For a country desperate for higher rates of investment to ignite sustainable economic growth, the Expropriation Bill, and the headlines that have accompanied its passage through parliament’s consultation processes, could not have been more poorly timed.
That does not mean this is a good bill; amendments are essential to mitigate the risk that the exercise of the powers it provides for will lead to adverse consequences, even if they were not intended by the bill’s drafters. However, it is important to know that the bill is not as bad as most of the headlines would lead you to believe.
There is overwhelming evidence that societies that respect property rights grow more quickly and more inclusively than societies that do not. However, this does not mean no intrusion into any property right is ever desirable — for example, the National Water Act of 1998 changed the prevailing rights of land owners to use water occurring on their property, to reflect the rights of all other users. Amendment of some property rights is often necessary for growth, development and inclusion.
We would argue that the protections must nevertheless be strengthened in a number of ways. The bill should state that the value of compensation is not assessed on the basis of what the expropriating authority can afford, and that the courts cannot use the availability of funds in an expropriating authority’s budget as a criterion when assessing the level of compensation that is considered just and equitable.
No, it's stupid and evil.
'the crux lies in implementation' ..... a popular and overused metaphor for FUBAR ..... we have been warned....
But that is the very essence of the issue. Given this and all governments’ track records, if you have to rely on quality of implementation to ensure that negative consequences don’t happen, you’re a stuffed turkey on thanksgiving.