TLU SA betreur die swak kwaliteit van die regering se impakstudie oor onteiening sonder vergoeding wat vandeesweek deur Sakeliga bekend gemaak is. Dit is ‘n sprekende voorbeeld van die gebrekkige kundigheid in staatsdepartemente om belangrike inligting saam te stel en weer te gee.
Die dokument wat in opdrag van die Departement van Openbare Werke saamgestel is, vorm die basis waarop die regering die koste en voordele van die Onteieningswet baseer. Sakeliga het die dokument deur ‘n toegang-tot-inligting-aansoek bekom.
“Ons probleem met die sogenaamde impakstudie is tweeledig,” sê mnr. Henry Geldenhuys, die president van TLU SA. “Eerstens is die kwaliteit van die dokument onaanvaarbaar swak. Dit lyk plek-plek of die samesteller eenvoudig net ‘n generiese antwoord geplak het wat nie eers relevant is nie. Tweedens verwys die studie na die goedkeuring wat sommige organisasies aan die wet sou gee en beslis onwaar is.
“Hoe kan die regering ‘n belangrike wet wat so ‘n groot impak gaan hê op die ekonomie probeer aanpas, gegrond op hierdie dokument?”
TLU SA bedank Sakeliga vir die bekendmaking van die impakstudie-dokument.
In die dokument word net een landbouorganisasie – Agri SA – se insette weergegee en dit wys dat hulle die voorstelle (met voorwaardes) met omsigtigheid aanvaar. Agri SA het pas weer beklemtoon dat hulle gekant is teen onteiening teen ‘n nulvergoeding en indirekte onteiening.
“Selfs al was dit waar, is die lugtige insette van slegs een landbouorganisasie beslis nie verteenwoordigend van alle rolspelers in die landbou waardeketting nie, en TLU SA sal dit nooit so aanvaar nie,” sê mnr. Geldenhuys. “Die regering wys hiermee net weer dat die toekoms van die land geen gewig dra in besluite nie. Dit gaan hier oor die deurvoer van ‘n ideologie waar net sekere mense (kaders) bevoordeel word en die res in ellende moet voort sukkel.”
TLU SA deplores lies around impact study on expropriation
TLU SA deplores the poor quality of the government’s impact study on expropriation without compensation made public by Sakeliga this week. It is an excellent example of the lack of knowledge in state departments to compile and report critical information.
The document – compiled at the instruction of the Department of Public Works – forms the foundation on which the government based the costs and benefits of the Expropriation act. Sakeliga received the document through a PAIA application.
“We have a dichotomous concern with the so-called impact study,” says Mr Henry Geldenhuys, the president of TLU SA. “In the first instance, the content of the document is of unacceptably poor quality. It looks like the compiler simply copied and pasted a generic answer with no relevance in some places. In the second place, it refers to some organisations approving the act. This is definitely untrue.
“How can the government try to amend an important act which will have such a big impact on the economy, based on this document?”
TLU SA thanks Sakeliga for publishing the impact study document.
The document refers to the input of only one agricultural organisation, Agri SA, which shows that they support the amendments (with some conditions) cautiously. Agri SA just reiterated that they are opposed to expropriation at a nil compensation and indirect expropriation.
“Even if it was true, the cautious inputs of just one agricultural organisation are not representative of all roleplayers in the agricultural value chain, and TLU SA would never accept that,” says Mr Geldenhuys. “This document proves once again that the future of the country bears no weight in the government’s decisions. It is about the implementation of an ideology beneficial to only some people (cadres) while the rest must suffer in misery.”
