that rewarding the theft?
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X