Die TLU SA is sterk gekant teen die AgriSEB-handves en het deelgeneem aan die prosesse rondom die handves om “sy teenstem daarteen te kon laat hoor”, luidens ’n verklaring van dié organisasie.
Daar is bepaalde wysigings wat deur die Departement van Handel en Nywerheid voorgestel is, wat nie vir die TLU Saaanvaarbaar is nie. ’n Skrywe is aan die Departement van Landbou, Bosbou en Visserye gerig waarin die TLU SA die grondwetlikheid van die SEB-handves bevraagteken.
Hier is die skrywe:
“Whilst not having subscribed to the B-BBEE Charter in any way, TAU SA nonetheless participated in the process and voiced its opposition to specific issues whilst maintaining an attitude of constructive engagement trusting that the outcomes would be beneficial to the agricultural sector.
In this regard I wish to emphasise the following inputs:
· The prerequisite to undertake an economic impact study to determine to what degree the proposed measures and requirements would impact on commercial agriculture. The study by Price Waterhouse Cooper indicated a 3% profit on assets and whether this would indicate affordability, was never properly analysed.
· It was clearly stated that TAU SA’s participation was authorised on the condition that the outcome of the consultation and discussions would ensure sustainable agriculture within an open market environment.
· TAU SA proposed a cut-off level of RM80 which it considered the minimum level enabling meaningful and affordable contributions.
· TAU SA made its views clear regarding the decision not to support proposed contributions to finance the Councils’ activities.
· TAU SA indicated its’ opposition to the requirement to utilise a percentage of income to finance Corporate Responsibility activities.
“TAU SA is convinced that the proposed application of B-BBEE is in contradiction with the following specific stipulations of the Constitution of the RSA:
· Sec 1(b) – Non-racialism and Non-sexism.
· Sec 9 (3) – Unfair Discrimination.
· Sec 18 – Right to Freedom of Association ( A B-BBEE partner is not necessarily “free association).
· Sec 22 – Freedom of Trade, Occupation and Trade.
“Based on the afore going TAU SA cannot entertain the issues in the DTI letter. Should the DTI view be enforced, the consultation process will be the victim of unilaterally enforced ideology with no consideration of economic and agricultural realities.
TAU SA therefore does not see its way clear to subscribe, consider or accept the proposed amendments indicated by DTI.”